Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive54

Reply to Benimerin's statement
This user avoided on purpose to sign to identify himself as Joanot. He decided to register just because the article was to be semi-protected. He didn't register by his free will untill last time. (see Talk page section on semi-protection of the article). If it was not able to use his account because of e-mail problems, he could have very well signed without wikilink (i.e. --"Maurice27") --Maurice27 09:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Message to admins
May I indicate to admins that User:Benimerin has erased the reverts described as 5th and 6th, and changed dates & hours reported by me as seen here, completely changing my report and that he is using the room of the report to answer, making it much less clear to understand.

The revision made by me (before Benimerin changing it), is this one.

In addition to the 3 (with a 4th in another article) 3RR rule breakings made by this user in less than and week, I want to report his, proved here above, modification of my statement and explanations in order to mislead the admins --Maurice27 12:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Links aren't changed nor erased, I think it clarifies that it's not about the same version, but several versions made by different users. Are you bored?. May I remember your own suggestion that there are no 3RR breaking as there aren't more than trhee reversions in 24h and, adding more, there are reversions with a lot of explanations and detailed reasons that you are simply ignoring these?.


 * I also would like to suggest admins to remove this request as a arbitration request is ongoing, and where he's also implied. There are also a user trying a dispute resolution in Talk:Flag of Valencia. I think it is not a problem of 3RR, because there are no reasons technically, and because the problem aren't the reversions but an edit-warring of Maurice27 against every Catalonian or Valencian users as me. Cheers. --Benimerin -  كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب  - 12:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC) PD: Please, can you show us where I've deleted anything?. Are you here to make me personal war or what?. Your last update is a false report.

Stu ’Bout ye! reported by User:Domer48 (Result:12h)
.
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

User:Domer48 and User:Brixton Busters have been changing Category:Northern Irish Roman Catholics to Category:Irish Roman Catholics. Their contention is that Northern Ireland is not a state, country or nationality. See Talk:Tom Williams (Irish Republican) for the reason why they are incorrect in doing this. All UK biography articles follow a style for categorisation. I have told them that if they disagree with this then they should go to WP:CFD, which is the correct procedure. However they are ignoring this. Stu  ’Bout ye!  10:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless, you have edit warred and in doing so, broken 3RR. Standards to do it one way do not give one an exception to the rule. 12 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Mzaca reported by User:Ezeu (Result:24h)
. : Time reported: 14:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:46, 18 June 2007
 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Please provide diffs showing more than three reverts. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've blocked this user for 24 hours. Has been edit warring since the 11th, with his last 4 reverts yesterday at 07:22 and 12:02 and today at 05:58 and 07:48. Four reverts in 24 hours and 26 minutes is close enough for me. Kafziel Talk 14:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User:David Lyons reported by User:Sparkzilla (Result: Protected (BLP))
. : Time reported: 15:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 22:36, 13 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:44, 13 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:56, 13 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:12, 14 July 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 00:13, 14 July 2007 User reverted while I was writing warning

User is an {SPA]] with an undeclared COI as a member of Baker's support group. User is attempting to remove primary source court documents that point to Baker's guilt. -- Sparkzilla talk! 15:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a bogus 3RR claim to draw away attention from the fact the user Sparkzilla is trying to introduce an unreliable source into this BLP. Unreliable sources should be removed immediately, especially in the case of a BLP. Sparkzilla, despite requests, has been unable to show as the above diffs will show that his sources are reliable. He has also been told not to edit this page further due to his CoI.David Lyons 15:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please just look at the diffs and the user's posting history. -- Sparkzilla talk! 15:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone appears to be trying to introduce a third-party personal website as a source, which is a violation of BLP, so I've protected the page until I can work out what's going on. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * SV, the document that is being introduced was originally on the justicefornickbaker site (and was linked to that site from the WP article since January). When justicefornickbaker's contents were removed a month or so ago, I copied the court documents to my own homepage. I have opened an RFC for the inclusion of these court documents on the article talk page. If it helps, I will shortly ask the editor of my magazine to add it to the sources for this article, which will give it independent provenance. Thank you for understanding. -- Sparkzilla talk! 20:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Minutes to Rise and User:87.167.226.119 reported by User:TheLetterM (Result:24hrs for TheLetterM and 87.167.226.119, sprotected)
.
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * and
 * Time reported: 17:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:03, 12 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 01:04, 13 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 07:49, 13 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 09:19, 13 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 09:28, 13 July 2007
 * 5th revert: 09:36, 13 July 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 08:38, 13 July 2007 and 09:34, 13 July 2007.


 * User has been disruptive in forcing "Heavy Metal" as a stylistic influence on Post-Hardcore and has refused to comply with anything resembling civil discourse or discussion, opting instead for all-capped, rude comments on my talk page.
 * User editing from one Username and an IP, both suspected sockpuppets of a previously banned sockpuppeter, see here. TheLetterM 17:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no clear evidence at this point that I can see of sockpuppetry. In the meanwhile, I have blocked User:TheLetterM and User:87.167.226.119 for 24 hours for edit warring, and sprotected the entry. Crum375 18:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Joie de Vivre reported by User:Jayjg (Result:24hrs)
. : Time reported: 19:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 17:07, 13 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:13, 13 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:19, 13 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:25, 13 July 2007


 * Editor has been continually reverting in the sentence The frenulum may also be cut away at the same time, in a procedure called a frenectomy. in the lead paragraph. Was asked to revert himself by two different editors  but has refused to do so. Not a new editor, has been editing since September 2006. Jayjg (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hrs. Crum375 20:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Marketingsupport reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 19:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:42 (EDT) (blanked page)


 * 1st revert: 14:48
 * 2nd revert: 14:48
 * 3rd revert: 14:51
 * 4th revert: 14:52

3RR warning given at 15:28 by User:Satori Son -- there has been more reverting to different versions after this point.

Note that NoMoBS seems to be a sockpuppet of this account, and has been making many of the same edits.

He is continuing to revert:


 * Initial version: 15:02
 * 1st revert: 15:37
 * 2nd revert: 15:51
 * 3rd revert: 15:58
 * 4th revert: 16:17
 * 5th revert: 16:23
 * 6th revert: 16:27
 * blocked for 24 hours. — Kurykh  20:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Bennie Noakes reported by User:Dreadstar (Result:)
. : Time reported: 04:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:36, 7 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 22:13, 13 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:38, 13 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:25, 13 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:24, 13 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: Not a new user Has been editing since April 2005

Note that revert number four is the same information, just moved to a different spot in the same section, separated from it's original, former sentence. (hopefully that's clear!)- Dreadstar †  06:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Also please note that the information User:Bennie Noakes is trying to keep in the article by edit-warring is OR/Synthesis and unsourced information. I've clearly outlined the reasons this material should not to be added to the article on the article's talk page. User insists on adding unsourced OR to the article. Dreadstar †  04:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit concerning that Bennie Noakes seemed to indicate that he may continue to edit war to keep his OR in the article, although he would "rather not have to". Dreadstar †  04:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As user indicated, he continues to revert war to keep his OR/Synthesis in the article, as well as removing fact/citation request tags:
 * Revert: 13:23, 14 July 2007 Dreadstar †  18:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The article has been protected due to the edit-warring, so the warring has stopped for now. I am concerned that it may start again once the article is unprotected. If not a block for this, then at least a strong warning from someone besides myself would be appropriate. Dreadstar †  09:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Lear 21 reported by User:Parsecboy (Result:No violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on:
 * , and
 * Time reported:13:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Time reported:13:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

List of countries and outlying territories by total area:
 * Revert 1: 1 00:48, 14 July 2007
 * Revert 2: 2 01:18, 14 July 2007
 * Revert 3: 3 01:40, 14 July 2007
 * Revert 4: 4 12:32, 14 July 2007


 * The edits differ from each other. The second party reverting, user:polaron, could be accused violating 3RRR as well. No need to block this account. Lear 21 13:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * They are not different; they are continued reverting to include the EU where no consensus exists to do so.Parsecboy 13:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

List of countries by population:
 * Revert 1: 1 01:11, 14 July 2007
 * Revert 2: 2 01:21, 14 July 2007
 * Revert 3: 3 01:54, 14 July 2007
 * Revert 4: 4 02:10, 14 July 2007

Diff for 3RR warning: here. Parsecboy 13:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The first edit is not a revert, but the establishment of new content. No sign of 3RRR Lear 21 13:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You made the same edit 4 times in less than an hour. If that does not constitute 3RR violation, I don't know what does. Parsecboy 13:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The user reverted three times in both cases. He has not violated the 3RR rule. Perspicacite 10:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Nordic Crusader reported by User:Muntuwandi (Result:Warned)
. : Time reported: 06:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 05:05, 15 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 05:19, 15 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 05:24, 15 July 2007
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 05:39, 15 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: DIFFTIME

User:Muntuwandi openly participated in an edit war, reverting what I thought were good, helpful edits with no explanation. It wasn't until after ceasefire I was warned, or even made aware of this rule. If I edit the article again, not sure if I want to after this, I'll seek admin assistance rather than reverting. --Nordic Crusader 09:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Muntuwandi waited until after NC broke the rule to warn him. NC is a new user. Muntuwandi then reverted NC's edit leaving no recourse for NC to self-revert thus a block would be unfair. Perspicacite 10:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

NC has reverted again, and his reverts are either vandalism or bordering on vandalism. I am requesting some intervention.Muntuwandi 11:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Furthermore though it appears that NC is a new user, the level of experience that is apparent is far too advanced to be a new user. Muntuwandi 11:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User:88.101.76.122 reported by User:Angr (Result:)
. : Time reported: 11:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:20, 13 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 20:43, 14 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:16, 14 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 10:24, 15 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 11:10, 15 July 2007

Note: User has now registered as User:Errorneous.

User:Angr reported by User:Errorneous (Result: No block)
. : Time reported: 12:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 20:47, 13 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:11, 14 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 06:24, 15 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 10:55, 15 July 2007
 * The second and third of those reverts were made by other users, not me. My two reverts are spaced over 38 hours apart. —Angr 14:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They were made by one user with dynamic IP. I bet it was your sockpupeting to lure me to break 3-revert rule.Errorneous 15:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Gee, you're off to a great start at Wikipedia. First you edit war to restore a policy violation into an article, then you accuse an administrator of suckpuppetry. —Angr 16:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No block - as Angr says, the reverts are too far apart. Will (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Maurice27 reported by User:Benimerin (formerly: User:Joanot) (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 12:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:26, 15 July 2007. No previous version stable, this user reverts and avoids any change made by me in every restoration I make.


 * Reversions to version of 14:38, 12 July 2007
 * 1st revert: 14:38, 12 July 2007 (with edits diff).
 * 2nd revert: 18:47, 12 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 11:38, 14 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:00, 14 July 2007
 * Result: Two twice reversions within 24 hrs each time.
 * Reversions to version of 14:21, 15 July 2007 (diff with prior version used to revert):
 * 1st revert: 14:16, 15 July 2007 (with minor edits diff).
 * 2nd revert: 23:45, 15 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:37, 16 July 2007
 * Result: Three reversions within 24 hrs.

NOTE A: Maurice27 have accused me previously about violating 3RR on the same article (see).

NOTE B: Maurice27 have been already blocked several times because violating 3RR (see), and he's implied in a request for arbitration (see).

Your report will 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: 12:48, 15 July 2007

Reply by Maurice27
May this user be reminded by admins that this rule only applies if reverting 4 times in a 24 hour period and not 2 times one day and 2 times 48 hours later? --Maurice27 13:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, yes William M. Connolley 21:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you mean that you will joke us reverting only twice every day? Technically you can avoid 3RR violation, but your objetive here is the same of those persons who violates this rule: to disrupt wikipedia, in this case, because of your very personal and ideological feelings. --Benimerin -  كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب  - 09:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please, recheck this possible violation. There are three reversions within 24 hrs., since 14:16 of 15 July to 12:37 of 16 July made by Maurice27. Thanks. --Benimerin -  كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب  - 17:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. If you're saying that there are "three reversions within 24 hrs", then you're saying there is no violation.
 * Though, of course, editors are discouraged from "gaming the system" and constantly racking up precisely 3 reverts in an attempt to avoid being blocked, 3 reverts is still, technically, not a violation. If you think a person is persistently edit-warring, outside of 3RR, then you may wish to consider the administrator's noticeboard (WP:AN), or specifically their incidents subpage (WP:AN/I). Of course, I'm sure people here will still be willing to look at cases of precisely 3 reverts, but appealing to them to reconsider in cases where there wasn't a technical violation isn't likely to succeed. (As that would require one admin overriding the decision of another) Bladestorm 17:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, thank you for your response. --Benimerin -  كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب  - 17:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Funkynusayri reported by User:Zerida (Result: warned)

 * Three-revert rule violation on  and . : Time reported: 19:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to (on one of the articles): 00:35, 15 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 09:44, 15 July
 * 2nd revert: 10:37, 15 July
 * 3rd revert: 10:41, 15 July
 * 4th revert: 10:44, 15 July
 * 5th revert: 10:51, 15 July
 * 6th revert: 11:02, 15 July


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 10:56, 15 July

Comment: This appears to have all started when User:Funkynusayri made a deletion on the article Middle East, which was reverted. User then went on to make similar edits on other articles, including Egyptians, which s/he contends "shouldn't exist". It was this comment that made me suspicious due to recent activity on articles of a similar topic by users like this and this. S/he then suggested that two articles, which are traditionally kept separate for every country, be merged. S/he also accuses me of having a "mute sock puppet". My comments to User:Funkynusayri can be found here and a content comment is here. I'd like him/her to cool off, refrain from making changes to articles when her/his edits are challenged by multiple users, and be a little more civil. — Zerida 19:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have warned the user. Tom Harrison Talk 20:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User:G2bambino reported by User:Lonewolf BC (Result:)
. : Time reported: 20:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 17:04, 14 July
 * 2nd revert: 16:59, 15 July
 * and then: 17:12-17:13
 * (Second revert broken up to show its two-fold character, but is one revert because there were no intervening edits. As regards the second part, compare with older versions, as here.)


 * 3rd revert: 17:17
 * 4th revert: 17:23
 * 5th revert: 17:34
 * 6th revert: 17:43

The other party to the edit-war, TharkunColl, is likewise in breach of 3rr. See the page history. This is part of a long-raging edit war (or wars) on this article, lately the cause of An/I reports (see "British monarchy edit war", "British monarchy edit war, part II" and "G2bambino" in Archive 270), and with several recent past violations of 3rr and many warnings on both sides, and a block to G2bambino, though for "Edit warring", not for an actual 3rr violation. (I was myself blocked at the same time, for the same span, and for the same given reason as Gbambino. I mention this so that none can say I've been uncandid, here, but it is really beside the point, I think.) -- Lonewolf BC 20:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I warned both G2bambino and TharkunColl of 3RR. --Son 21:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I also warned G2bambino earlier but he deleted the warning from his talk page. I didn't think I was in breach of 3RR (the edits were to two separate parts of the article and not connected with each other), but I could be wrong I suppose. My purpose was to restore the consensus so recently thrashed out. TharkunColl 21:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Gaimhreadhan reported by User:Domer48 (Result: blocked elsewise)

 * Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to - 00:26, 15 July 1 - 01:04, 15 July

2 - 01:17, 15 July

3 - 20:19, 15 July

4 - 20:33, 15 July

And although blocked for another matter

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

Will warn William M. Connolley 21:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Theblog reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result:12h)
. : Time reported: 21:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: all are clearly marked as reverts; but will do if you like


 * 1st revert: 2007-07-15T05:37:01
 * 2nd revert: 2007-07-15T16:36:04
 * 3rd revert: 2007-07-15T18:51:39
 * 4th revert: 2007-07-15T19:25:14

Your report will 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: has been warned before and understood:

Note that all edits remove the "roger pielke" text with a spurious BLP excuse for whitewashing William M. Connolley 21:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

REPLY by theblog
Please note that I believe it is a WP:BLP violation, and it is using WP:OR and a blog post meant to show the article subject in a negative light, as I have discussed on the talk page with anyone who will bother to respond. No whitewashing is taking place. --Theblog 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've looked and I do not see this as a BLP situation. Are there NPOV concerns? Quite possibly. But this cannot justify a 3RR vio. Therefore, blocked for 12 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Maniac20 reported by User:Falcon9x5 (Result: 3h)
. : Time reported: 21:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:30, 14 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 23:50, 14 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:11, 15 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 02:51, 15 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:08, 15 July 2007
 * 5th revert: 21:29, 15 July 2007
 * 6th revert: 22:03, 15 July 2007
 * 7th revert: 22:03, 15 July 2007
 * 8th revert: 22:07, 15 July 2007
 * 9th revert: 22:09, 15 July 2007
 * 9th revert: 22:10, 15 July 2007
 * 10th revert:22:13, 15 July 2007
 * 11th revert: 22:17, 15 July 2007
 * 12th revert: 22:20, 15 July 2007
 * 13th revert: 22:24, 15 July 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:14, 15 July 2007
 * Given quite late, but user continued to make edits afterwards, and was given prior warnings.

I myself broke the 3RR while trying to revert Maniac20's edits. Myself  and another user have left repeated warnings on the user's talk page, and in edit summaries. User has consistently ignored both. Also made several other disruptive edits. Fin©™ 21:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

3h. Next time, *please* warn earlier and bring here earlier William M. Connolley 09:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

User:74.62.149.66 reported by User:Fyslee (Result: 8h)
. : Time reported: 00:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC) -- Fyslee/talk
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:52, 14 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 07:14, 15 July 2007


 * 2nd revert: 23:42, 15 July 2007


 * 3rd revert: 23:45, 15 July 2007


 * 4th revert: 00:02, 16 July 2007

8h William M. Connolley 08:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

User:CrystalB4 reported by User:gscshoyru (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 03:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:13, 16 July 2007


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

Your report will 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: 03:08, 16 July 2007

24h William M. Connolley 08:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Complete Truth reported by User:Pablothegreat85 (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 07:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:37, 16 July 2007

. : Time reported: 07:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:31, 16 July 2007


 * This is still going on ... Weregerbil 08:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to note the violations of WP:NPA in User:Complete Truth's edit summaries.  Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  08:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 08:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Zephead999 reported by User:Zazaban (Result:)
. : Time reported: 19:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert
 * 6th revert
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Comment - Has also violated 3RR on Rush (band), John Bonham, and Led Zeppelin all today, but there are just too many diffs to include, check the history for proof. I also warned him on his talk page at 19:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC) which was during his edits to My Chemical Romance and Led Zeppelin  Bsroiaadn Talk 20:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Editor is now indefinitely blocked. --健次 (derumi)talk 20:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Eurocopter tigre reported by User:Polaron (Result:)
. : Time reported: 20:21, 16 July 2007
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Your report will 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's reply to warning trying to argue that, because the reverts were not exactly the same, he did not revert more than three times:

After the third revert, I tried to rewrite the sentence so that would be acceptable for the other users. I insisted on that because they refused to discuss the subject on the talk page. The 4th and 5th edits were not reverts. Best regards, --Eurocopter tigre 20:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you all to continue discussing this for 1 hour at the talk page. Eurocopter tiger, I don't mean to take sides, but I think they have a point there with "controlling territory" and "having soveregnty". Maybe an additional remark after the list, or something like that can be made about EU.
 * Polaron, again, I don't mean to take sides, but I think you have a prity strong case in the talk page. You can do better than blocking Eurocopter tiger, you can convince him. Strictly speaking, Eurocopter, did not do always the same edit. But that's detail, b/c again, I think you can convice him, you have a stong case. Leave me a message if you need help convincing.
 * (obviously this is just my personal impression, feel free to just quarel if you like that more :P ):Dc76 21:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * However, they are still reverts, according to WP:3RR, whether they be exactly the same or with minor differences, they are still reverts made in an edit conflict. My goal is not to get Eurocopter blocked, but rules are rules, and if we don't enforce them, what good are they? Parsecboy 01:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Again Parsecboy, rewritting a sentence is not a revert. Dc76 also confirmed that. --Eurocopter tigre 05:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR reported by [User:151.33.88.197]
. : Time reported: 20:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Previous version reverted to: -17:24, 14 July 2007 151.33.91.112 (Talk) (22,437 bytes) (→Video) (undo)-
 * 1st revert: -18:03, 14 July 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,816 bytes) (Stop vandalising the article, you cannot speak english and aren't even registered fascist!) (undo)-
 * 2nd revert: -22:46, 14 July 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,816 bytes) (Undid revision 144656344 by 151.33.91.112 (talk)) (undo)-
 * 3rd revert: -08:35, 15 July 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,816 bytes) (Undid revision 144759834 by 87.8.235.141 (talk)) (undo)-
 * 4th revert: -08:45, 15 July 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,816 bytes) (Undid revision 144760730 by 87.8.235.141 (talk)) (undo)-
 * 5th revert: -13:08, 15 July 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,816 bytes) (Undid revision 144781469 by 151.33.91.166 (talk)) (undo)-


 * You're missing the point. A revert in partial or in whole is still counted as a revert. You may have included more text with what was the point of contention (the inclusion of the EU in the table), but it's still a revert. On a related note, I ask that you look at the proposal put forward by Polaron (an edit on the article itself, not on the talk) and see if you'll agree to that. That is, of course, if you're around. I think you said something about a short vacation. Parsecboy 20:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy reported by User:Anubis3 (Result:page protected)
and. : Time reported: 01:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * this is not a previous version reverted to, this is a later version (Revision as of 17:59, July 16, 2007), extremely deceptive claimDreamGuy 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 21:13 16 July 2007
 * not a revert at all, this was my first edit, not reverting in any way, shape or form DreamGuy 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 2nd revert: 21:15 16 July 2007
 * Different article entirely DreamGuy 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 3rd revert: 23:59 16 July 2007
 * first actual revert -- this is the edit the guy listed above falsely as "previous version reverted to", so he's listed it twice DreamGuy 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 4th revert: 00:00 17 July 2007
 * different article DreamGuy 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 5th revert: 11:07 17 July 2007
 * second actual revert' DreamGuy 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 6th revert: 11:07 17 July 2007
 * different article DreamGuy 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 7th revert: 12:24 17 July 2007

Your report will 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: 1:42 17 July 2007
 * User:DreamGuy has reverted User:Anubis3's edits at least 3 or 4 times each in two separate article as cited above within a few hours. User:DreamGuy is well aware of the 3RR and has been blocked several times in the past for violating the rule including a block this month. I avoided reverting back my edits more than twice even though the user deleted the content of an entire article on their own (ignoring the WP:Deletion process). Articles remain reverted by User:DreamGuy to avoid edit war. - Anubis3 01:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC) 12:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a completely false report filed by someone acting in bad faith. The person combined preliminary edits (not reverts) as well as reverts from more than one article to try to come up with as many "reverts" as possible, and he left a false warning on my talk page that I had already violated 3RR after only one revert. The guy is extremely aggressive editor using bullying tactics and multiple false warnings to try to scare me off from edits he doesn't like. He created a fork file that pushes a POV on a topic of which we already have another, better article and refuses to accept that the article he created cannot stay. Furthermore, he tries to claim that his content cannot be removed and that it MUST be merged but that he wasn't going to do it so the fork article has to say. And the "remain reverted ... to avoid edit war" is just false, because he had gone in and reverted to his version yet again, and he IS the guy who made the edit war. The way things are going he'll violate 3RR before I would, not that I will. DreamGuy 12:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore the "including a block this month" is also false, as the block this month had nothing to do with 3RR and was not even a proper block, as other admins came in and undid it and gave the admin in question warnings not to make such bad decisions in the future. This Anubis3 who filed this report is either incredibly ignorant about 3RR and other policies here while aggressively claiming people violated them while they didn't or else he is knowingly lying in the hopes that he can trick people into blocking me for things I never did. DreamGuy 12:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the "history" of these edits will prove otherwise. I have been nothing but NPOV and kind when it has comes to our discussions (here), even though you insist of blanking your talk page. Please do not try to compromise the entry of this noticeboard. This above information is for administrators to consider. Anubis3 12:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny, you made that claim while at the same time removing my labels on the report above proving that you were lying about the edits and portraying them as reverts when they weren't. I put the information back. Assuming good faith might mean that you were just clueless about what reverts mean when you filed the report (as I see you filed it after revert number 1), but removing the information showing that you are wrong is clear bad faith attempt to mislead admins. DreamGuy 13:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have protected the page. If there is no further disruption elsewhere that should be all that is needed. Tom Harrison Talk 13:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It would help also if you explained to Anubis3 that either (if you still think there's room for good faith) he needs to actually read the 3RR policy before filing reports or (if the evidence is enough to show his bad faith) give him a block to not pull this kind of false report in the future. DreamGuy 13:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note: this was a legitimate entry and violation of the 3RR. I really don't know where the bad faith came from. Are you saying that every entry in AN3RR made in bad faith??? Furthermore, your history also suggests that this is not your first time violating this rule. Please be open to constructive criticism and do not try to compromise the integrity of other people's entries. I hope the situation will be resolved peacefully. Anubis3 13:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

User:61.231.8.50 reported by User:MichaelLinnear (Result:)
. : Time reported: 04:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:07, 17 July 2007

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * 1st revert: 2007-07-17 04:16:38
 * 2nd revert: 2007-07-17 04:24:35
 * 3rd revert: 2007-07-17 04:28:08
 * 4th revert: 2007-07-17 04:31:54
 * 5th revert:2007-07-17 04:36:11
 * 6th revert: 04:44, 17 July 2007
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 04:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Editor has reverted 5 times, is clearly an experienced user as this diff shows, warning me about 3RR when they have exceeded the rule themselves. --MichaelLinnear 04:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And now he has hopped ips to 125.232.196.232 to make two further reverts, inserting the same pov content, 1, 2. Both of these ips locate back to Taipei, 125.232.196.232 and 61.231.8.50. --MichaelLinnear 06:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is probably, one of the pages he focused on, similar ideological bent, and from the same location. --MichaelLinnear 08:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

===User: 70.189.74.49 reported by User:Ursasapien (Result: this case)=== . : Time reported: 05:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:39, July 15, 2007


 * 1st revert: 18:39, July 15, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:04, July 16, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 03:40, July 16, 2007
 * 4th revert: 12:53, July 16, 2007
 * 5th revert: 12:54, July 16, 2007
 * 6th revert: 13:06, July 16, 2007
 * 7th revert: 13:39, July 16, 2007
 * 8th revert: 13:38, July 17, 2007
 * 9th revert: 14:26, July 17, 2007
 * 10th revert: 16:20, July 17, 2007
 * 11th revert: 17:16, July 17, 2007
 * 12th revert: 04:39, July 18, 2007
 * 13th revert: 05:03, July 18, 2007
 * 14th revert: 06:49, July 18, 2007

Your report will 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: 05:11, July 16, 2007

Comment: This editor has edited this article almost exclusively. This seems to be a SPA. Ursasapien (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I realize this has turned into a major edit war, of which I have been an active part. However, I see no remediation outside of admin intervention.  This anon user flatly refuses to participate in discussion.  If there is a better forum to solve this, please let me know.  Ursasapien (talk) 09:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Blnguyen reported by User:Rambutan (Result:no action taken per WP:BAN)
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. : Time reported: 06:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:21

User:Kuntan is banned. Those IPs are TOR proxies being used by Kuntan. Banned users are not allowed to edit, and reverting them is not a violation of WP:3RR. This includes, removing content posted by banned users.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * But you have no proof. Sorry. Until you get proof, let another admin who sees the thread at the noticeboard deal with it.--Rambutan (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Declined. You're both edit-warring over this. You both should know better. Knock it off and go talk about it on his talk page or something.--Chaser - T 07:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I endorse this no-action, as noted by the fact that Rambutan has been blocked for proxying for a banned user.  Daniel  07:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * not for nothing that you got mail from Blnguyen, Danny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.121.24.68 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Kwork reported by User:PinchasC (Result:24h)
. : Time reported: 13:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:02, 16 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 10:25, 16 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 13:04, 16 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 07:09, 17 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 09:34, 17 July 2007 (Based on Ip's edits, it is the same person as Kwork)


 * 5th revert: 10:48, 17 July 2007
 * 6th revert: 11:05, 17 July 2007 (using IP)
 * 7th revert: 11:17, 17 July 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 08:40, 17 July 2007


 * This user is adding a npov template to the Chabad article, despite being reverted by 3 different editors. --PinchasC |  £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  13:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours. It's a first violation, so I would have blocked for a shorter period, but that's a lot of reverts. Jayjg (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Giovanni33 reported by User:MONGO (Result:No block)
. : Time reported: 14:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:45, July 17, 2007


 * 1st revert: 07:56, July 17, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 08:11, July 17, 2007
 * 3rd revert:  08:20, July 17, 2007  changes to using my name to "with one editor who insists on being unamed here"
 * 4th revert: 08:56, July 17, 2007 again to "with one editor who insists on being unamed here"

Giovanni33 knows that 3RR isn't an entitlement so I didn't bother to warn him. I asked him four times (here, here, here and here) to not put my name in the talkpage discussion heading and he repeatedly put it back and then added the silly "with one editor who insists on being unamed here" just to be childish. This guy edit wars constantly all the way up to 3RR and has been blocked by more than a dozen administrators including one as recently as June 29th, albeit he was soon unblocked since the page was protected. He was almost blocked again on July 12th and was given a reprieve since he self reverted.. I feel that I had a right to not have him post my name repeatedly in the heading, especially after I had asked him numerous times (ie...argue about the message, not the messenger) to not put my name there. He is also currently sitting on the line on the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article with an initial installment and three reverts again.,, ,. This is par for the course. Giovanni33 sees the 3RR rule as an entitlement, he has been blocked and counseled repeatedly yet he doesn't seem to get it.--MONGO 14:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a 24 hour block for both of them would do, MONGO seems to be doing his fair share of reverting as well, which I wouldn't be surprised is disrupting the talk page there. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And article edits:  Geez. Talk about throwing stones in glass houses. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There may or may not be violations here by one or both parties, but I am not blocking anyone for this. It's a childish situation that has gotten way out of hand and I suggest you both take it somewhere else. Kafziel Talk 12:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Green108 reported by User:Bksimonb 24h
. : Time reported: 15:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Continued reverts after block
 * 1st revert 20:49, 16 July 2007
 * 2nd revert 11:45, 17 July 2007
 * 3rd revert 12:39, 17 July 2007
 * 4th revert 14:11, 17 July 2007
 * 5th revert 03:02, 18 July 2007
 * 6th revert 14:28, 18 July 2007
 * Diff of 3RR notification: 17:39, 17 July 2007
 * 1st revert 18:54, 21 July 2007
 * 2nd revert 13:16, 22 July 2007

User:Sam ov the blue sand reported by User:BlueShrek result 24h
Deidara. : Time reported: 15:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 16 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: [http://# 00:42, 17 July 2007]
 * 4th revert: 17 July 2007


 * note: he was in a edit war as well

User:Pascack reported by User:Mghabmw no vio
Joe Girardi Pascack has a history of anti-Yankee biased. I've tried to use the discussion page. I've changed the page to neutral colors. He is using suspected sockpuppet User:joeidaho as well. I realize I'm guilty of violating the 3RR as well.
 * no specific vio. GDonato (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Mghabmw reported by User:Jpers36 (Result:31 Hours)
. : Time reported: 19:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:05, July 16, 2007


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 17:42, July 16, 2007
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 22:03, July 16, 2007
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 10:55, July 17, 2007
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 14:10, July 17, 2007
 * 5th revert: Current revision (14:36, July 17, 2007) (after a warning, instead of full-reverting to the older version, the user removed the colors altogether, as well as reverted some added text)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Revision as of 14:26, July 17, 2007


 * Did you just put a reversion of my own edit there? Mghabmw 06:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Both of these users (User:Pascack and User:Mghabmw) have engaged in an edit war, along with IP 192.234.99.1 (which may or may not be one of the above) and IP 208.168.252.236 (which is user:Mghabmw). The situation may be settled now, and I would recommend holding off on any blocks for the time being, but I'll leave it to another admin to make the final decision.  Citi Cat   ♫ 23:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Update - while User:Pascack appears to have stopped, User:Mghabmw reverted once more.  Citi Cat   ♫ 03:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User blocked in a separate discussion  Citi Cat   ♫ 17:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

User:SalvoCalcio reported by User:Bridgeplayer (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 20:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:38, 16 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 00:20, 17 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:16, 17 July 200
 * 3rd revert: 19:27, 17 July 200
 * 4th revert: 19:30, 17 July 2007
 * 5th revert: 23:41, 17 July 2007

Your report will 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: 15:14, 10 July 2007

There are numerous earlier reversions, contrary to the talk page consensus, but this is the first time he has actually done four in one day. He also calls edits vandalism and has something against Americans (see edit summary 3rd revert).

User:DIREKTOR reported by User:151.33.88.197 {Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 20:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Previous version reverted to: -17:24, 14 July 2007 151.33.91.112 (Talk) (22,437 bytes) (→Video) (undo)-
 * 1st revert: -18:03, 14 July 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,816 bytes) (Stop vandalising the article, you cannot speak english and aren't even registered fascist!) (undo)-
 * 2nd revert: -22:46, 14 July 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,816 bytes) (Undid revision 144656344 by 151.33.91.112 (talk)) (undo)-
 * 3rd revert: -08:35, 15 July 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,816 bytes) (Undid revision 144759834 by 87.8.235.141 (talk)) (undo)-
 * 4th revert: -08:45, 15 July 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,816 bytes) (Undid revision 144760730 by 87.8.235.141 (talk)) (undo)-
 * 5th revert: -13:08, 15 July 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,816 bytes) (Undid revision 144781469 by 151.33.91.166 (talk)) (undo)-


 * Blocking is not punitive; article has not been edited in days. While I agree that DIREKTOR's comments and reversions were not in keeping with our policies on dealing with new users, he hasn't edit warred any more than you have so I am not blocking for 3RR at this time. Kafziel Talk 12:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Lear21 reported by User:Polaron (Result:1 week)
. : Time reported: 22:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 2007-07-16 20:18:22
 * 2nd revert: 2007-07-17 06:35:23
 * 3rd revert: 2007-07-17 11:29:21
 * 4th revert: 2007-07-17 17:29:54

Your report will 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: DIFFTIME


 * Blocked for one week. Kafziel Talk 12:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User:BloodRunsCold1996 reported by User:Strothra (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 03:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 08:59, 17 July 2007.


 * 1st revert: 10:24, 17 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:26, 17 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:23, 17 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:38, 17 July 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:30, 17 July 2007


 * Blocked for 24 hours. Kafziel Talk 12:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Snowhite1985 reported by User:Dúnadan (Result: Warned)
. : Time reported: 04:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:50, 16 July 2007

First, he reverted 7 times as 190.16.20.42 until the article was semi-protected. Then he logged in as User:Snowhite1985 and reverted 4 additional times. The identity of 190.16.20.42 as Snowhite1985 was suspected by administrator User:Pablo-flores and confirmed by User:Tangerines after Snowhite1985, not logged in, [inadvertently] signed as himself at User_talk:190.16.20.42. While he might be violating WP:SOCK, and his 11 reverts (all summed together) are a clear violation of WP:3RR (and were classified as WP:Vandalism by Tangerines), I will only present the 4 edits of Snowhite1985. It is up to the administrators to decide whether to take a more drastic measure given the clear evidence above, or to simply deal with this 3RR violations for the time being.


 * 1st revert: 00:27, 18 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:32, 18 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:46, 18 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 03:03, 18 July 2007

Your report will 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: 00:13, 18 July 2007 by Tangerines at anon's Talk page
 * Diff or 3RR warning: 00:36, 18 July 2007 at Snowhite1985 talk page.


 * Comment: Those diffs are not 3RR warnings. They are requests for the user to sign his posts. Kafziel Talk 12:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * First, Snowhite is not a new user. Secondly, the warnings advised him to stop his reiterated reversions (as well as asking him to sign). Please review the warnings thoroughly. I will quote what Tangerines wrote on the second warning:
 * "If you wish to mame [sic] major changes to the article, please provide and edit summary as any edits made without an edit summary are likely to be reverted as they appear to be vandalism. In this instance it is quite clear that this needs to be discussed on the talk page. Will you please therefore discuss this rather than keep adding the same edit as it will only be reverted again until this has been discussed on the articles talk page."
 * -- the D únadan  01:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And after Tangerines said that, SnowWhite stopped reverting. He is a new user (certainly new enough to still need a proper 3RR warning), and he hasn't touched the article since the first warning came in. I'm not saying he definitely shouldn't be blocked, but I do think he's new enough to need a warning and he didn't do anything wrong after he got one. I'll leave this report open and another admin can offer a second opinion. Kafziel Talk 01:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please review the dates: he did revert after the first warning came in!
 * The anon was warned at 00.13; Snowhite was warned at 00.36, The third and fourth reversions occurred at 00.46 and 03:03 respectively: both occurred after the second warning came in. More recently he reverted yet again  at 06:49, which would make the 5th revert in less than 24 hours, and the 3rd after being warned.
 * Snowhite1985 registered on March 2007; he is been here almost 4 months; enough to know that he should not engage in WP:Vandalism, enough to stop editing after being warned not to do so, and enough to have discussed the issue civilly at the Talk Page.
 * -- the D únadan  01:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to agree with Kafziel. The user was not warned of the 3-revert rule, but given a general caution about reverting. We need to be specific; it's best to use the template, because otherwise 3 reverts seems kind of arbitrary. I've placed the warning on his page. He has not edited for a couple of days; if the message has not gotten through, let me know or come back here and he will be blocked, but I'm not going to do it now. MastCell Talk 03:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

User:SoxrockProjects reported by User:Pats1 (Result:24 Hours)
. : Time reported: 15:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:56, 18 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 14:47, 18 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:49, 18 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:03, 18 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 15:21, 18 July 2007


 * Comment: User ignoring discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/archive5.


 * WHAT ARE YOU DOING?: YOU ARE TRYING TO RUIN MY FREAKING DAY! YOU KNOW THIS DOESN'T NEED CONSENSUS, AND NOW YOUR TRYING TO GET ME BLOCKED. THANKS A WHOLE FREAKING LOT! Soxrock 15:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours  Citi Cat   ♫ 16:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This user made no more reverts after the time that he was warned of 3RR. His last revert was at 15:21, the warning he received was at 15:30.  He shouldn't be blocked because he was never warned fairly.  Ksy92003  (talk)  17:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User:BlueShrek reported by User:Sesshomaru (Result: Blocked, 24h)
. : Time reported: 15:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:38, 18 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 14:07, 18 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15:06, 18 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:14, 18 July 2007
 * 3rr warning given at 15:21, 18 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 15:28, 18 July 2007
 * 5th revert: 15:38, 18 July 2007


 * Comment: User claims that sources (like GameSpot) aren't official, but the talk page of Spider-Man: Friend or Foe says otherwise. He is however likely a sockpuppet of User:Wrestlinglover420 or User:TheManWhoLaughs, as there is currently a Requests for checkuser/Case/Wrestlinglover420 to confirm whether he really is this abusive disruptive user.

I just want to say that this user has been picking on me since yesterday and he is trying to get me banned for no real reason. Nobody can put a reliable source on the page and he kept reverting me. I was just following talk page consensus.BlueShrek 16:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked BlueShrek and Sesshomaru for 24 hours. --ST47 Talk&middot;Desk 17:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Bremskraft reported by User:DickClarkMises (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 16:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: ,


 * 1st revert: 21:00, 17 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:05, 17 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 01:04, 18 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 12:09, 18 July 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * I see no reverts after the warning. --ST47 Talk&middot;Desk 17:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User:206.47.252.66 reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result:Blocked 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 18:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:40, July 18, 20


 * 1st revert: 07:48, July 18, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 08:23, July 18, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 09:24, July 18, 2007
 * 4th revert: 09:59, July 18, 2007

Your report will 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: 7:47, July 18, 2007
 * Comment: See user's contributions to understand the full fervor of his 3 10 RR. [[User:Jim62sch|&#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;] 21:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We're at 11 or 12 reverts with this anonymous, and I will call him what he is, VANDAL. Can someone please block this guy! Orangemarlin 22:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A semi-protect might help as well. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; 22:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours by User:Kafziel  Citi Cat  <sup style="color:#000000;"> ♫ 23:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User:70.189.74.49 reported by User:Qwerty7412369 (Result:Article semi-protected and user blocked 24hr)
. : Time reported: 19:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 18:39, July 15, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 04:04, July 16, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 03:40, July 16, 2007
 * 4th revert: 12:53, July 16, 2007
 * 5th revert: 12:54, July 16, 2007
 * 6th revert: 13:06, July 16, 2007
 * 7th revert: 13:39, July 16, 2007
 * 8th revert: 13:38, July 17, 2007
 * 9th revert: 14:26, July 17, 2007
 * 10th revert: 16:20, July 17, 2007
 * 11th revert: 17:16, July 17, 2007
 * 12th revert: 04:39, July 18, 2007
 * 13th revert: 05:03, July 18, 2007
 * 14th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thematic_motifs_of_Lost&curid=6844657&diff=145413703&oldid=145412055 06:49, July 18, 2007

Your report will 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: 05:11, July 16, 2007
 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

COMMENT - As you can see, User:70.189.74.49 has made 14 reverts to the same article in less than three days (at one point making 8 reverts in a single 24-hour period), delibertly disregarding the Three Revert Rule and ignoring the numerous WP:3RR warnings posted by various editors on User:70.189.74.49's Talk Page. However this is not the only problem I and other users have experienced with User:70.189.74.49. They have been quite obsessive over the past few days in their deletion of my and other user's entries despite the requests from numerous editors that they desist, and until a only few hours ago has refused to justify their position on either the Discussion Page or to me directly on My Talk Page, which has both initiated and inflamed an edit war over this article. Now that this user has finally entered the the discussion, they have been growing less Civil with every post (See Here as well as Here) and does not seem to be interested in reaching any consensus with other editors, nor will they engage in any discussion beyond the most basic assertions that they alone are 100% correct and I and other users are 100% wrong. I would also like to note that this user appears to be a Single Purpose Account and I suspect it to be a Sock Puppet.

I simply ask that the Administrators take these chronic violations of Wikipedia's rules and policies by User:70.189.74.49 into consideration when revewing this case.

Thank you, --Qwerty7412369 19:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Article semi-protected. Kafziel Talk 19:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If the edit warring weren't so egregious, the protection would be sufficient, but I've added a 24hr block. This user has received ample warnings and disregarded them. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No argument here. Kafziel Talk 19:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User:XAndreWx reported by User:Sprigot (Result: 48 hours)
. : Time reported: 02:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 9th revert: 18:34, 18 July 2007
 * 8th revert: 18:31, 18 July 2007
 * 7th revert: 18:06, 18 July 2007
 * 6th revert: 00:39, 18 July 2007
 * 5th revert: 21:26, 17 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:06, 17 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:50, 16 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:53, 15 July 2007
 * 1st revert: 20:20, 12 July 2007

Your report will 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: 22:41, 15 July 2007

XAndreWx was originally blocked for the 3RR rule by User:Irishguy for this article over here:

22:41, 15 July 2007

This block was overturned by User:Evilclown93, also known as User:Maxim, on the request of XAndreWx's adoptor User:Giggy, with the comment of "Giggy has asked me to remove it, and I trust you've cooled off by now." here:

01:48, 16 July 2007

Even though XAndreWx was unblocked he again repeatedly violated the 3RR rule - in fact violating it at least six times since he was unblocked just two days ago.

I also believe that he then resorted to sock puppeteering to continue the revisions (three more identical revisions were made) - I have also created a sock puppet complaint which documents the evidence I have gathered in this matter.


 * Those diffs are not necessarily all reverts, but there are four clear reverts in a 24-hour span in there. To make matters worse, he was blocked recently for another 3RR-violation, and was released on a promise of good behavior. MastCell Talk 02:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Cgoodell reported by User:Ilya1166 (Result: User warned)
. : Time reported: 04:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 03:39, 19 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 04:25, 19 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 04:32, 19 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 04:39, 19 July 2007
 * 5th revert: 04:41, 19 July 2007


 * User has not been warned. I have done so. MastCell Talk 02:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Mmtrmm reported by User:Poindexter_Propellerhead (Result: Withdrawn by filer)
. : Time reported: 06:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Here are 7 reverts in a 27 hour period.
 * 1st revert: 04:37, 18 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 04:46, 18 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 06:48, 18 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:35, 18 July 2007
 * 5th revert: 05:31, 19 July 2007
 * 6th revert:06:06, 19 July 2007
 * 7th revert: 07:25, 19 July 2007

Aargh, I'm such a noob. :-/ No 3RR warning until 08:04, 19 July 2007, when I noticed the warning rule. Please leave this on hold for 12 hours if possible, and I'll add any new reverts by that time. If that's not possible, feel free to kill this request, and I'll resubmit it when the problem recurs. Poindexter Propellerhead 09:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to withdraw this report, as Mmtrmm seems to have taken the day off from editing. I have a sockpuppet case proceeding also, which is awaiting final Checkuser confirmation, so it's probably safe to just let that run its course. Poindexter Propellerhead 05:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I won't pursue this further. Come back if it becomes a problem again. MastCell Talk 18:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Mehicdino reported by User:Boadrummer (Result: User warned)
. : Time reported: 08:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Reverted to this version at least 5 tims in one day: 07:46, 19 July 2007
 * Non admin comment: Please provide diffs. Rlest 16:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The user has not been warned. I issued a warning; any further reverts will result in a block. MastCell Talk 02:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just an FYI, he's continued changing the page to his liking, changing the genre after you've warned him. --<B><font face="Trebuchet MS"> Boa Drumm  er  </B> 15:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR reported by User:151.33.95.105 (Result: User warned; see below)
. : Time reported: 19:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Previous version reverted to: -02:13, 18 July 2007 (edit) 4.231.202.71 (Talk)-
 * 1st revert: -07:03, 18 July 2007 (hist) (diff) m Istrian exodus (You are the son of a refugee, and you call me a fanatic! :D ,hilarious, you are POV lay off or I'll have this article blocked as well)-
 * 2nd revert: -18:06, 18 July 2007 (hist) (diff) m Istrian exodus (Undid revision 145479162 by 151.33.88.157 (talk)-
 * 3rd revert: -18:15, 18 July 2007 (hist) (diff) m Istrian exodus (I sware... Stop this before I have to bother the Admins again)-
 * 4th revert: -18:28, 18 July 2007 (hist) (diff) m Istrian exodus (Undid revision 145482427 by 209.215.160.114 (talk)-
 * 5th revert: -18:45, 18 July 2007 (hist) (diff) m Istrian exodus (Undid revision 145485467 by 209.215.160.114 (talk)-


 * User:Isotope23 is on the case here as an admin, and he saw this as a case of IP disruption which DIREKTOR was responding to. Isotope semi-protected the page and blocked the IP edit-warring with DIREKTOR, so I'm going to leave things with a warning to DIREKTOR to seek admin assistance earlier in the course. I don't think a block is warranted for DIREKTOR, as it appears (in the judgement of Isotope23) that he was responding to disruption by IP's. MastCell Talk 02:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Discostu333 reported by User:M0RHI (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 20:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:39, 19 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 19:42, 19 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:44, 19 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:47, 19 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:49, 19 July 2007
 * 5th revert: 19:58, 19 July 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:52, 19 July 2007


 * Blocked for 24 hours. I see 3 reverts in which he redirected the page, and one in which he removed fact tags restored by M0RHI, in 24 hours. In the future, please provide diffs in the report - instructions on how to do so are at WP:DIFF. MastCell Talk 02:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Mghabmw reported by User:The Evil Spartan (Result: 31 hours)
. : Time reported: 22:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:39, July 2, 2007 (right before page protected)


 * I hate to be lazy, but there are literally dozens of reversions. Just take a look at the page history and you will see exactly the problem: mass spa'ing, etc. I count 21 reversions in the last 24 hours. The Evil Spartan 22:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This user's really pissing me off. I have a sneaking supcision he's a sock of User:Yankees10 (apparently a sock of another user), and has socked elsewhere. He clearly knows the rules (he reported someone above), and is mass revert warring in order to get his version of the page before it's locked - and like I said, I think there's some mass sockpuppetry going on. He's at like 15RR. The Evil Spartan 22:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 31 hours by another admin. MastCell Talk 02:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

User:NCdave reported by User:MastCell (Result:1 week)
. : Time reported: 02:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 23:16, 19 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 23:38, 19 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:45, 19 July 2007 (diff includes 2 consecutive edits by NCdave)
 * 3rd revert: 23:55, 19 July 2007 (readds tag, undoing this very recent edit)
 * 4th revert: 00:23, 20 July 2007 (tag-warring, reverts the immediately preceding edit)
 * 5th revert: 04:04, 20 July 2007 (continued tag-warring, undoes the immediately prior edit).
 * Multiple subsequent edits involve tagging each individual section and edit-warring over the tag at the top of the article (,, etc).


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User has previous 3RR block, also warned here (23:51, 19 July 2007).

This is aggravated by the fact that NCdave is well aware there is consensus against his proposed edits, as exemplified by reams of talk page discussion. He responded to the 3RR warning by describing everyone else as "revert-warriors" and voicing an intention to tag-bomb the article instead. MastCell Talk 02:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, note that NCDave has a history of this kind of thing at Terry Schiavo []. A lengthy ban is in order here. JQ 06:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The "lengthy history" of 3RR violations to which JQ refers actually consists of just one 3RR violation 2.5 years ago, when I had been contributing to Wikipedia just nine days, and was still learning the rules. On that occasion, my 1st and 4th revert were on successive days, more than 23 hours apart.  I was blocked for one minute (literally) in punishment.  (An admin blocked me for 24 hours, then realized that was uncalled for, and unblocked me one minute later before I even realized I'd been blocked.)  It was a true violation, but made in ignorance.  That was my only 3RR violation, ever, in more than 1200 contributions to about 50 different articles plus numerous Talk pages and meta-discussions. NCdave 11:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1 week. yandman  08:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * MastCell & JQ are misrepresenting the facts. There was no consensus against my edits.  Just the opposite, in fact!  Most of what I tried to add to the article had been proposed and extensively discussed on the Talk page before I added it, and had achieved apparent consensus.  Two weeks had elapsed since anyone had expressed a new concern, and the few concerns that had been raised were all addressed in my contribution.
 * W/r/t the warning tags I tried to add, many other editors have also expressed concerns about the inaccuracies and/or POV bias in the article which I attempted to warn about (including Peroxisome, "Uncle Ed" Poor, Theblog, 66.75.3.244, 88.105.242.190, 202.61.229.85, 147.114.226.172).
 * Nor did I describe "everyone else" as revert warriors, just MastCell, JQ and one other (Yilloslime), who habitually revert constructive edits by other editors without Talk page discussion or even naming any specific complaints, and who had just done so again.
 * Nor did I "threaten to tag-bomb" the article; rather, I noted (in advance) on the Talk page my reason for adding a warning tag to the article. (My reason was that MastCell, JQ & Yilloslime would not permit corrections to be made to the article.)
 * Note that MastCell and Yilloslime both recently violated 3RR on that same article: Yilloslime's 3RR violation, MastCell's 3RR violation. Neither was blocked or banned; MastCell didn't even get warned.
 * Nor did I violate WP:3RR. Only two of those alleged reverts were reverts.  (Since MastCell did not supply diffs showing what previous versions he claimed I reverted to, that's not obvious; simply showing an edit and claiming that it is a revert does not show that it actually reverted anything.)
 * rv #1 WAS a revert, but justified. It partially un-reverted MastCell's total revert/delete of a lengthy contribution to the article, most of which had been extensively discussed on the Talk page before I made it, and had achieved apparent consensus.  Before adding that contribution, I noted on the talk page that apparent consensus had been achieved, all concerns having been addressed, and two weeks having elapsed with no further concerns expressed.  But MastCell nevertheless reverted it just 6 minutes after I had edited the article, indicating that he didn't even bother to carefully read it (which is typical for him).  I tried again (that was rv #1, my partial un-revert) but omitted a small portion of material which had not previously been discussed on the Talk page.  I accompanied my partial un-revert with a note that at least most of the material had already been extensively discussed on the Talk page, and had achieved apparent consensus, and a plea to please discuss it on the Talk page if anyone had issues with it.  Two minutes later MastCell's buddy JQ did another total revert.  I tried again, one last time.  Rv #2 was my last attempt, accompanied by pleas for Talk page discussion, asking MastCell & JQ to cease their instant reverts and talk over whatever objections they had.  But two minutes later Yilloslime did another total revert.  (MastCell, JQ and Yilloslime frequently act in concert.)  At that point I gave up.  That was my last revert.
 * rv #3 was NOT a revert. It did not undo the referenced edit, nor any other.  I tagged the article with a new/different tag, to reflect the fact that the article had been made more inaccurate and POV-biased than when I had last seen it.  (Tagging the article with a warning while leaving the disputed text in place also amounted to an attempt at compromise, since my attempt to correct the inaccuracies in the article had been reverted.)  I have read the 3RR rule, and it does not support an interpretation that inserting one tag is equivalent to inserting another.  I read it carefully, and strove to conform with this rule and every other that I am aware of.  The fact is that the article needs tags warning that the accuracy is disputed.  Even if someone thinks the article is not inaccurate, there really can be no honest argument about that fact that the accuracy is disputed by other editors.  Really, according to WP:BLP, I should have just deleted the controversial sections, but I've been trying to edit conservatively and seek consensus.
 * rv #4 was NOT a revert. It did not undo the referenced edit, nor any other.  It was another attempt to tag the article, but with a different tag.  (The article contains inaccurate and controversial material about a living person, material which is in some cases poorly sourced, and in others entirely unsourced.  Wikipedia WP:BLP rules require that such material be corrected or removed immediately, but MastCell, JQ et al immediately revert all such corrections.  Several editors have noted the extreme inaccuracy and bias of this article, so it clearly deserves at least a warning tag.)
 * rv #5 was NOT a revert. It did not undo the referenced edit, nor any other.  It was another attempt to tag a blatantly inaccurate section of the article, with a different warning tag, after very thorough discussion on the Talk page.
 * I did not violate 3RR, and should not have been blocked. NCdave 11:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

User:MarkThomas and User:SeaOfTranquility reported by User:Domer48 (Result:No violation)
.
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

Edit warring and removing the edits of 5 editors.


 * I'd request investigating admins to see the talk page, note the ArbCom case, and the request request for page protection. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 14:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Neither user broke 3RR. If they're going to be blocked, Domer48 would be blocked as well. I also don't see a need for article protection; if Domer48 reverts again, he will be blocked, and that will be that. Kafziel Talk 22:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

User:NYScholar reported by User:Argyriou (Result:48 Hour block)
. : Time reported: 21:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 12:21
 * 2nd revert: 12:24
 * 3rd revert: 12:33
 * 4th revert: 12:45
 * 5th revert: 13:17

User also made bad-faith report to WP:AIV, claiming vandalism and BLP violations in a content dispute. User is knowledgeable enough about WP to know WP:3RR.

User:Tim Osman has been blocked based on report above, but has also violated 3RR.
 * Blocked per above. LessHeard vanU 21:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

User:70.188.24.125 reported by User:Quadell (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 22:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:43

My image addition was removed by an anon, with no edit summary, 4 times.
 * 1st revert: 12:41
 * 2nd revert: 15:29
 * 3rd revert: 17:44
 * 4th revert: 18:16

On the discussion page, he was asked why he was reverted, and asked not to by 2 users. He also made personal attacks against me. I'm an admin, but I'm involved in the dispute. – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. He's still reverting. 18:43. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours  Citi Cat  <sup style="color:#000000;"> ♫ 02:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Jadger reported by User:Piotrus (Result: 24 hrs)
. : Time reported: 23:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:36, July 20, 2007


 * 1st revert: 23:40, July 20, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:52, July 21, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 01:24, July 21, 2007
 * 4th revert: 01:30, July 21, 2007

On discussion page three users have asked him to discuss and provide better refs. Instead we are reverted and insulted.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 5th revert: 2:19, 21 July 2007
 * 6th revert: 2:26, 21 July 2007

I suppose once you know you have broken 3RR, you might as well go for broke. Please stop this user. As he has already been blocked twice for 3RR violations, the penalty should be more severe this time. Balcer 00:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

reported by User:Tbeatty (Result:24 hours)
. : 07:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Original 23:46, July 20, 2007
 * 1st revert Revision as of 23:47, July 20, 2007
 * 2nd revert Revision as of 23:59, July 20, 2007
 * 3rd revert Revision as of 00:07, July 21, 2007
 * 4th revert Revision as of 00:12, July 21, 2007

I've asked him to self-revert his last edit. He's made other edits after that request. I will gladly withdraw this request if he self-reverts.

--Tbeatty 07:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Made six reversions by my count, not counting three cleanups of obvious vandalism.  Citi Cat  <sup style="color:#000000;"> ♫ 17:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Icebear1946 reported by User:Duae Quartunciae (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 11:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Original problematic version 22:06, 18 July 2007 established by (the anonymous isp of the same user)
 * This edit introduced a new external link, subsequently repeated removed by other editors
 * 1st revert: 10:19, 19 July 2007 (as anonymous isp)
 * 2nd revert: 11:32, 19 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 10:44, 20 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 11:14, 20 July 2007
 * 5th revert: 11:39, 20 July 2007
 * 6th revert: 03:46, 21 July 2007
 * 7th revert: 04:35, 21 July 2007
 * (The five most recent reverts are within 24 hours)


 * Icebear1946 is a new account, used for this one purpose. The account is operated by the author of the inappropriate citation.
 * 1st welcome and warning: 11:58, 19 July 2007
 * Other WP:3RR warnings from multiple editors appear in Talk:Immanuel Velikovsky
 * Diff of formal 3RR warning in users talk page: 12:46, 20 July 2007


 * For the record, counter reverts by multiple other editors, no one individual more than three times
 * 


 * The same user, in response to guidance, declared an explicit intent to continue reverting indefinitely and to encourage others to do the same. Diff in talk page: 11:46, 20 July 2007
 * -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 11:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Additional reversions after the filing of this report. Identical external link, removed by multiple editors, reverted each time by User:Icebear1946 against consensus:


 * 8th revert: 10:44, 21 July 2007
 * 9th revert: 21:18, 21 July 2007
 * 10th revert: 03:49, 22 July 2007


 * (diffs added by neutral third-party from WP:WQA report) --Parzival418 Hello 04:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment re additional violations: WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:POINT, WP:CONSENSUS. I realize this page is not for other violations - I supply this only for perspective, that the 3RR violations are not due to "good faith mistakes." I responded to a report at WP:WQA and had no pre-knowlege of the article or editors. I saw that in addition to the 3RR violation, Icebear1946 has been repeatedly uncivil in his talk page comments and refused to acknowledge core Wikipedia policies. Examples:
 * Icebear1946 refers to the removal of his self-published un-referenced essay as "vandalism", even though multiple editors have explained why the source is not reliable, including quoting WP:V and WP:RS.
 * I referred him to WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and told him: "If you can show that the author of the essay is a reliable source, with consensus from the editors on this page, then the essay can be included." His response:
 * Legalistic sophistry not withstanding, you are in fact engaging in vandalism.


 * He engaged in WP:POINT by making a random edit to the article and then posted this uncivil comment:
 * I removed the Ellenberger/MeWhinney articles as a one-time experiment to see if you and your cronies were capable of learning anything from the exercise; obviously you are not.


 * When Duae_Quartunciae wrote: "we all assume we are trying to improve the article in good faith..." - Icebear1946 responded sarcastically:
 * ...Are you a professional comedian?

Icebear1946 does not seem to be a simply an inexperienced user not aware of WP:3RR. (He's aware of it because he was warned more than once). He's had a chip on his shoulder from the start, ignoring Wikipedia policies, disrespecting fellow editors, showing no interest in collaborative editing. His incivility has not been extreme, but has been disruptive, along with exceeding 3RR. I offer this view as an editor not working on the article page involved, other than in responding the to Wikiquette alert. --Parzival418 Hello 20:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 10th revert: 03:49, 22 July 2007 (Let's not clutter this with debate; but can someone act please?) -- Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  04:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 11th revert: 04:08, 22 July 2007 Icebear1946 continuing to revert the same item removed by multiple editors --Parzival418 Hello 04:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

24 hours Jaranda wat's sup 07:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Su-Jada reported by User:Tilman (Result: 24 hrs)
. : Time reported: 17:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

The four reverts were not identical, the fourth one was smaller.
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 22:02, 20 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:11, 21 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:25, 21 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:52, 21 July 2007
 * 5th revert: 19:16, 21 July 2007

The user is aware of 3RR. He argues that it is a WP:BLP violation and thus 3RR doesn't apply, I am disagreeing because the deleted segments are properly sourced. --Tilman 17:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 24 hrs ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Request second opinion on this block. I believe both editors were edit-warring. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree of course; I (and other editors) just restored what the other deleted, this has been going on for quite some time now. See also what I responded to Jossi in my discussion. --Tilman 17:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi, you read my mind - see my suggestion on your talk page. Tilman, that is a content dispute, not simple vandalism. While vandalism is an exception to 3RR, this was not vandalism; since the content removal was not malicious, you are no more free to violate 3RR than Su-Jada was. Kafziel Talk 17:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that I didn't violate 3RR. --Tilman 18:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You weren't reverting vandalism, so your reverts today (all four of them) are considered edit warring. But there's no point arguing - I'm not blocking you at this time. The article is locked for now, so just take this time to reach an agreement, seek mediation, or simply decide to walk away. Kafziel Talk 18:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Per Jossi's comment, Su-Jada has been unblocked and the article protected instead. Both of you, please take this time to keep discussing the situation on the talk page and seek mediation if necessary. If the edit war continues after the protection is lifted, blocks will follow. Kafziel Talk 18:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Liftarn reported by User:Zara1709 (Result:)

 * I'd like to report Liftarn for persistent edit warring and edit warring concerning several articles. This has already previously reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Liftarn and the Persecution of Germanic Pagans issue. While Liftarn has not violated the letter of the Three-revert rule, he has clearly violated the spirit.
 * Articles and other pages affected of this were: Persecution of Germanic Pagans, Historical Persecution by Christians, Discrimination against Asatruers in United States prisons, Religious discrimination against Asatruers, Template:Religious persecution, Religious discrimination against Neopagans, Requests for comment/Dbachmann, User talk:Liftarn and House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and probably some more.


 * Regarding Persecution of Germanic Pagans: On May 20 I turned the article Persecution of Germanic Pagans, that had originally been created by Liftarn, into a disambiguation page ; Liftarn was the only one who had objected to a disambiguation page in Talk:Persecution of Germanic Pagans. Still, without writing something on the discussion page, he revert my edits (#1); the disambiguation page was subsequently restored by Dbachmann on May 23, reverted again by Liftarn on may 24  (#2), restored again on May 29 by Dbachmann , reverted by Liftarn again the same day  (#3); only then Liftarn did write something on the discussion page, one sentence. (You have to check the edit history of the discussion page, he does not sign his comments correctly), he actually used WP:IDON'TLIKEIT as reason; I replied, rather displeased, with a much longer statement  and restored the disambiguation page ; still, on   July 8 this was reverted by Liftarn again  (#4); he did not answer me on the discussion page. The disambiguation page was restored by 68.110.8.21 on July 8 , reverted again by Liftarn on July 9  (#5), restored again by me on July 12 , this time I though I had to say Liftarn what I think of his style of non-discussion. He took this to be a personal attack, but at least he wrote something on the discussion page again, only that it was not at all useful . Anyway, he reverted again on July 13  (#6). I then flagged the article totally disputed  and asked dbachmann for help. He restored the disambiguation page on July 15. Liftarn reverted again on July 16.(#7). Previosly, Dbachmann had written 9 lines on the discussion page, Liftarn again responded with only one line , that failed to even  perceive the argument of Dbachmann. Consequently, I restored the disambiguation page on July 16. . I was reverted yet another time by Liftarn on July 17.  (#8)         I restored the disambiguation page again the same day.  Meanwhile the controversy had spread to Historical Persecution by Christians. Without referring the whole story there, too, I only needs to be said that Liftarn copied material that was deleted on that page onto persecution of Germanic Pagans.  (#9) Still on July 17, I restored the disambiguation page.  Liftarn reverted again on July 19.  (#10) The disambiguation page was restored the same day by Jacob Haller , reverted again by Liftarn  (#11), restored again by me . It was then reverted a further time by Liftarn on July 20  (#12) and restored again by Jacob Haller . Further edits were concerned with  the name of the articles that debated Liftarn's alleged Persecution of Asatrues.


 * Summaries for the other articles at request. I will not have this continued another day. -Zara1709 08:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Non admin comment: Could you please format this request in the correct way, long paragrahs are not likely to attract attention to admins so if formatted correctly (see bottom of page) this will be handled but otherwise it may not be, Rlest  09:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a hard time to request this in the correct way, since this is a complex case and I have become so angry about this that it takes me a lot of effort to write in a neutral tone.

User:Liftarn reported by User:Zara1709 (Result:No violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on and  : Time reported: 10:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:46, July 21, 2007


 * 1st revert: 15:07, July 21, 2007; By creating a new article, Liftarn effectively reverts the then current version of
 * 2nd revert: 15:41, July 21, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:47, July 21, 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:04, July 21, 2007


 * How is that for a start? Do we have to discuss whether this is a formal breach of the Three-revert rule? I really need to take a break from this now. -Zara1709 10:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry - I realise that you're feeling quite strongly about this, but that's not a technical breach of WP:3RR. However, I've raised the matter at WP:AN/I, so as such this report is "pending" ~ <font color="#ED9121">Anthøny (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Warned – although there is no technical breach of WP:3RR, is nevertheless participating in an edit war; a warning has been posted to User talk:Liftarn, and further violations of the 3-Revert rule should be posted here immediately ~ <font color="#ED9121">Anthøny  (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Chajeshukarie reported by User:Mr. Neutron (Result: Blocked, 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 17:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:41, 21 July 2007.
 * 1st revert 17:50, 21 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:19, 21 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:44, 21 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:55, 22 July 2007
 * 5th revert: 17:31, 22 July 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This user has been deleting sourced information for the song's usage in both Bulgaria and the Republic of Macedonia, and making rampant accusations of vandalism. Note how he is moving the page to correspond only to Macedonian transliteration, and reverting compromise English translation. He was warned on his talk page. Mr. Neutron 17:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅&mdash;Chajeshukarie has been blocked for 24 hours ~ <font color="#ED9121">Anthøny (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Mr. Neutron reported by User:Uuttyyrreess (Result:No block)
Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group). : Time reported: 18:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 8 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 21 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 22 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 22 July 2007

user: Mr. Neutron has not only been reverting content on talk pages but while doing so was deleting the comments of other users on the Discussion Page. While the Discussion page is free to anyone on Wikipedia for posting opinions, information, or links on the subject of the article, this user has claimed it is not allowed, and instead of talking about the problem on the discussion page, he has deleted people's comments. This user was notified about his actions and has failed to coorperate by deleting my notification. Uuttyyrreess 18:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that there are only actually 2 reverts above, and both remove policy violations. See this discussion on ChrisO's page. The links were removed because they violated the NOT policy. Mr. Neutron 18:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr. Neutron has failed to acknowledge that the policy affects wikipedia articles and not the discussion pages, and by removing other user's comments on discussion pages, he has violated Talk page guidelines, since removing comments on article talk pages is strictly not allowed. Uuttyyrreess 18:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the policy thoroughly before demonstrating lack of knowledge: Talk page guidelines - Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.. Also from the same policy: The policies that apply to articles also apply (if not to the same extent) to talk pages. Your accusation is plainly false. Mr. Neutron 18:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The discussion which I posted was clearly on the subject of the article (ethnic Macedonians), so it doesn't fall under "irrelevant discussions". Uuttyyrreess 18:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It falls under NOT. Irrelevant news content. Mr. Neutron 19:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, news content on the subject of the article (ethnic Macedonians) Uuttyyrreess 19:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Decline. Please bear in mind that talk pages are not general-purpose discussion forums. Comments posted to them should be directed at improving an article, not simply to make political points. Talk page guidelines spells this out: the purpose of a talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to an article, not to serve as platforms for their personal views on the subject covered by the article. Content that is clearly off topic can and should be removed. -- ChrisO 19:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Mr. Neutron reported by User: Frightner (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * : Time reported: 19:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 22 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 22 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 22 July 2007
 * 5th recert: 22 July 2007

User:Mr. Neutron continuously moves pages to names which have no relation to the subject matter but to fulfill a political and nationalistic perspective on the article. I use talk pages to discuss my opinion but when I provide credible evidence supporting my argument and which fulfills the guidelines for a neutral point of view he avoid the argument and violates the NPOV by adding personal perspective information without first having reached to an agreement for providing a valid argument or sources. Frightner 19:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, Frignter is destroying the consistency of Wikipedia by refusing to disambiguate terms which need to be disambiguated like Macedonia and Macedonian. Mr. Neutron 19:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I disambiguate the term "Macedonia" and "Macedonian" accordingly. It is you who does not take notice of these things. Frightner 20:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * False. You are pushing the ambiguous term "Macedonian" which needs disambiguation when it is used by itself. Mr. Neutron 20:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Frignter, please acquaint yourself with the Three revert rule. There are three reverts committed, on the page, not five. Series of several consecutive edits (by one editor) count as one revert, not as many. As such I have not violated the rule, and I have discussed the situation on the talk page, presenting arguments, which as of now have not been refuted. See the discussion of the talk page. Mr. Neutron 19:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Count them Mr. Neutron, there are 3 moves and 2 reverts. Frightner 19:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but you have not read the three revert rule. Your report is misleding and false. Mr. Neutron 19:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You have not read the three-revert rule, moves count as reverts and I counted 3 moves after your first. Frightner 19:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And you are missing the fact that consecutive edits by one editor count as one for the purpose of the rule. Mr. Neutron 19:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * reverts count as undoing the action of another user (not just an edit), so move reverts can be taken into account for a WP:3RR violation ~ <font color="#ED9121">Anthøny (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Admin response. There are four page moves, which by definition are three reverts.  is a revert. This is another revert. The question is whether these last two reverts count separately, or, because they were performed immediately after the page move are to be considered part of it.  The rule at WP:3RR reads "Note that consecutive reverts by one editor are often treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule". The phrase "often treated" implies administrator discretion.  Given that WP:3RR is primarily about preventing disruption, that page moves are more disruptive than simple edits, that Mr. Neutron is reverting a lot elsewhere today, I  judge the edits and moves to be separate actions, which means that there was a violation of 3RR.  I am blocking him for 24 hours. <font color="#DF0001">Buck  ets  ofg  20:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User:24.185.86.249 reported by User:Macrakis (Result:Blocked, 20 hours)
. : Time reported: 00:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 2007-07-22T18:22:15


 * 1st revert: 2007-07-22T19:11:53
 * 2nd revert: 2007-07-22T23:41:33
 * 3rd revert: 2007-07-23T00:24:34
 * 4th revert: 2007-07-23T00:33:46

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * User has previously been coached repeatedly and blocked; see User talk:24.185.86.249

I have been trying to edit the article and reduce the Greek POV (which was pretty bad), but this anon keeps reverting to the same version with Albanian POV, without any attempt at merging in my edits or discussion.
 * ✅&mdash;IP blocked for 20 hours ~ <font color="#ED9121">Anthøny (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Tigeroo reported by User:Arrow740 (Result:Blocked, 94 hours)
. : Time reported: 09:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 14:21, 22 July 2007 Undid my three consecutive edits here starting at 09:00, 22 July 2007 in the "Treaty of Hudaybiyya" section.
 * 2nd revert: 16:43, 22 July 2007 Same revert, someone else restored my edit in the middle.
 * 3rd revert: 08:49, 23 July 2007 Undid my changes to the "beginnings of conflict" section from this edit: 22:29, 22 July 2007.
 * 4th revert: 08:51, 23 July 2007 Hudaybiyya again.

I would also like to say here, for anyone interested, that in a variety of articles Tigeroo has been replacing material sourced to the leading Islamic studies scholars with material that he acknowledges to be from partisan religious sources - on the pretext of "NPOV." Arrow740 09:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Blocked – has been blocked for 4 days for a third violation of WP:3RR ~ <font color="#ED9121">Anthøny  (talk) 11:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 94 hours? Why 94? Do you mean 96 hours? 96 hours=4 days. Perspicacite 05:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User:70.234.99.251 reported by User:Hgilbert (Result: page semiprotected)
. : Time reported: 11:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 21:58
 * 2nd revert: 22:44
 * 3rd revert: 23:02
 * 4th revert: 23:49

Your report will 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: 21 July 20:55


 * Comment: There has been some attempt at communication/discussion on the article talk page with User:70.234.99.251.  There seems to be some confusion by User:70.234.99.251 on the meaning of WP:NPOV and WP:V.  --Rocksanddirt 16:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)  In addition within the last few days another user User:Concered parent08 has added much the same information to the article, which was original research, from restricted sources.  --Rocksanddirt 16:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Admin response. Instead of blocking the IP, I've semiprotected the page for a week. <font color="#DF0001">Buck  ets  ofg  19:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Jmfangio reported by User:Chrisjnelson (Result: warning)
. : Time reported: 17:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 12:04, July 23, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:02, July 23, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 11:50, July 23, 2007
 * 4th revert: 11:47, July 23, 2007


 * Comment: User has undone my edit four times, an edit which is totally accurate and has been widely accepted in use with Template:Infobox NFL player for the past few years.► Chris Nelson  17:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Reverts 1 and 2 are not appropriately organized. 2 came before 1.  That being said - 1 was not an full edit - only a typographicall edit as laid out in the edit summary. Extra but relevant info: This user was warned of their impending violation here.  This stems from this discussion where this user has asserted WP:OWN over all templated articles.  Additionally, he attacked people and failed to cite any relevant guidelines or policies. Jmfangio|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> ►Chat  17:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe I have made mistakes. But you've also reverted the same page in the same way four times in the past hour. That is 3RR no matter what the circumstances.► Chris Nelson  17:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No I have not. First and foremost, you are considering a "format" fix an independent edit.  That is a gross misrepresentation.  This is not the place for further discussion.  You were warned and have responded by warning me and reporting me.  Let someone else decide.  For your review however: here, where one character was moved. Jmfangio|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> ►Chat  17:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's why I didn't include that one-character edit. That was your fifth edit, and the other four were reverting mine. I included this one, not the one where you moved the x. Count them. Five edits, including four reverts. Thus, violation of 3RR.► Chris Nelson  17:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You have a wonderful way of slanting the circumstances. First off all, i didn't touch the page until this edit.  That was an edit; i was simply checking the whatlinks here for the template inquestion.  You then reverted me and couple of times and then after i warned you on your talk page, you fired back at me on my talk page.  My third revert was after you had already reported me here.  You decided to report me before I had violated anything (which i still haven't done). Jmfangio|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> ►Chat  18:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. Well I personally think you're deluding yourself on this, but I trust an admin that examines the situation will see the very obvious 3RR violation. It as clear as day. It's as obvious as gravity. But if you want to delude yourself into thinking you've done know wrong, then go ahead. I actually doubt an admin does anything because of this pissing match, so be glad.► Chris Nelson  18:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Warning to both sides. Jmfangio violated WP:3RR in both spirit and letter; Chrisjnelson kept the letter, but broke the spirit by engaging in a sterile reversion war.  It seems to me that my choice is to block you both for 8 hours or warn you both.  Go and sin no more; or, better, figure out a compromise. (One more reversion by either of you in the next 24 hours will get 24 hours.)  <font color="#DF0001">Buck  ets  ofg  20:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Rgfolsom reported by User:Ministry of random walks (Result: 8 hours reinstated)
. : Time reported: 19:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 1:59, 22 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 19:37, 22 July 2007 (Inserts paragraph including quotation of Alan Greenspan)
 * 2nd revert: 16:33, 23 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:41, 23 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:47, 23 July 2007

This is not a new editor, and he was warned last week about revert warring and the 3RR rule.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:34, 18 July 2007 (last week)


 * A visit to the Technical analysis talk page will clearly show that the edits in question were part of a good faith attempt to reach a consensus, and in fact that a rough consensus has been reached. Other editors working with me know full well that I was not being disruptive. User:Ministry of random walks is on the other side of the apparent consensus, and now brings the content dispute to 3rr. I more than welcome the involvement of an administrator; the facts will speak for themselves. Thanks, --Rgfolsom 19:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether or not your edits were constructive is irrelevant. You are supposed to achieve consensus on the article's talkpage, not through reverting. Perspicacite 08:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User's first block for 3RR, 8 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The block was undone by another admin despite two admins' consensus here of a violation after Rgfolsom falsely claimed on his talk page that his edits actually reflected consensus. (In fact, every neutral editor thought the edits were inappropriate.)  He's since gone back to edit-warring. THF 16:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 5th revert: 16:09 24 July 2007


 * For the record, <font color="#ED9121">Anthøny is the admin who lifted the block, and he did so after he looked in detail at the Technical analysis history and discussion page. I am not edit-warring and my claims are not false -- I've been working in good faith to satisfy the concerns of other good faith editors. Any other admin who reads the talk page will plainly see the incivility and name calling from THF; my edits are scrupulously sourced and meet Wikipedia standards. Thanks--Rgfolsom 16:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * <font color="#ED9121">Anthøny has now reinstated the block for a fresh 8 hours, so I think this issue is resolved. Cool Hand Luke 19:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Singhls reported by User:Gnanapiti (Result:No action taken)
and. : Time reported: 21:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

In Khalistan movement -

Previous version reverted to: 22:39, 22 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 22:42, 22 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:45, 22 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 22:47, 22 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 11:21, 23 July 2007

In Khalistan -

Previous version reverted to: 01:00, 22 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 22:33, 22 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:36, 22 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 22:49, 22 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 11:12, 23 July 2007
 * 5th revert: 12:18, 23 July 2007

Comment
 * This user has been constantly undoing and reverting number of other editors, pushing OR and POV without any references or citations.
 * The user was warned before regarding violating 3RR but looks like it's of no effect. Gnanapiti 21:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur, there are four reversions within 24 hrs for the first page and six for the second. Perspicacite 04:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No action taken – I'm not commenting over whether or not there was or was not a violation of the 3-Revert Rule; rather, I'm closing this case as "No action taken" - there would be no block issued at this time, anyway, due to the length of time it (would have) occurred ~ Anthøny  21:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

User:HongQiGong reported by User:John Smith's (Result:Blocked, 48 hours)
. : Time reported: 21:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:14, 18 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 20:02, 22 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 03:13, 23 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:17, 23 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:17, 23 July 2007

HongQiGong reverted a 4th time only 15 minutes after the 24 hour period, even after he was warned. He is an experienced user and should know better than to try to dance around the 4 reverts in 24 hours guidline. John Smith&#39;s 21:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:00, 23 July 2007
 * Blocked – 48 hours, for a violation of WP:3RR within a timeframe of 24 hours 15 minutes ~ <font color="#ED9121">Anthøny (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User:SqueakBox reported by Fighting for Justice (Result:No violation, but advice to both parties)
. : Time reported: 22:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

SqueakBox is a person concerned with removing the category of rape victim. He is going around renaming articles so they bypass the category. He is using wikipedia to prove a point. Fighting for Justice 22:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Technically no violation, the four reverts were not within 24 hours. However, edit-warring back-and-forth over the inclusion or exclusion of the disputed category is not going to resolve this dispute. I am aware that this is part of a broader controversy. Please pursue appropriate dispute resolution such as an article request for comment to secure community consensus on this issue. Newyorkbrad 22:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What was the first revert to? Actually the first revert wasnt a revert but a fresh edit, the second revert was because at that point the cat was deleted and anyway there is no source in the article that he was raped and policy makes it clear I am empowered to remove contentious unsourced material, so at best 2 reverts of unsourced material, SqueakBox 22:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, no violation, maybe for more reasons than I found. But there is still a broader issue here besides this one article on which a consensus needs to be reached. Edit-warring on this on an article-by-article basis for every member or alleged member of the dispute category is going to use a lot of contributors' time and breed a lot of unhappiness. Better to have the discussion in one place and try to reach some form of broader consensus on whether the category should exist at all. That way, if the category is eliminated, then it won't be necessary to debate whether it should apply to specific articles, and if the category is kept, some guidelines may evolve as to when and how it should be used. Newyorkbrad 22:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that is happening, its up for deletion and a blp policy is being evelved. Putting fact tags on where no sources are is inappropriate but well sourced info on public figures or dead people is probably appropriate if the cat survives its afd while semi notable people and any unsourced claims myust be removed immediately. Only after making this report did FfJ finally give a reasonable source whereas he should have done so before reverting, SqueakBox 22:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Very odd now it appears that an anonymous IP removed the category for the Sellers article. Things that make you go hmm.....Fighting for Justice 22:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User:John Foxe reported by Storm Rider (talk) (Result:No action taken)
. : Time reported: 23:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 01:30, 22 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 02:35, 22 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 05:40, 23 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:01, 23 July 2007

This is the second time this editor has gotten into the same edit war; he refuses to edit by concensus and ignores the other editors. He has been warned already and again today. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My violation of the rule was certainly unintentional. Storm Rider posted the following yesterday: "First Vision‎; 03:37 . . (+4,302) . . Storm Rider (Talk | contribs) (John, you are one more revert away from 4 reverts in a 24 hour period; please stop or you will be blocked)." I did stop. But apparently Storm Rider then went back to an earlier series of changes to find the 4 reverts (actually two reversions of two separate sections) in a 24 hour period. It's worthy of mention that I'm the only non-Mormon editing at an article of considerable interest to Mormons and the "consensus" is a consensus of Mormons.--John Foxe 10:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I also had a look at this, and it appears that the warning given was after the 4th revert. Thus I would argue the warning was not valid. John has never been blocked before, nor can I see him receiving a warning - I think he needs a valid one.
 * More importantly he has not made 4 reverts in 24 hours - there is also no version listed in the report that he reverted to. Thus I would suggest an admin close this report and label it "no vio". John Smith&#39;s 11:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No Violation – I'm going to take no further action here; the user had/has not received a warning, and a block would be fairly harsh in this instance. Any violations undertaken after the warning should be immediately posted to this page in a fresh report, and will be handled as necessary ~ <font color="#ED9121">Anthøny (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Does anyone ever read the bloody page? John, it was the second warning given to him for the same edit war. John, did you do any research on the matter? AGK did you even look at the editor's discussion page? How about looking at the bloody article itself? I suggest you try it the next time you are going to participate as an admin. If not, please do not waste your time or anyone else's. --Storm Rider (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies, but I'm not actually sure what you're talking about. Could you rephrase that clearly (and civilly), outlining what it is I've missed ~ <font color="#ED9121">Anthøny 12:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Archer5054 reported by User:CZmarlin (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 02:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 00:08, 22 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 14:50, 23 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 19:34, 23 July 2007
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 19:56, 23 July 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Current revision (21:01, 23 July 2007)

I did break the rule I admit but it think many other guys did too. Talk Page
 * 14:08, 21 July 2007 CZmarlin (Talk | contribs) m (54,251 bytes) (Undid revision 146097104 by Archer5054 (talk)rv to an image where car is visible) (undo)
 * 14:08, 21 July 2007 CZmarlin (Talk | contribs) m (54,251 bytes) (Undid revision 146097104 by Archer5054 (talk)rv to an image where car is visible) (undo)
 * 02:15, 22 July 2007 CZmarlin (Talk | contribs) m (54,298 bytes) (Undid revision 146208063 by 66.87.15.230 (talk)rv to an image where the car is visible in daylight) (undo)
 * 16:48, 22 July 2007 CJ DUB (Talk | contribs) (50,972 bytes) (→Fourth generation (1994–2004) - rem redundant or crappy images) (undo)
 * 00:29, 24 July 2007 CJ DUB (Talk | contribs) (50,834 bytes) (Undid revision 146595957 by Archer5054 (talk) NP) (undo)
 * 00:40, 24 July 2007 CJ DUB (Talk | contribs) (50,834 bytes) (Undid revision 146650412 by Archer5054 (talk)undo AGAIN) (undo)
 * 01:09, 24 July 2007 CJ DUB (Talk | contribs) (50,834 bytes) (Undid revision 146654336 by Archer5054 (talk)You=wrong. No more superfluous images when there is NO CONTENT) (undo)

This doesn't justify my breaking it, I just read him say that there are to many pictures on that page I feel that the picture I tried to post was different cause it shows what custom add-ons that are popular for the mustang, many of the other pictures are redundant they are all stock mustangs. The problem is that it shows many pictures of the same year of mustangs but different packages... I wanted to show what kind of mustang people are most likely to see (I my version it best explains the mustang to the average person). The pictures on that page that should be deleted are the ones that show canvas convertible mustangs or the other available packages because people can picture that on their own, while the picture I posted shows stuff that is more in-tune with what people would what to see when reading about Mustang custom add-ons. I am sorry it WILL NOT happen again (but please resolve the issue)! Thank you. --Archer5054 07:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This apparently new user was only warned after the violation took place, and so I don't think this report is valid, though a warning (and a welcome for that matter) are obviously in order.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 08:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I also believe blocking him would be inadvisable as CJ Dub appears to have violated 3RR. He has already been warned. Perspicacite 08:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No violation&mdash;(by Archer) the four links given are not within a 24-hour period, but closer to a 48-hour period. Although a block could be issued, I am not doing so, taking into account the inexperience of the user, and the apology above ~ <font color="#ED9121">Anthøny (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User:BernardL reported by User:TDC (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 03:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 20:53, July 23, 2007Removal of cited material I previously added today
 * 2nd revert: 21:18, July 23, 2007garden variety Rv
 * 3rd revert: 21:35, July 23, 2007 garden variety Rv
 * 4th revert: 21:56, July 23, 2007Removal of quotes I previously added today


 * Comment I asked BernardL to Rv himself and let things cool down a bit, but he refused and Rv’d again. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No Violation – WP:3RR has not been violated; however, I would urge the party to discuss rather than revert at all times ~ <font color="#ED9121">Anthøny (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Victor falk reported by User:Tewfik (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 06:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:17, 13 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 12:44, 23 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:35, 23 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:06, 23 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 04:51, 24 July 2007


 * He was warned on another page and has since archived that warning, but I left him a note requesting a self-revert in any event.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 06:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No Violation – the 3rd Revert (21:06, 23 July 2007) was not the undoing of an action of another editor, and therefore does not count as a revert. As such, only 3 reverts within the 24-hour period were undertaken, and a WP:3RR violation has not been committed. However, I would urge parties to discuss rather than revert one another, or risk measures such as protection of the article ... and then who'll improve it? ~ <font color="#ED9121">Anthøny (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Emmaneul reported by User:Cyrus XIII (Result:Blocked, 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 14:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version(s) reverted to: 146575330 and 146628628, respectively.


 * 1st revert: 22:53 23 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:40, 23 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:06, 24 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 15:46, 24 July 2007

The user has been around since August 2006, with over a thousand edits by now, so no warning was issued. - Cyrus XIII 14:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked – has been blocked for 24 hours for a violation of WP:3RR ~ <font color="#ED9121">Anthøny  (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User:JJonz reported by User:David A (Result:No violation)
, ,
 * Three-revert rule violation on

This user has put into system to relentlessly revert almost any changes inserted into the articles he overviews, no matter how referenced. He refuses to take it to the Talk, is completely unwilling to compromise, has previously been tempbanned for repeatedly using crude insults instead of reason, is completely unimpressed by 3RR warnings, and doesn't provide any improvements/new material whatsoever. He seems to sometimes cooperate with a user named 'CrystalB4'

Here are the versions reverted to during his latest 3RR violations:


 * 13:08, 23 July 2007
 * 13:22, 23 July 2007
 * 13:19, 23 July 2007

Any help with/suggestions about how to permanently put a stop to him would be very appreciated. Many thanks in advance. Dave 15:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears that there are only three reverts provided; four reverts are required to constitude a direct violation of WP:3RR. Please re-read the three-revert rule before proceeding to file any more reports. No violation ~ <font color="#ED9121">Anthøny (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Gerog112 reported by User:Alexia Death (Result:24h)
. : Time reported: 15:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:20, 24 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 14:20, 24 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:44, 24 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:57, 24 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:13, 24 July 2007

Your report will 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: 17:45, 24 July 2007

COMMENT: I suspect this user is a sock of User:kairioun who has been previously making the same edit twice.--Alexia Death 15:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I consider it unlikely. The names' genders don't match, and as a new user, kairioun wouldn't create a new user solely for 3RR. Digwuren 15:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Comment: very probably sock/another account of, who was previously . It is possible that the user is Kairi Õun (--> Kairioun), an advisor for Estonian Minister of Justice, Rein Lang. Sander Säde  15:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My suspicion was based on the identical misspellings in edit summaries. It can be due to a copy-paste tho.--Alexia Death 15:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment 2 This user has reverted/partially blanked the article already twice since this report...--Alexia Death 15:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nine reverts there so far. Threats with police and "I called Florida". Any administrators awake? Sander Säde  15:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ten.--Alexia Death 16:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 48h . 24h. Try to suggest he uses the talk page (and if he believes there's a BLP issue, to take it up with an admin) Unfortunately, I don't understand estonian, so could someone tell me if he has actually said anything (as opposed to copy-pasting an entire policy page)? Thanks. yandman  16:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * He has not. He has threatened us with police and calls to Florida. I have a strong suspicion that his understanding of the English language is limited...--Alexia Death 16:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S: Notice on his user page says 24h.--Alexia Death 16:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoops. yandman  16:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Drop me a message if he continues after the block. yandman  16:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. We will try to talk to him in Estonian to figure out what exactly bothers him.--Alexia Death 17:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Aatomic1 reported by User:Domer48 (Result:Blocked, 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 17:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:09, 22 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 16:28, 24 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:57, 24 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:11, 24 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:13, 24 July 2007
 * 5th revert: 17:15, 24 July 2007
 * 6th revert: 17:19, 24 July 2007


 * Blocked – 24 hours ~ <font color="#ED9121">Anthøny (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Rgfolsom reported by User:Ministry of random walks (Result:Blocked, 8 hours)
. : Time reported: 18:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 1:59, 22 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 16:33, 23 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:41, 23 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:47, 23 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:09 24 July 2007


 * Comment - this editor has just come off a block for breaking the 3RR rule and then violated it again.
 * Comment - It's hard not to see this report as anything but frivolous and a willful misrepresentation of the facts. An administrator lifted the block against me and said that in fact I had not broken 3rr. I posted this information to the Technical analysis talk page at the time of the 4th "revert." User:Ministry of random walks continues to bring an editing dispute here, despite the warning which says "this page is not the place to bring disputes over content..."--Rgfolsom 18:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked – has been blocked for 8 hours for committing a violation of the 3-Revert Rule ~ <font color="#ED9121">Anthøny  (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Melodic Horror reported by User:Hoponpop69 (Result:24 hrs)
. : Time reported: 21:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


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

Your report will 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:


 * Blocked - has been blocked for 24 hours for violating the 3RR rule. -  Krakatoa  Katie  22:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Aatomic1 reported by User:Domer48 (Result:Blocked one week, page protected)
. : Time reported: 23:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

User is currently blocked from editing when the violation on 3RR took place.

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

Result: Although the report is not formatted correctly, blocked one week, page protected by Mangojuice for disruption, rather than necessarily for 3RR. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Snowolfd4 reported by User:watchdogb (result:No block)

 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 15:50, 24 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15:53, 24 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:08, 24 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:35, 24 July 2007

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


 * Comment - Admins, please also note the following disruptive actions by user snowolfd4 his helper, users  who have been repeatedly blanking my well intentioned comments on Wikipedia:Peer review on this page .  They have been constantly blanking my comments in tandem [.  They have also called me edits vandalism and trolling in another instance here,  for saying that the article was not neutral.  The contents they had removed on this page [[LTTE]] had valid citations from reliable sources such as the Hindu.  Also I have added the totally disputed tag, which they keep removing, claiming its trolling and vandalism .  I have provided ample reasoning for addition of the tags. Most troubling, User snowolfd4 and his helper user lahiru_k have not participated and refuses to participate in the discussion regarding the content he keeps deleting on the LTTE page or elsewhere. This is also unacceptable. Administrators please take note of this.  Sinhala freedom 23:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment User has been blocked 3 times before for violating the 3RR. I hope firm action is taken to stop this edit warring. Watchdogb 23:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Verdict - Look the WP:MOS and WP:FAC works on the the notion that it is unnecessary to cite the lead when the info is repeated and expanded upon with refs in the main text. In this case, the content was cited at the bottom and expanded in talking about military aid and assistance. So it just comes back to the fact that you are persistently adding spurious fact tags. So there's no reason for Snowolfd to be blocked when he is following a black and white editing policy and you are not.01:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I searched WP:MOS and can't seem to find what this admin (User:Blnguyen) is referencing. I can't seem to come to the conclusion that this is a "black and white editing policy."  I have been told user Blnguyen has been at odds, involving revert wars with the user Watchdogb in the past.  Incidentally, user User:Blnguyen has blocked user Watchdogb  for this reason and this 'verdict' is very questionable. I would ask another  admin look into this .  Also can you please point out the paragraph in WP:MOS that mentions this.  The point should be made that per, WP:LEAD, the lead paragraph needs to stand on its own.  In this case, the primary reference for most historical points (including where this great king helped Pandya against Cholas) is the Culavamsa (a religious text).  This is like saying Rama burnt down whole of Lanka is  a fact (without any qualifications) based on the reference by the Ramayana.  Historian will have difficulty validating that. Therefore I think its more than valid that fact tags were needed in the article, particularly in the place where Watchdogb had wanted them.  Sinhala freedom 02:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This exactly what it say on WP:LEAD, "It (sic WP:LEAD) should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article." Clearly the sentence in question doesn't have a citation in WP:LEAD and the comparable sentence in the main body doesn't have a citation in the main body.  The main reference for rest of the article is the Culavamsa and I have highlighted my problems with that. So this block is very questionable to say the least.  Sinhala freedom 02:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In general 3RR violations are blocked in order to discourage edit-warring, something I have seen Snowolfd4 do all too much of, with little rationale besides "I don't like it". I would anticipate that if this recurs in the future, it would be dealt with in a more serious way. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 13:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Horlo/User:Hkdd reported by User:Alex Bakharev (Result:48 hours)
. : Time reported: 01:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

User:Horlo is a sockpuppet of User:Hkdd as seen from this edit
 * Previous version reverted to: 19:53, March 22, 2007


 * 1st revert: 07:41, July 24, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 07:57, July 24, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:12, July 24, 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:48, July 24, 2007
 * 5th revert: 01:05, July 25, 2007

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly. 23:40, July 24, 2007
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 23:40, July 24, 2007/


 * Horlo blocked 48 hours (24 for 3RR violation, 24 for first-offense sockpuppetry). Hkdd blocked indefinitely as abusive sockpuppet. Kafziel Talk 05:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Intangible2.0 reported by User:SevenOfDiamonds (Result:3 hours)
. : Time reported: 02:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:45, 24 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 17:05, 24 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:28, 24 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:50, 24 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:09, 24 July 2007

3RR on the article, user is constantly removing the United States from being specified as the ones citing the document as a forgery. Opening sentence is the reversion. --SevenOfDiamonds 02:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A clear cut violation of three-revert rule, but since the user has stopped reverting since some time now, a token block of 3 hours has been applied. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  08:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

User:JJonz reported by User:J Greb (Result:72 hours)
I'm not entierly sure if this should go here or to the main ANI board, please let me know if this needs to be reloacated.

User:JJonz was recently blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violations ad edit warring. Once the block expired and he logged back into edit, he went and reverted the exact same sections of 4 of the 5 articles he's been watching/activly protecting without bothering to take anything to any talk pages.

See relavent history here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JJonz

The affected pages py history are:


 * Wonder Woman http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wonder_Woman&action=history
 * Sentry (Robert Reynolds) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sentry_%28Robert_Reynolds%29&action=history (the minor one of the 5)
 * Powers and abilities of Superman http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Powers_and_abilities_of_Superman&action=history
 * Despero http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Despero&action=history
 * Hulk (comics) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hulk_%28comics%29&action=history

- J Greb 06:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the user more for disruption than violation of 3RR. The duration is 72 hours. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  08:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Levine2112 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result:Protected)
. : Time reported: 14:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 18:34, July 24, 2007 (version reverted to 18:02)
 * 2nd revert: 18:39, July 24, 2007 (same)
 * 3rd revert: 20:18, July 24, 2007 (version reverted to 20:13)
 * 4th revert: 23:18, July 24, 2007 (version reverted to 23:14


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 23:00, January 23, 2007

Comment: There are other possible reverts in that timeframe. I haven't checked whether the three versions reverted to, also by Levine2112, are also reverts. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Page protected as there been too much edit warning by multiple users Jaranda wat's sup 19:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Page protection was a good call, Jaranda. Please note that the diff above don't demonstrate me even violating 2RR. There are four diffs above. Two deal with the "Pfizer" edit. The other two deal with a completely different section. Arthur Rubin's report here seems premature and since he was involved in edit warring himself, highly innapropriate. Thanks again for page protection. This should give us time to discuss/cool off. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 19:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:3RR; it's any four reverts, not necessarily of the same text or the same reason. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content or restoring deleted content, undoing page moves (sometimes called "move warring"), undoing administrative actions (sometimes called "wheel warring"), or recreating a page.

An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted.

Note that consecutive reverts by one editor are often treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule.


 * That's a pretty weak interpretation considering that I was protecting the page from BLP issues. I believe that in BLP, 3RR is irrelevant. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 01:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If there was any BLP issue at all, then it was you who was guilty of breaking the rule by making an unnecessary edit that introduced ambiguous wording that could easily be interpreted by unwary readers to mean that Barrett was acting in association with Pfizer during the interview, which is patently untrue. The ambiguity may not have been obvious to you, because you may not have intended it and therefore been reading it your own way, but others saw it and wanted to prevent the possibility of it being misread by others. We have been discussing this matter quite a bit now and yet you persisted in edit warring and reintroducing the BLP violation. You are the one in violation of BLP, so your defence crumbles and you in fact should get blocked for this edit warring. I have my own 3rr report (coming below) showing your edit warring pattern on another issue, all of this occurring roughly during the same time period. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>/<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 05:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Klaksonn reported by User:AA (Result:Blocked, 48 hours)
. : Time reported: 17:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:30, 24 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 01:34, 25 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:33, 25 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:47, 25 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:52, 25 July 2007

Warning not required as Klaksonn is fully familiar with the 3RR rule since he's been blocked for it before. Nevertheless, I did warn him in between the 3rd and 4th reverts which he chose to ignore.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:47, 25 July 2007

The history of the article shows the long line of reverts done by Klaksonn against multiple editors - not just myself. I have attempted to engage in dialog with him but to no avail.
 * Talk page entry on 12:02, 23 July 2007. Reverted article with no response (20:58, 23 July 2007)
 * Talk page discussion on 21:11, 23 July 2007. Again reverted without discussion (21:13, 23 July 2007).

I am trying to improve the article but unable to do so due to the Klaksonn's attitude to editors who do not support his POV (and has recently been blocked for incivility).

I do not believe Klaksonn is willing to work constructively and is hindering other editors who are trying to do so.

I also request the article be unprotected as no other editors are edit warring. It is only Klaksonn who is doing so with multiple other editors (see endorsement of this view here by an uninvolved editor).
 * Blocked – this is the second WP:3RR-related offence (the first involved extreme edit warring); blocked, 2 days ~ <font color="#ED9121">Anthøny 20:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Realist2 reported by User:YellowTapedR (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 17:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


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

There may be many more reverts in the past 24 hours. User is aware of the three-revert rule. The editor is also threatening anyone who changes his excessive edits, in one case saying, "if you remove citation requests you will be blocked for vandalism. no matter how many there are!!!"

My point is if someone asks for a citation tag, because i need proof, other users cannot simply remove the tag. the complaint made seems to be directed at the number of tags given rather than why they were given. There isnt a limit to how many tags are required surely? If a tag is needed then a tag is needed, if something is unsourced it needs a tag surely?? I am perfectly award that it looks messy but that surely doesnt mean I cant add more tags. If I am in the wrong would an administaror inform me. I have always been under the assumption that you can tag ANY unsourced claim. Please let me no.Realist2 18:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is one of the many example of excessive tagging that editors have taken an issue with:

It featured the single "Without Me", an apparent sequel to "The Real Slim Shady", in which he makes derogatory comments about boy bands[citation needed], Limp Bizkit[citation needed], Moby[citation needed], and Lynne Cheney[citation needed], among others[citation needed]. --YellowTapedR 18:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have already discussed this with another user, the point is because there are so many names given it will be very difficult to find a source that covers them all, however if you find a source that names them all at once then yes obviously all those tags can go. however it might be easier for people to find them individually so all tags must stay. Realist2 18:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I cannot believe this is happening for adding citation tags, its a joke surely. Realist2 18:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I admit there's a lot of garbage on the article that needs sourcing. But you're preventing anyone from slimming down the number of citation requests. One more example:

"Eminem is infamous for the controversy surrounding many of his lyrics[citation needed]. With the enormous success of his highly acclaimed[citation needed] album The Marshall Mathers LP and its subsequent nomination for four Grammy awards[citation needed]including Album of the Year[citation needed], critics such as GLAAD denounced his lyrics as homophobic and misogynist, while others protested that it promoted violence.[3]"

The citation at the end of that paragraph says that he had been nominated for four Grammys, including album of the year, as well as that GLAAD had denounced his lyrics. So, those two requests can be removed, though the inclusion of the phrase "highly acclaimed" is a bit fanboyish and can probably be dropped. The first sentence, about creating controversy through his lyrics, does not need to be cited because it is expanded upon below and in other parts of the article. The fact that he is known as a controversial rapper is not contested by anyone. --YellowTapedR 19:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The links are too confusing, please fix them. Jaranda wat's sup 19:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No action taken – only 3 reverts undertaken by user; 4 are required for a violation ~ <font color="#ED9121">Anthøny 20:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

User:69.135.177.104 reported by User:Citicat (Result:Blocked, 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 18:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:06, July 22, 2007

Reversion reverted to
 * 1st revert: 23:33, July 23, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:26, July 24, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:31, July 24, 2007
 * 4th revert: 22:41, July 24, 2007
 * 5th revert: 23:21, July 24, 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 23:00, July 24, 2007

Anon user insists on inserting text which violates WP:BLP, which has been removed by several users.  Citi Cat  <sup style="color:#000000;"> ♫ 18:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that the offending editor has been reported by me to WP:AIV Jddphd 18:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It happened almost a day ago, if he continues, i'll block Jaranda wat's sup 19:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The anon. user has inserted the text in question again.


 * 6th revert: 22:48, July 25, 2007 Coaster1983 01:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 7th revert: 22:12, July 25, 2007
 * 8th revert: 23:39, July 25, 2007  Citi Cat  <sup style="color:#000000;"> ♫ 03:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 9th revert: 00:05, July 26, 2007. Note that this is the fourth in the last 3 hours. Coaster1983 04:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 10th revert 00:40, July 26, 2007  Citi Cat  <sup style="color:#000000;"> ♫  04:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked – the IP has been blocked by another Administrator ~ <font color="#ED9121">Anthøny 11:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Desiphral reported by User:Jddphd (Result:Blocked, 10 hours)
. : Time reported: 20:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romani_people&oldid=147044303


 * 1st revert: [08:20 25 July 2007]
 * 2nd revert: [18:25 25 July 2007]
 * 3rd revert: [19:32 25 July 2007]


 * Note - I have edited the revert diffs because I incorrectly placed links to the old pages as opposed to showing diffs. Sorry it is my first time doing this. Jddphd 20:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly. (Note that this diff was posted on the talk page at 18:58 since I couldn't sort out the problem with the picture in the article itself.)
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romani_people&oldid=147050059 18:58 25 July 2007

I have tried to resolve this with the editors as I stumbled across the page on vandalism duty.


 * I mention that one of the users gave up and the other did not bother to answer to my points (in fact even now there is not specific answer) while continuing to edit. Thus I felt entitled to put back the non-prejudicial photo. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 20:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, there was a suspected sockpuppet that was editing, not one of the editors embroiled in the dispute. I gave the 3RR warning and you made a further edit. There is a good compromise on the table and you need to work it out with them IMO. Jddphd 20:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't get what has to do the sockpuppet with the photo issue. I said something about those two users who supported the prejudicial photo. There are different things. The sockpuppet deleted other things. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 20:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You were the only person who made a change after the 3RR notification. Jddphd 20:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As long as the others gave up or refused to discuss? Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 20:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There was a proposal on the table and the other editor had to go home. Plus the response to your actions by the other editor suggests he/she didn't feel there had been a consensus that had been reached. Jddphd 20:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Then why Anonymous did not comment, while continuing to edit? And Hayden said hope this is sorted by the time I get home, refusing also to discuss. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 20:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand is GMT+12, and I start work at 8:00am. As much as I'd like to be on wiki all day, it's just not possible. However I don't think this whole debate had to spill onto the 3RR board, and while it may have broken 3RR guidelines, some editors tend to be a bit trigger happy with the admin noticeboard etc. --Hayden5650 11:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked – the user has been blocked for 10 hours for a 3RR violation ~ <font color="#ED9121">Anthøny 12:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Levine2112 reported by User:Fyslee (Result:Blocked, 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 05:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:19, 24 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 22:13, 24 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:18, 24 July 2007
 * 3rd (A) revert: 01:10, 25 July 2007
 * 3B revert: 01:12, 25 July 2007
 * 3C revert: 01:13, 25 July 2007
 * 3D revert: 01:14, 25 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 01:18, 25 July 2007

The above can be counted as four reverts or as seven reverts (they all have to do with reverting or revising the same stuff).

This occurred at roughly the same time period as his edit warring reported above by admin Arthur Rubin.


 * Levine2112 is not a new user, so no warning is necessary.
 * Blocked – 1 day (second offense) ~ <font color="#ED9121">Anthøny 11:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

User:68.161.131.205 and User:Eleemosynary reported by User:Crockspot (Result:Users blocked for disruption, 24 hours)
., : Time reported: 05:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Article edit history

Both editors were edit warring earlier in the evening, both violating 3RR. Now they have settled into a debate, making null edits to the article and using the summary as their forum. Both users appear to be aware of 3RR policy. Maybe they can just be told to knock it off.
 * Blocked – the user and the IP have been blocked for 1 day each for disruption ~ <font color="#ED9121">Anthøny 12:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Strich3d reported by User:Mr. Neutron (Result: Various length blocks on 4 users)
. : Time reported: 16:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:15, 25 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 09:05, 26 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15:18, 26 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:58, 26 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:00, 26 July 2007


 * The user has been removing sourced information against consensus and pushed sourced information on this article. He has done so in the past two months, continuously reverting, the same pattern has established on Bulgarians and Macedonians (ethnic group), removing without due explaination and against consensus. He has not used the discussion page since May 18th this year. He has been blocked already 4 times for 3RR, the last time for a week. Mr. Neutron 16:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

User:71.28.206.73 reported by User:Videmus Omnia (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Time reported: 22:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Time reported: 22:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Blocked for 3RR. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User:SqueakBox reported by User:Seicer (Result:page protected)
. : Time reported: 02:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 26 July 2007


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Comment - a little looking at this user's contribs will show a problem with problematic edit-warring on multiple articles, not just this one. There are a couple of reports on this user on WP:ANI, as well. Videmus Omnia Talk  02:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The edit warring is quite extensive, over the time period of several days, but this is the second case of edit abuse on WP:AN3 -- a bad sign IMO.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 02:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And the block log shows at least one other 3RR incident. Videmus Omnia Talk  02:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:ANI and WP:ANI  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 02:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been saying since Sunday that this user is problematic. Now we're into Thursday and still is.  The administrators need to wake up.  Fighting for Justice 02:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The admins are wide awake and your comment would only maske sense if you were in the right which the warnings on your user page negate. This will go on as long as you keep trying to break policy, SqueakBox 02:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have protected the page. Tom Harrison Talk 02:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You have been blocked for edit-warring far more times then me. I'm in this for the long haul as well, so don't worry I'm not going anywhere.   Fighting for Justice 02:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been blocked and quickly unvblockerd twice a long time ago so your comment isnt true, and besides I am merely imposing our policies and defending the famileis of rape victims. I have never been blcoked for a BLP violation. And I dont make sickening edit comments that appear designed to harrass rape victims, please dont either. If you are in for the long haul we need dispute resolution or, if you like, we could take this directly to arbcom, SqueakBox 02:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is suppose to be neutral and uncensored. You are not imposing our policies, you are imposing your moral views.  No body appointed you the defender of rape crime victims. Fighting for Justice 03:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong, I've been here a long time and I have a good understanding of policy, though I understand you dont like it. Nobody appoints anybody to edit here and I certainly dont need your pernmissionm to edit, you have been warned about claiming articles as your own and yet your persist in your behaviour. Please desist. Wikipedia neutrality doesnt mean neutrality between perpetrator and victim, it means expressing the common view which is that rapist are in the wrong, 100% responsible for their crimes (she made me do it is no defence) and that victims are entitled to privacy because they are victims, SqueakBox 03:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No one needs to be told the rapist are wrong. We naturally know that murder and rape is wrong.  The law has punishments for it.  this is what neutral really means.  I suggest you read it.  Privacy is a moot point with neutrality.  You also make being a victim sound shameful.  You are in the wrong about that.  All the shame goes to the perpetrator.  Fighting for Justice 04:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Point of Order This is not a discussion forum, as noted quite explicitly on the top of the page. — Kurykh  04:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Lear 21 reported by User:RCS (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 07:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Comment : Lear 21, just emerged from a weeek-long block, has been reverting senselessly all day long yesterday and keeps on today, in spite of 's best efforts to guide him towards the talk page in order to discuss matters first. A desperate case. --RCS 08:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please provide diffs showing more than three reverts within 24 hours. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, here is a sample :, , , ... RCS 08:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

There has been no violation of 3RRR not even 2RRR! User:RCS made a provocative and unbased accusation of user Lear 21, who is one of the most frequent contributer to the EU talk page (162 edits: see my record on the userpage). The accusation tries to imply a connection to a recently blocked account. This block itself will be subject of further discussion about wether this block was an abuse of administrator rights. User:RCS has never appeared on the talk page himself. Lear 21 08:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The EU page is working to a stable version. Lear 21 is far from the most frequent contributor to the talk page and if he does his comments usually are not looking for consensus. What happened yesterday is that after a month of careful editing of the article by several editors in good harmony (among whom myself), Lear 21 reappeared after some time of absence and started to "reinstate" several sections, images etc. Without discussion, without informative edit summaries. When these revisions were reverted (by several editors), Lear re-reverted or reinserted his changes, time after again. In the end I reinstated the last version before this started (yesterday morning). All the editors reverting Lear's edits have left extensive rationale (and apologising for the mess caused by the frequent reverts) on the talk page; Lear only added a very short line. The fact that several editors apparently disagreed and took the effort to argue why has not stopped Lear, nor has he looked for any kind of ocnsensus (and gave edit summaries like: This is standard no reason for change needed).
 * Although the letter of the 3RR may not be violated (as the sections that were reinserted where often subtly reprhased, or different sections where reinserted at once), I think this whole issue is a demonstration of a violation of the spirit of the 3RR rule. Whether the reporter of this is a frequent editor or not is not relevant. Arnoutf 09:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Arnoutf. — Nightstallion 11:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of a block for 3RR, someone should initiate/file WP:RfAr or some other form of dispute resolution. It may be a long process, but its worth it. Nat Tang ta 10:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any violation of the 3RR here, diffs are only provided for three reverts. If talking it out can't resolve it, I would advise everyone involved to seek mediation or an article RfC rather than edit warring. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would prefer the talking solution, the problem is that Lear21 is not really talking in that while he occasionally posts on the talk page he is hardly listening to what others say; but this is not the place for such arguments. Arnoutf 12:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It was primarily myself and lear who were involved in the edit war so I don't think my voice can count for much here, but I did try to take it to the talk page and if you look my arguments have been outlined on several occasions as I sought support for them. During my edit war with him he made only one comment there. I even took it to his talk page attempting to seeks a ceasefire and discussion on it, myself relenting first I might add, but as soon as I stopped he seemed to have no interest in discussion. You do what you think needs to be done, I just want some stability, but without giving in to a single editors views. -  J Logan t: 12:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Lanternix reported by User:Taharqa (Result: 48 hours each)
. : Time reported: 08:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:25, 27 July 2007

Reverts the statue representation (image) of St. Mauris, undermining all previous edits:
 * 1st revert: 07:25, 27 July 2007

Does it again:
 * 2nd revert: 07:38, 27 July 2007

And again: 3rd revert: 07:41, 27 July 2007

Again:

4th Revert: 07:45, 27 July 2007

To me, this is an obvious case of Vandalism (based on his/her so-called reasons for reverting which I will quote) and stems from a racially biased motivation, which was stated by the person themselves, after providing no source. If you'd check the history, this person is responsible for past edit wars on this page, refuses to discuss the topic, is belligerent, and racially motivated in his/her actions.

A quote from this person on why he/she is reverting. This is from the talk page:

''Saint Maurice is an Egyptian and Egyptians were never black. End of story''

^It's out of context but this basically sums it up imo.. The user isn't being reasonable at all and I suggest they be blocked for stagnating the progression of articles on wikipedia and racial bias/personal attacks. As can be seen on the talk page.Taharqa 08:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Both editors violated 3RR, both have a history of edit warring, 48 hours each. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Max rspct reported by User:Ultramarine (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 15:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:25, 26 July 2007
 * 1st revert: 18:44, 26 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:30, 26 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:26, 27 July
 * 4th revert: 14:53, 27 July 2007
 * Knows the rule, blocked previously

24 hours after seeing a fifth revert Jaranda wat's sup 19:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Vasconcello da Gama reported by User:EEMeltonIV (Result:Indef)
and : Time reported: 18:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: Jedi Exile 05:54 27 July - reverted to this version eight times, one of them since I placed a 3RR warning on his talk page.

Has also reverted to earlier version of after I placed the warning, and has done 3RR+ (but not since I placed the warning) on, ,.

This is a new account, but use of Undo and selectivity of edits, citing removal of spam from other articles, makes me think it's a sock.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 14:16 27 July

Indef, likely sock Jaranda wat's sup 19:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User:I need a name reported by User:Vasconcello da Gama (Result:No block)
and : Time reported: 18:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Has also reverted to earlier version of after EEMelton IV placed the warning, and has done 3RR+ (but not since he placed the warning) on, ,.

I need a name has made massive use of Undo and selectivity of edits.

Diff of 3RR warning http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:I_need_a_name&diff=147497676&oldid=147418867


 * Has also reverted to earlier version of after EEMelton IV placed the warning
 * This is incorrect. I placed a 3RR warning at 14:16; User:I need a name's last edit to that or any other of these disputed articles was at 14:09. User:Vasconcello da Gama is one of the two editors going back-and-forth on these ones (see entry above), but unlike I need a name has done several reverts since being warned. --EEMeltonIV 18:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No block considering the circumstances, (likely vandalism by likely sock) Jaranda wat's sup 19:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User:218.133.184.93 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 18:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:35, July 27, 2007
 * 1st revert: 08:23 July 27, 2007
 * Previous version reverted to: 17:49, July 27, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:52, July 27, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:56, July 27, 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:17, July 27, 2007

Your report will 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: 17:23, July 20, 2007

Comment: I would have violated 3RR also, if you don't ignore the self-revert. I don't think 18:08, July 27, 2007, constitutes even a partial revert. On the other hand, the anon's 17:49 may also be a partial revert. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 24 hours, and if you didn't self-revert it would have been 24 hours for you too, but you did so. Jaranda wat's sup 19:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Frikkers reported by User:VanTucky (Result:Blocked, 8 hours)
Three revert rule violation on the Boerboel article on July 27, 2007. time reported 23:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC) User has been warned for deletions/blanking on this article previously (see talk page history, user blanked own talk).

VanTucky (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1st reversion 03:57 July 27, 2007
 * 2nd reversion 22:51 July 27, 2007
 * 3rd reversion 22:55 July 27, 2007
 * 4th reversion 23:42 July 27, 2007


 * Rejected. Only 3 revisions (actually, only 3 edit sequences) in the 24 hour period, no sign of blocks or recent warning (or 3RR warning of any sort).  You may reinsert if a 4th revert occurs after a 3RR warning.  (Blanking ones own talk page is specifically allowed.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I only mentioned the talk blank so you would know where to look for the warnings. Thank you Arthur. VanTucky  (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now added a fourth reversion without discussion today. VanTucky (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked – 8 hours, for a first-time violation of WP:3RR ~ Anthøny  00:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

User:DavidShankBone reported by User:Chichichihua (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 00:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


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


 * No violation. First revert looks like it was undoing vandalism. Both User:Chichichihua and User:DavidShankBone are very close to violating the rule however, and I caution both against further reverts. WjBscribe 00:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree I am close to violating the 3RR. We have an editor who has come out of nowhere and continually changing a long-standing lead photograph on the Chihuahua page.  With a poor-quality photograph that has been eschewed on the page.  Somehow this "newbie" not only knows the file name of this other photograph, where to find it's uploader, but also how to report 3RR violations?  Two regular editors have reverted and engaged the editor, who continues to revert.  At this point, it's pretty much vandalism. The editor has become emotionally-charged on their Talk page. --David Shankbone 00:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * first revert was not undoing vandalism. someone thought that the osbourne's dog "mimi" wasn't famous enough to be on the page and removed it.  reasonable, since other sites say this dog is named "martin" then davidshankbone re-entered it.   four reverts it is.  Chichichihua 00:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made my decision. The deletion was unexplained and I believe David was within his rights to interpret it as vandalism. WjBscribe 00:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds spot on to me, we shouldnt ever use policies to support people trolling good editors, which is what was obviously happening here, SqueakBox 00:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

===User:Robinepowell reported by User:Tango (Result: 24 Hours - per by Jaranda)=== . : Time reported: 01:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: Something a long way back, this edit war has been going on for some time. These are the most recent reverts:


 * 1st revert: 17:15, 27 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:11, 27 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:35, 27 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:16, 28 July 2007

This user has repeated replaced "Vancouver, Canada" with "Vancouver, British Columbia" despite multiple users reverting and requesting discussion. --Tango 01:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Someguy0830 reported by User:66.92.74.246 (Result:Blocked, 48 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * I added a minor edit to a section title, making it easier to find information contained within a sub-page in Ben 10. Someguy0830 has continually reverted it to what he has decided is 'correct' without getting any other reader's feedback.  He then threatened me twice, which is shown on my IP address user page.  I responded to his threats saying that I was making a usability change and that he was not the sole editor of the entry.   If you look through the entry's history you'll see that Someguy0830 has reverted many, many people's entries whenever he doesn't like them.  07:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: Please show diffs. Nat Tang ta 08:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This is for 3RR violations only, for simple vandalism complants, please go to WP:AIV. Nat Tang ta 08:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: The "Threats" mentioned by the IP are UW warning templates. Nat Tang ta 08:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: was issued a 3RR warning: . Nat Tang ta 08:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked – has been blocked for 2 days for a serious, second-time breach of the 3-Revert Rule. This was partly due to the information given here; however, in future please fill out a request here as directed at the bottom of the page, or your report may be ignored ~  Anthøny  13:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see also the reverse - the IP's broken the rule and properly warned too. (See   Will (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The page has been fully-protected, pending dispute resolution (which will now be advised for both the IP and account) ~ Anthøny  17:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked – the IP has been blocked for 10 hours, for a WP:3RR violation ~ Anthøny  18:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

User:G2bambino reported by Lonewolf BC (Result: No block)
. : Time reported: 22:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:47, 27 July in first two reverts. Otherwise, see the individual reverts.


 * 1st revert: 01:30, 28 July, to 18:47, 27 July
 * 2nd revert: 12:53, to 18:47, 27 July (then a consecutive edit, 12:55, 28 July)
 * 3rd revert: 16:54, to 12:55, 28 July (then further consecutive edits to 17:01)
 * 4th revert: 17:17, to 17:01 (then further consecutive edits to 17:22)
 * 5th revert: 22:44 (well after this report was first made, and notice of it given)


 * Note: was not issued a 3RR warning, only informed that he was reported. Nat Tang ta 22:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note The other users (User:Lonewolf BC and User:Jonathan David Makepeace) were performing direct, unreasoned, undiscussed, and abbrasive reverts of mostly long-standing material, lacking any demonstration of cooperation. In the meantime I have tried to address JDM's concerns after he finally provided some reasoning at Talk:Monarchy in Canada.  Lonewolf, I suspect, has been attempting to entrap me in a 3RR breach.  Anyway, I'll consider this the warning that was never placed on my talk. --G2bambino 22:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Only new users have to be warned. Experienced users are expected to know the rules. --Tango 23:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. A user that has been blocked less than 2 weeks ago for WP:3RR should know the rules.--Stephan Schulz 23:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope the complexity of this matter will be taken into consideration; ie. each and every edit by all three parties involved. I hope it will then be seen that I was indeed working to protect the content from mostly counter-policy, unexplained, tag-team reverts, and after each of my own reverts immediately worked properly, unlike the other users' blatant deletions, to reword the content to address the concerns of one of the other users. I have, in fact, seemed to have now placated User:Jonathan David Makepeace, thus, I hope, resolving the issue. --G2bambino 00:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Article protected for one week. Enjoy your weekend, gentlemen, and loom for common ground before resuming editing. If further edit-wars ensue, I will not hesitate to block all participants. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

User:DavidShankBone reported by User:Chichichihua (Result: )
.
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


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


 * was warned about behavior but continues to revert to an image of his own silly looking dog, which he claims is a "champion chihuahua" Chichichihua 22:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: was not issued a 3RR warning. Nat Tang ta 22:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

WJBscribe already decided on this report. Chichichihua, keep putting it back until you get the answer you want, and it's you that's likely to be blocked for disruption. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

this is a new report, this user continued reverting after the last warning from wjbscribe Chichichihua 06:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is my belief that User:Chichichihua is only interested in disruptive behavior. First, this editor continually tried to replace the lead photograph on the Chihuahua page with one that is of far inferior quality.  It is interesting that out of all the photographs this editor could have chosen from the other Chihuahuas on the page, they chose the very photograph that the Talk:Chihuahua page discuss in particular as being one of the poorer quality images.  Not only is there consensus about the lead, there is consensus on the Talk page to not use the photograph User:Chichichihua wants to use.  Then this editor canvassed the editor who uploaded the photograph, who is now also engaging in an edit war.  This editor has been warned on their talk page, has been warned by an admin about edit warring, and continues their disruptive behavior.  I would like to point out that this behavior is similar to my months-long battle with an IP troll, who is now a banned user.  --David Shankbone 16:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

whatever. this is plain and simple four reverts in 24 hours to put up a picture of your pet which isn't even a pure chihuahua! you were given the benefit of the doubt before but now you are just revert warring. Chichichihua 23:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur completely with David's assessment of the situation. It is not a simple case of him reverting to his own pet image either, for the above reasons, and that I also have undone Chichichihua's disruptive edits on the article several times. Reverting an obvious vandal is not a violation of the 3RR.  VanTucky  (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah I'll go with David and Van Tuckey, both of whom have considerable better edit histories than Chichichihua in this case. David strikes me as a good faith editor with knowledge of chihuahuas, so edit away, mate, SqueakBox 23:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

according to the vandalism page, Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. is putting this image up compromising the integrity of wikipedia? anyone would recognize it as a chihuahua. Chichichihua 03:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a compromise of Wikipedia's integrity when you choose an image that has been decided though consensus to be unsuitable, and repeatedly add it without a single reasonable attempt to create a new consensus about it. Repeatedly adding counterproductive, low-quality images without any discussion is disruptive to say the least. VanTucky (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

sorry vantucky, your definition of vandalism is not what i see on the policy page. it also doesn't describe the situation. there is at least one other user which supports using the image to the right over the boston terrier mix that is there now. you know this because you've reverted his work. here's when to apply the "vandalism" exception: according to 3rr 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. Chichichihua 03:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Chichichihua has now: 1. Edit warred; 2. been incivil; 3. removed an admins remarks on this noticeboard; 4. canvassed; 5. disregarded all attempts at civil engagement; 6. plastered an image on at least three pages; and 7. been told they are being disruptive on the admin board by bringing up multiple 3RR cases. Could an admin address this editor's disruptive behavior, please? --David Shankbone 04:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Flavius_Belisarius reported by User:VartanM (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 05:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 09:08, July 28, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 10:46, July 28, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:00, July 28, 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:10, July 28, 2007


 * has already been blocked 48 hours, for revert warring
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The first revert was a revert of User:Anatolmethanol, who is a sock of the banned User:Fadix. Reversions of banned editors do not count toward the three-revert rule. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Chubeat8/User:216.198.139.38 reported by User:Proabivouac (Result:blocks)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . /: Time reported: 05:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:04:57, 28 July 200705:00, 28 July 2007
 * 1st revert:15:22, 28 July 200716:08, 28 July 2007
 * 2nd revert:21:48, 28 July 2007
 * 3rd revert:02:08, 29 July 2007
 * 4th revert:03:54, 29 July 2007


 * Diffs of 3RR warnings:02:27, 29 July 200704:39, 29 July 2007


 * That these are the same user, already transparent, is clearly demonstrated here: Note the "KAWAKIBI" identity in addition to Chubeat; also "Jean-François Lafleure." Besides the multiple identities and revert spree, this user has been very uncivil to all; see Talk:Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz, edit summaries. Based on my limited contact with this individual, it seems most unlikely that he/she will ever be a productive contributor.Proabivouac 05:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This page is for reporting 3RR violations only, for reporting suspected sockpuppets or suspected use of sockpuppets, please go to Suspected sock puppets. --Nat Tang ta 05:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nat.tang, it is a 3RR report. Anon does not hide that he/she is Chubeat8 (among others):.Proabivouac 05:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, go and find an admin and he or she will probably block the user for distruptive editing and sockpuppetry. Nat Tang ta 05:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is one of the Administrators' noticeboards.Proabivouac 06:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Update: For whatever reason, Nat.tang opened an RfCU on this obvious case, which was, of course, "confirmed."Proabivouac 20:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That is pretty obvious. The user is blocked, and I blocked the ip for disruptive edit-warring. Tom Harrison Talk 20:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Snowolfd4 reported by User:Jayjg (Result:48h)
. : Time reported: 06:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:20:15, 27 July 2007
 * 1st revert: 19:16, 28 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:16, 28 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 05:13, 29 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 05:46, 29 July 2007
 * 5th revert: 06:06, 29 July 2007
 * In the first two edits he reverts in (as he admits "for the umpteenth time") the description "pro-LTTE" to describe the Tamil daily Uthayan. The next three are simple reversions of other editors' edits, using the "undo" feature. He has been blocked several times before for 3RR, so he's well aware of the policy. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless you haven't noted, the first two reverts were clearly adding cited content back to the article (the words "pro-LTTE" are directly used in the citation), and User:Black Falcon, who removed the words while making grammatical edits had no objections in me adding them back. --<font color="#9696A0" face="Tahoma">snowolf<font color="#0A0096">D4  ( <font color="#339966">talk  / <font color="#CC0099"> @   ) 06:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This is not the place to be discussing a dispute, please continue discussion elsewhere such as a user talk page. Nat Tang ta 06:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three reverts are three reverts, it was clearly not a revertion of a simple vandalism. I gave 48h as it is not the first 3RR block of the user Alex Bakharev 06:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is unfair. A simple 1 or 2 hr block would have sufficed considering the circumstances.  Jayjg's behaviour has been despicable and he's insisting on things that come across as extraordinarily ridiculous and weird.  He is making up his own policies on the fly and trying to browbeat editors there.  Sarvagnya 06:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * He didn't make up WP:3RR. Arrow740 07:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I didnt say he was making up WP:3RR. I was only saying that rapping snowolf for some grammar mistakes and for reverting vandalism is hardly fair.  Sarvagnya 07:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Taking a closer look, there really is no 5 reverts at all! There are only 3 reverts that can be seen as revert warring. The first two are actually two edits in a series of edits by multiple editors and was done only to fix the grammar. What happened was Black Falcon removed a part of the sentence because it was not grammatically correct. Snowolf fixed the grammar and brought it back. It took a couple of edits to do this and even Black Falcon didnt complain!! Jayjg presenting it as part of revert warring on snowolf's part is downright despicable. I request the admins to unblock snowolf. Sarvagnya 07:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it was 5 reverts. 3 were done to revert the Lead paragraph to the user's earlier edit. The other 2 was done to put the article to what the user has edited to earlier. So, in essence, eventhough he did not directly revert the same paragraph, the user reverted the article to what he had written earlier 5 times. Sarvaganya, please refrain from attacking other editors. Please read WP:NPA and do not make statements like "Jayjg's behaviour has been despicable and he's insisting on things that come across as extraordinarily ridiculous and weird. He is making up his own policies on the fly and trying to browbeat editors there". PS.Jayjg did not block user. He followed wikipedia procedures. Thanks Watchdogb 13:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Hu12 reported by User:Sunray (Result:Discussion moved to WP:ANI)
. : Time reported: 09:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 2007-07-28T18:26:28
 * 2nd revert: 2007-07-28T18:35:30
 * 3rd revert: 2007-07-28T18:59:06
 * 4th revert: 2007-07-28T19:38:11


 * This is an attempt by me to organize a poll. I request that those responding keep their vote separate from the discussion (i.e., vote in one section and discuss in another). After the discussion begins to get going in the "Poll" section, I simply remove the discussion to a discussion section, above. He ignores my explanation and reverts. I continue to try to explain he continues to revert, with malice (e.g., ordering me: "DO NOT REMOVE other people's cmments!" (which I didn't) and to "CEASE refactoring other peoples commentss"). In the process, the poll is completely disrupted. Sunray 09:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm...just a FYI...Hu12's an sysop, so blocking him would be fruitless...because he could simply unblock himself. Nat Tang ta 09:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * → I think this was done to make a WP:POINT and Very likley a personal attack
 * → '' See also : Talk:Straw-bale_construction
 * → '' See also : Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
 * → '' See also : Talk:Straw-bale_construction
 * → '' See also : Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jul


 * Revisions to remove simple and obvious vandalism do no violate the Three-revert rule and are the Exception to WP:3RR. Under Discussion page vandalism Where "An obvious exception would be moving posts to a proper place" . this was not at all the case with  User:Sunray edits. User:Sunray was intentionaly moving discussions away from their intended place (see below for diffs), and in doing so is considered vandalism. Even after repeated attempts in edit summaries, and in discussion to prevent the removal of these discussions, this behavior continued. I'll add also, based on the direction of consensus currently (based on policies WP:EL and WP:RS), which is opposite of User:Sunray's position) this may even qualify as possibly Sneaky vandalism, which involves reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the consensus/poll process, as there seems to no other legitamate reason for the actions. --Hu12 10:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Three-revert rule violation by User:Sunray on.
 * 1st revert: 23:08, 28 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 01:35, 29 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 01:45, 29 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 02:18, 29 July 2007


 * Being active in the discussion portion of the page, and being the one reverting the vandalism, it would be more appropriate for another sysop to make the block. Obviously this was prompted by the filing of Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. It is worth noting that User:Sunray has been blocked in the past for making personal attacks. Thank you--Hu12 11:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Discussion continues here – Administrators noticeboard/Incidents. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  15:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Two brief observations on what Hu12 has said:
 * It is curious that he now thinks that I've violated WP:3RR. When he made a report at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents he said that I was "dangerously becomming close to a 3RR violation [sic]." (i.e., not a 3RR violation). I have made no edits to the page in question since then.
 * Point taken that a block might not be feasible since he is an admin. However, his actions do require some sort of sanction, IMO. I have no wish to escalate this further, so my report here will stand. Sunray 17:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:RPA, It might be better to not refactor if there is any kind of voting going on. Tampering with comments that are attached to votes may be perceived as in some way tampering with the vote itself. There is also the possibility that refactoring will make disreputable users think that it's ok to change someone’s comments and so abuse this policy. Of course bad edits by people abusing the policy may easily be reverted.--Hu12 06:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

User:203.87.127.18 reported by User:CJ (Result:Blocked 24h)
. : Time reported: 12:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Soft blocked for now. Next time please include the DIFFTIME.--Hu12 12:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

User:SG-17 reported by User:Naruto134 (Result:Blocked 24h)
. : Time reported: 15:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC) SG-17 keeps putting a vehicle section on the Godzilla: Unleashed page that is not needed and not important and he thinks if he puts sources, the section says. But the section is not important and keeps ignoring my warnings that I will report him. The Godzilla pages do not have a section that talks about vehicles in the game. --Naruto134 15:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:

User:Timber99 reported by User:WrestlefnLI (Result: No Action see comment)
. : Time reported: 22:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:18, 29 July 2007


 * 1st revert: User blanked page 19:45, 29 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:13, 29 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:28, 29 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:36, 29 July 2007
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:05, 29 July 2007 22:26, 29 July 2007

Timber99 has no other contributions other than the blanking of the Professional wrestling aerial techniques page, and then the undoing of each revert I had made to put the page back to my last edit. User account was created exactly 1 hour after I made an edit to this page, and user blanked the page 3 minutes after my edit posted. After I undid user's revision, Timber99 undid my version to the version prior to my original edit. I had stated on the talk page that I did not want an edit war, afterwhich Timber99 accused me of attacking them. I had added valid content which was sourced, unlike much of the content on that page, including the version they keep reverting to. The section I added was well-sourced, but the section Timber99 keeps reverting to contains 1 source which appears to be from a fan page. Timber99 feels I need to prove my information using reliable sources, while they defend the current content which contains one non-reliable source. If it needs to go to a review I am confident that my edit should stand. WrestlefnLI 22:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I initially indef blocked Timber99 as a vandal based on his first couple of edits but when I went back to check I realised that this was an editing dispute with a new user who was finding the interface a struggle. I have therefore rescinded the block with apologies. Had I done my homework I would have simply said editing dispute seems to have moved to talk page. No further action required. Spartaz Humbug! 09:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I left this on your Talk page as well: Hey Spartaz, as I am sure you are aware there was a problem with the new user Timber99 on the page Professional wrestling aerial techniques. In the event that this user continued to revert the edits that I made to a move with references. I saw you initially blocked him, then unblocked him feeling that it went to a Talk page... however he again not only reverted the page again (after your reverted back to my edit), he added this to my talk page:

"According to what you wrote on my page, there is a rule about making an edit which goes back to anold version more than 3 times in 24 hours. You're currently at 3 so im giving u aheads up. please be more careful in the future not to engage in "edit wars." i explained on talk page why it is important to get a discussion going about this change ebfore it is made"

Furthermore, he continues to refuse to sign any of his messages and it seems as though this is a user may be a sockpuppet who created this account in order to not blemish his own user account. Not accusing, although he/she seems to know a little more than the regular 'novice' user. Could you please help me with this situation, because it is getting ridiculous. Also note, there are absolutely no edits made by Timber99 other than reverting my edits on a well thought out & referenced change made by me. I did everything possible including adding a friendly Welcome tag to his talk page, and tried to discuss the issue... Please help!!! WrestlefnLI 16:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note to other admins, I have this in hand. Both editors are quite new and need some guidence. No further action required at 3RR. Spartaz Humbug! 18:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Watchdogb reported by User:Lahiru_k (Result: No action, see comment)
. : Time reported: 00:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:58, July 29, 2007


 * 1st revert: 05:47, July 29, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:53, July 29, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 13:32, July 29, 2007
 * 4th revert: 22:57, July 29, 2007

No warn given since this user was blocked for disruptive editing two times previously. This user has performed more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour in Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka page as a clear violation of WP:3RR. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  00:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The 3rd evidence you have shown is not a revert. I took that off because it was there from before and no reason was given. Also there was another Totally disputed tags above that one. This is not violating 3 RR because I only reverted 2 edits that other editors thought were redundant and POV. The last revert was on a the fact that there was allready a disputed tags put on the opening paragraph of the body of the article Watchdogb 00:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Whats the point in having 2 "The neurality and accuracy of this article is disputed" in the same article ? Taking that off is not reverting.... It's called cleaning up the article. Thanks Watchdogb 01:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Rules say "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". However, I have only reverted 3 times (2 of same material and 1 of a different). The 3 revert given on this evidence is not a revert... It is clean up of the article. Watchdogb 01:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, you undid the insertion of the tag twice and undid the insertion of the sentence twice that makes four reverts within 24 hours neither of which was reverting simple vandalism. If you were cleaning up the article then you have to state that in the edit summary or in talkpage. But not in this way.-- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  01:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I only reverted the tags ONCE thus bringing the total of reverts to 3. Also note Abuse of tags. There was actually 3 Totally disputed tags applied to the article. One was taken off but 2 remained. That's why I deleted it. How can an article be placed with 2 of these tags ? As it clearly says "This articles..." Watchdogb 01:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Pleae see vandalism. Abusing the tags are vandalism.


 * If you think that adding several TotallyDisputed to the article is tag abusing then you could replace them with Totally-disputed-section. After someone make a 3RR report, crying over here to justify your edits doesn't make any sense.-- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  04:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Reverting is undoing another editors contributions, which is what you did twice in removing the tags. And this is not the proper way to say '' I'm gonna remove the tags since they are duplications;
 * 13:32, July 29, 2007 Watchdogb (Talk | contribs) (8,232 bytes) (→Involuntary disappearances - whats disputed here ? Check discussion
 * 22:57, July 29, 2007 Watchdogb (Talk | contribs) (8,142 bytes) (Undid revision 147939377 by Lahiru k (talk)what does LTTE have to do with the allegation by AHRC? Care to discuss please ?)
 * Hope you understand everything very clearly. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  01:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Example :Administrators%27 noticeboard/3RR -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  01:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

One quick look at that talk page will explain why that tag was added. And in any case, this is a open and shut case of violating 3RR. If snowolf can be blocked 48 hrs for correcting grammar, then I feel watchdog deserves a longer block for revert warring with content. Sarvagnya 01:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is not violation in taking off vandalism. Please take a look at abusing the tags. I left that on the edit summery as WP:AGF and did not want to call anyone a Vandal. I asked why it was disputed so that if someone can provide reason then its better to add "section is disputed tags" or "Fact" tags. Thats why I asked for a discussion so that I can add proper tags so that the article can be fixed Watchdogb 01:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please take a look at this Jossi's taking off this tags. Even he thinks its not addressed. Thus he took it off also. This is also clean up as mine was. Check his edit summery  rm disputed tags. If there are specific issues to be addressed, please explain in talk . Thanks Watchdogb 02:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Now it's too late. Werther you explained rolling on floor doesn't make any sense since you have violated the basics of WP:3RR;
 * "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time."
 * In Administrators%27 noticeboard/3RR Snowolfd4 blocked for 48h just for fixing grammar. There even you made a comment. So hope you understand the policy even better than me. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪   walkie-talkie  04:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * User snowolfd4 did more than "fix grammar" he reverted. He was not removing vandalism. However, I was. If you see an earlier version here where there are 3 "This article is disputed" tags. This is blalent abuse of the tags. One was taken off but the user who took off one forgot to take off another. So, I came along to fix it thats it. Watchdogb 11:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no violation here. The 2nd and 3rd reverts are consecutive edits by the same user, which according to policy, is to be considered an one revert. So, there are only 3 reverts. Policy states: Note that consecutive reverts by one editor are often treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule Lotlil 05:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Amadscientist reported by Atropos (Result: Article protected, participants admonished)
. : Time reported: 02:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Previous version reverted to: 18:03, 27 July 2007
 * First reversion: 17:21 29 July 2007 and 17:22 29 July 2007 (No edit summaries; though he did not directly revert the edit the change was identical to a revert, except for a small addition)
 * Second reversion: 18:27, 29 July 2007 (The consensus on the talk page and the consensus achieved after your edit war)
 * Third reversion: 18:37, 29 July 2007 (No edit summary)
 * Fourth reversion: 18:59, 29 July 2007 (I gave my reason previously. It has not changed. After the first edit back you should have left it and attempted to change the consensus. You are edit warring.)

I warned him in my edit summary of my third revert that we had both reached our limit. In the words of Newyorkbrad, "this is clearly one of the silliest edit-wars ever," but Amadscientist seems unwilling to compromise with me. Atropos 02:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would not normally comment on this sort of thing, but I believe it should be pointed out that Atropos is simply not editing in good faith. He made an edit that went against consensus. I edited it back to where it was and went to the talk page where he immediately accused me of both personal attacks and being uncivil. He clearly has returned to the page to start a second edit war and his first edit summery bears this out. I believe Atropos should be blocked from editing on the page as purposely being disruptive. I have attempted to start a discussion on the subject to see if consensus has changed and followed Wiki suggestion of creating a poll to gauge editors opinions. This was then called "disjointing (the) discussion".


 * I believe it is the purpose of this member to create a problem and go against Wiki policy himself to bait me into changes to report me for 3RR violation. But I will abide by any decision reached of course.--Amadscientist 03:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have tried to explain how consensus develops to this user; I even placed the flowchart at the policy page directly in the article. Him and another user had previously agreed that a cast section was unnecessary, I disagreed. He blew it into this out of control issue. Further, if I was baiting him to break the 3RR, I wouldn't've specifically warned him that he would break it if he reverted again. None of this is actually relevant, as he has clearly and knowingly violated the 3RR. He has a history of doing so; in addition to what Kww mentioned he broke the 3RR at straight pride. Atropos 07:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to point it out, this is the second time that amadscientist has violated 3RR on this article. The first time (June 13, 2007), he was rewarded by getting the article protected for a week while he threw a tantrum. Hopefully, this time you will block him for a while and get him off of that high horse that he rides so well.Kww 03:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is simply not true. I have never been found to violate the 3RR rule. What he means is that he reported me once before over the same article. No action was taken. I believed it was a wrangling attempt then, as I do now. Also, as I remember the article was protected a second week due to "Edit warring and refusal to discuss it on the talk page". I know I made every attempt to discuss the problem on the talk page, but even after a week I was accused of "Holding the article hostage".--Amadscientist 04:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That you did it is documented here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&oldid=138064070
 * That you weren't punished for it is the reason that we are back here today. Kww 10:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That you don't understand the difference between accusing someone and their being found guilty, as well as an obvious vendetta is why You are here. As for my "high horse" it certainly is far lower than yours. While there certainly were enough lessons to learn from the last situation, just who learned what would be a very good question to ask. I leave this in the hands of admin. This thread is long enough.--Amadscientist 11:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are the correctly formatted diffs. This report is getting a bit stale, because it has been ignored by admins for so long. I'm hoping that taking care of the report details will help. Note that amadscientist is of the opinion that if you don't "convict" him of violating 3RR, it didn't really happen. I don't care much how someone teaches the lesson, but he does need to be taught that violating 3RR is wrong, and that he has done it.Kww 00:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1st revert: 17:21 29 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:22 29 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:37, 29 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:59, 29 July 2007


 * The timestamps you gave on your diffs don't match any of the timestamps in the edit history. Please construct the report properly; all of us admins are volunteers and we don't have the time to untangle badly-constructed reports. As an aside, this has got to be one of the sillier edit wars I've seen in a while, though that doesn't affect the substance of the 3RR finding. Raymond Arritt 01:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I miscopied one line from the original report and had the time set to Atlantic Standard. Here they are again, with no offset from UTC, and the second one fixed.


 * 1st revert: 00:21 30 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 01:27 30 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 01:37, 30 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 01:59, 30 July 2007


 * As for the merits of the edit war, I fully agree. I keep saying that we are destined for WP:LAME.Kww 01:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I've protected the article. The history shows immature behavior across the range, with people gloating over provoking others into using up all their reverts. Sort it out on the talk page, please. If this continues after protection expires there will be blocks given out all round. Remember, 3RR is a hard limit, not a right. Raymond Arritt 01:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That looks a very sensible way of handling this. --BozMo talk 08:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

User:69.154.18.251 reported by User:Jade Knight (Result: 24 hour block)
FYI: This user is the same as User:69.152.175.114 (blocked for vandalism), and User:69.149.223.55, as well as User:Piledoggie (and possibly others). The Jade Knight 04:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

. . Time Reported: 04:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: one without a certain link reporting Jordan Smith as the individual who engaged in arson.


 * 1st revert: 12:17, 29 July 2007 (as User:69.152.175.114)
 * 2nd revert: 21:23, 29 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:41, 29 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 22:09, 29 July 2007
 * 5th revert: 22:41, 29 July 2007
 * 6th revert: 23:01, 29 July 2007

User has also removed comments about their reverts on the talk page:
 * 23:04, 29 July 2007

I have discussed edits on the talk page, as well as encouraged this user to provide reasoning for why he is reverting the content in question, but he has declined to discuss his reverts on the article's talk page. The Jade Knight 04:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not exactly related, but it appears that these users are the same individual that was convicted of the arson talked about in the article, and it may be entirely inappropriate for him to be editing this section to begin with. The Jade Knight 04:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This user has also engaged in extensive name-calling, as his edit history (and that of his other usernames) will show. The Jade Knight 05:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It may be worth noting, OTRS has gotten involved on this. So the 3RR block, if there is one, should be short to allow the user to follow through with our suggestions. Somitho 09:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 24 hour block.

User:Gobuffs10 reported by User:Pablothegreat85 (Result:Blocked, 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 07:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:58, 29 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 23:26, 29 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 03:16, 30 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 05:01, 30 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 07:18, 30 July 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 23:38, 29 July 2007
 * Blocked – 24 hours, for a violation of WP:3RR ~ Anthøny  12:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou reported by User:CJCurrie (Result:Blocked, 20 hours)
. : Time reported: 08:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:57, 29 July 2007 (Note especially the paragraph which begins "The IMFA reports [...]".)


 * 1st revert: 15:17, 29 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:21, 29 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 06:14, 30 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 06:55, 30 July 2007
 * 5th revert: 07:22, 30 July 2007

This user doesn't seem to have grasped the concept of the 3RR, despite repeated attempts at explanation. CJCurrie 08:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 07:27, 30 July 2007, with further discussion here.


 * comment - (1) i've opened a talk page discussion about this material. (2) a couple of the editors have been uncivil in commentary and possibly POV pushing by removing referenced relevant material.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  08:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said, the user doesn't seem to have grasped the concept of the 3RR. On an unrelated point, I believe that User:Jaakobou has confused exasperation with incivility.  CJCurrie 08:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * comment - User:CJCurrie, being disruptive, and rude, cannot be excused as "exasperation".  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  09:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: User:Jaakobou is trying to conflate a content dispute with a policy violation.  I maintain that he doesn't seem to understand the concept of the 3RR, and will add that his behaviour in this discussion has been sadly typical of his general behaviour on Wikipedia.
 * I'm a bit puzzled that no-one has addressed the 3RR violation as of yet. CJCurrie 16:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment- i'm a bit puzzled by your style of personal attacks and accusations of "typical general behaviour on Wikipedia" [sic], being uncivil is by no means helpful to the wiki project.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  17:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to continue this discussion here. I'll reiterate my request that someone address the 3RR violation.  CJCurrie 17:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * comment - i've reached a certain level of consensus with another editor on this disputed material that the material in itself is relevant, only that the phrasing needs amendment to make the connection to the article more evident.User_talk:El_C (link)  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  17:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting point, but it doesn't justify the 3RR violation. CJCurrie 17:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked – 20 hours, for a violation of WP:3RR ~ Anthøny  22:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Traffic Demon reported by User:Brian0324 (Result:No action taken)
List of best-selling books. : Time reported: 15:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * This user has repeatedly insisted on reverting the edits of at least 3 others and has been against forming consensus or taking a vote. Although he has participated in discussion on the Talk:List of best-selling books, he has only used the discussion to insist that he will not change his mind.Brian0324 15:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No action taken – the links provided were from several days ago; as blocks are preventative, not punitive, I'm not going to issue a block at this time ~ Anthøny  16:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I was listing the first of about 15 reverted edits that were made. Check it out.Brian0324 16:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please provide such links then - either here, or (preferably) in a fresh report ~ Anthøny  22:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

User:68.149.47.144 reported by User:sdfisher (Result:Blocked, 10 hours)
. : Time reported: 18:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 2007-07-29T19:11:50


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This is an ongoing thing, but the reverts I listed are within the last 24 hours. (Apologies if I did something wrong; this is my first time reporting one of these.) Steven Fisher 18:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you did great; the only thing outstanding is that you're meant to give the time each of the links above occurred, by adding [space]00:00 01 January 2007 to the end (replacing [space] with a space, obviously. Not that it matters - most Administrators will double check the times anyway; so, IP Blocked – 10 hours, for a WP:3RR violation ~ Anthøny  18:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

User:66.131.139.158 reported by User:Gzuckier (Result:Already blocked)
. : Time reported: 20:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:14, 28 July 2007


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

Your report will 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: DIFFTIME

The anon user is already blocked. Tom Harrison Talk 20:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Jayjg reported by User:Lothar of the Hill People (Result:No violation; page protected)
. : Time reported: 21:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

I'm not sure how to do this but if you look at the history of social apartheid you'll see that Jayjg reverted at 17:42, 30 July 2007, 19:21, 30 July 2007, 20:45, 30 July 2007 and 20:55, 30 July 2007 Jayjg.
 * The first one was not a revert, and the page has been protected now by Y. In fact, it was protected before you made your report. ElinorD (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my mistake. Can I withdraw the complaint? -- LOTHAR

User:68.167.65.63 reported by User:Emerson7 (Result:Blocked, 10 hours)
. : Time reported: 21:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

i, too, may be in violation, because i didn't realise this has been going on since yesterday when i made the changes today.


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

Your report will 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:
 * Blocked – 10 hours, for a WP:3RR violation ~ Anthøny  22:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

User:GothicEnthusiast reported by User:Oli Filth (Result:Blocked, 14 hours)
. : Time reported: 22:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Continual unexplained/unjustified removal of section tags (that I added to promote discussion of the section's contents).


 * 1st revert: 20:21, 30 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:38, 30 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:59, 30 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:15, 30 July 2007
 * 5th revert: 22:06, 30 July 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:24, 30 July 2007
 * Blocked – 14 hours, for a serious violation of WP:3RR ~ Anthøny  22:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Jedimetroid reported by User:Bobblehead (Result:Blocked, 10 hours)
. : Time reported: 03:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:52, 26 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 20:34, 29 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15:46, 30 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:51, 30 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:47, 30 July 2007

Your report will 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: 19:45, 10 July 2007
 * Blocked – 10 hours, for a first-time violation of WP:3RR ~ Anthøny  08:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This was actually his second 3RR block --teb728 08:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Peter Isotalo reported by User:Freakofnurture (Result:PAge protected)
.
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Time reported: 04:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:02, 30 July 2007
 * 1st revert: 17:54, 30 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:44, 30 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 03:47, 31 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 04:01, 31 July 2007
 * 5th revert: 04:17, 31 July 2007
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * User has been editing since October 2005, and since January 2005 under a previous username. —<tt>freak(talk)</tt> 04:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours.  K r  i  m  p  e  t  04:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Unblocked since it seems that Freakofnurture also deleted the image four times within 24 hours and as such it comes down to blocking both, or blocking none. I would say that the latter is better, since both are long term productive editors and this is an isolated incident and the reverts only took place on one day and was not an extended period. A block would prevent them from contribuing elsewhere and would create more controversy IMHO.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 04:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

User: Tim Osman reported by user NYScholar (result: 48 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on Talk:Joseph C. Wilson and
 * Three-revert rule violation on User talk:NYScholar
 * Time reported: 02:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[For previous history, see User talk:Tim Osman. --NYScholar 05:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)]


 * Example of same or similar reverts (deletions of my comments) to Talk:Joseph C. Wilson: ; click on "older edit" and "newer edit" for the rest of them. There are over four reverts there of my comments on that talk page.  I have since restored what I could recover of them.  (It has been very time-consuming.)  His deletions of my comments violate both WP:3RR and Talk page guidelines.


 * Example of same or similar reverts in my talk page at User talk:NYScholar: See editing history for comment by administrator: ; click on "older edit" and "newer edit" for rest of them. There are over four reverts there of my talk page.


 * This user (who does not have a user page but only a user talk page, which I have linked to) has been both deleting legitimate comments that I posted from Talk:Joseph C. Wilson and deleting my work from the article itself without prior explanation on the article's talk page. After I posted warnings about the damage to the article and the damage to the integrity of its citations formatting and to the integrity of Wikipedia, he began deleting my comments from the article talk page [multiple times] and then posted personal attacks on me (in the guise of "No personal attacks" notices) multiple times on my own talk page; each time that I deleted them, posting a "NPA" template, he deleted that and re-posted his own claims in bold print, engaging in multiple reverts of my user talk page.


 * He claims in various places (Talk:Joseph C. Wilson, the talk pages of various administrators, and my own talk page [which I deleted]) that I have "vandalized" the Wilson article, which I have clearly not done. He has been blocked first for 48 hours for violating WP:3RR and then again for a week (which just expired) for violating WP:3RR (see link above).   He has reverted my deletions of his offensive postings on my talk page multiple times and he has edited and/or deleted my comments from the talk page of the article on Wilson multiple times:


 * I was blocked for 48 hours twice for my attempts to delete what I [legitimately, I believe; espec. in hindsight] regarded as his Vandalism to Joseph C. Wilson. The administrators at the time did not feel that he was vandalizing the article.  I think that he was and is vandalizing it (sources that he gives do not support his statements).


 * Please see Talk:Joseph C. Wilson for more information: if he has deleted my comments again there, I will re-post them. [Since first posting this notice, I have reposted most of those I could recover and updated this in these brackets.] The user has no authority to delete my article talkpage comments [or my comments from my own talk page] and is violating Talk page guidelines in doing so. If more documentation is needed, I will post it.  (I do not use an active link in my signature; but it shows up in editing history contributions, etc.  For more information, see User talk:NYScholar.)  Thank you.  --NYScholar 02:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC) [Updated in brackets; attempt to conform to format at beg. --NYScholar 05:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)]
 * – please list 4 straight-forward diffs within a 24-hour period, where each constitutes a revert, and thus together constitute a 3-Revert Rule violation. Cheers, Anthøny  08:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * He deleted my comments from Talk:Joseph C. Wilson through multiple reverts. In its history, one must examine the following:
 * 21:43 July 30 Diff
 * 21:47 July 30 Diff
 * 21:51 July 30 Diff
 * 21:52 July 30 Diff
 * 21:55 July 30 Diff

from 22:07 on July 30: [See administrator's editing summary in reverting his reverts]
 * He engaged in multiple reverts (over three) to my user talk page: They are obvious in my history page at :
 * 22:07 July 30 &
 * 22:08 July 30diffs
 * 22:10 July 30 diff
 * 22:11 July 30 diff
 * 22:12 July 30 diff
 * 22:12 July 30 diff

[Note: at the top of this page, it states that if all the reverts are basically the same, one does not have to list each "diff" separately.]

See my "N.B." listed for a long time on my talk page. Not only is he himself violating WP:NPA and WP:AGF, but he is violating Etiquette via those violations of WP:3RR.


 * The user had already been blocked for a week for violations of WP:3RR and been warned by administrators that any such further uncivil behavior and subsequent violations of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (including the 3RR) could result in indefinite block. He returned and immediately engaged in this repeat behavior.


 * Along with these multiple deletions of my justifiable comments from Talk:Joseph C. Wilson, he posted a false and disingenuous account on his own talk page about what he was doing User talk:Tim Osman, which elicited an administrator's positive response to the false and disingenuous account (the administrator does not recognize the falseness of the account and, apparently, did not check his actual edits to the article to see if they supported his claims); click on that administrator's talk page for my comment about the problem; I did not respond on the user's talk page to avoid further personal attacks on me, given his behavior on my own talk page (the multiple reverts). His behavior violates many Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  It is not acceptable talk page behavior.   His multiple reverts (deletions) of my comments on the talk page preceded the administrator's reverting his changes to the article.  All his reversions of my talk page are the same sorts of deletions of my comments with unfounded claims of "vandalism".  He violates WP:AGF in removing my work and my comments from the article talk page and then claiming that I am "vandalizing" the article, while he is obviously not following Wikipedia's core policies Neutral point of view, as linked inWP:BLP.  Clearly, the administrator who undid his work to the article later does not agree with him.  This user needs to be warned and blocked.  By refusing to familiarize himself with Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines, he is wasting my time and the time of others, including administrators. --NYScholar 10:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I blocked both editors for 48 hours. Both parties had been violating the talk page guidelines a lot; and technically this was a 3RR violation on both sides but I don't think 3RR is the main issue when it's on a talk page.  Mango juice talk 14:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Bdell555 reported by User:RedSpruce (Result:)
. : Time reported: 11:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * If an editor specifically announces that his strategy is to "edit war", perhaps an admin should have a word with him? Just a thought.
 * Please provide diffs of the user's reverts. Thanks.  E LIMINATOR JR  <font color="#483D8B">TALK  12:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the text in front of your face. RedSpruce 13:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Per the instructions on how to file a 3RR report, the diffs must be listed. I'd also remind you of WP:CIVIL. I have left a note on Bdell555's talk page about his/her attitude. E LIMINATOR  JR  <font color="#483D8B">TALK  14:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a violation to me, though I cant seem to find where Bdell555 says his strategy is to edit war. EliminatorJR, please refrain from making such comments. Perspicacite 17:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Gazh reported by User:An Siarach (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 13:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 10:36, 31 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 11:48, 31 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:54, 31 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 13:17, 31 July 2007
 * Blocked for twenty-four hours, per the evidence above. --  tariq abjotu  17:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

User:68.149.47.144 reported by User:sdfisher (Result:Blocked, 10 hours)
. : Time reported: 18:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 2007-07-29T19:11:50


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This is an ongoing thing, but the reverts I listed are within the last 24 hours. (Apologies if I did something wrong; this is my first time reporting one of these.) Steven Fisher 18:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you did great; the only thing outstanding is that you're meant to give the time each of the links above occurred, by adding [space]00:00 01 January 2007 to the end (replacing [space] with a space, obviously. Not that it matters - most Administrators will double check the times anyway; so, IP Blocked – 10 hours, for a WP:3RR violation ~ Anthøny  18:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

User:66.131.139.158 reported by User:Gzuckier (Result:Already blocked)
. : Time reported: 20:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:14, 28 July 2007


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

Your report will 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: DIFFTIME

The anon user is already blocked. Tom Harrison Talk 20:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Jayjg reported by User:Lothar of the Hill People (Result:No violation; page protected)
. : Time reported: 21:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

I'm not sure how to do this but if you look at the history of social apartheid you'll see that Jayjg reverted at 17:42, 30 July 2007, 19:21, 30 July 2007, 20:45, 30 July 2007 and 20:55, 30 July 2007 Jayjg.
 * The first one was not a revert, and the page has been protected now by Y. In fact, it was protected before you made your report. ElinorD (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my mistake. Can I withdraw the complaint? -- LOTHAR

User:68.167.65.63 reported by User:Emerson7 (Result:Blocked, 10 hours)
. : Time reported: 21:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

i, too, may be in violation, because i didn't realise this has been going on since yesterday when i made the changes today.


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

Your report will 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:
 * Blocked – 10 hours, for a WP:3RR violation ~ Anthøny  22:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

User:GothicEnthusiast reported by User:Oli Filth (Result:Blocked, 14 hours)
. : Time reported: 22:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Continual unexplained/unjustified removal of section tags (that I added to promote discussion of the section's contents).


 * 1st revert: 20:21, 30 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:38, 30 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:59, 30 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:15, 30 July 2007
 * 5th revert: 22:06, 30 July 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:24, 30 July 2007
 * Blocked – 14 hours, for a serious violation of WP:3RR ~ Anthøny  22:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Jedimetroid reported by User:Bobblehead (Result:Blocked, 10 hours)
. : Time reported: 03:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:52, 26 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 20:34, 29 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15:46, 30 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:51, 30 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:47, 30 July 2007

Your report will 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: 19:45, 10 July 2007
 * Blocked – 10 hours, for a first-time violation of WP:3RR ~ Anthøny  08:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This was actually his second 3RR block --teb728 08:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies - I generally look for the words "3-Revert Rule violation" in block logs; instead, the Administrator who previously blocked for (amongst other things) a 3RR violation used slightly different wording, and I missed it <tt>:\</tt> thanks for the note, and I'd like to make you aware that the block has already been raised by another Administrator, for multiple account misuse ~ Anthøny  12:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Peter Isotalo reported by User:Freakofnurture (Result:Page protected)
.
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Time reported: 04:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:02, 30 July 2007
 * 1st revert: 17:54, 30 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:44, 30 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 03:47, 31 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 04:01, 31 July 2007
 * 5th revert: 04:17, 31 July 2007
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * User has been editing since October 2005, and since January 2005 under a previous username. —<tt>freak(talk)</tt> 04:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours.  K r  i  m  p  e  t  04:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Unblocked since it seems that Freakofnurture also deleted the image four times within 24 hours and as such it comes down to blocking both, or blocking none. I would say that the latter is better, since both are long term productive editors and this is an isolated incident and the reverts only took place on one day and was not an extended period. A block would prevent them from contribuing elsewhere and would create more controversy IMHO.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 04:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

User: Tim Osman reported by user NYScholar (result: 48 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on Talk:Joseph C. Wilson and
 * Three-revert rule violation on User talk:NYScholar
 * Time reported: 02:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[For previous history, see User talk:Tim Osman. --NYScholar 05:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)]


 * Example of same or similar reverts (deletions of my comments) to Talk:Joseph C. Wilson: ; click on "older edit" and "newer edit" for the rest of them. There are over four reverts there of my comments on that talk page.  I have since restored what I could recover of them.  (It has been very time-consuming.)  His deletions of my comments violate both WP:3RR and Talk page guidelines.


 * Example of same or similar reverts in my talk page at User talk:NYScholar: See editing history for comment by administrator: ; click on "older edit" and "newer edit" for rest of them. There are over four reverts there of my talk page.


 * This user (who does not have a user page but only a user talk page, which I have linked to) has been both deleting legitimate comments that I posted from Talk:Joseph C. Wilson and deleting my work from the article itself without prior explanation on the article's talk page. After I posted warnings about the damage to the article and the damage to the integrity of its citations formatting and to the integrity of Wikipedia, he began deleting my comments from the article talk page [multiple times] and then posted personal attacks on me (in the guise of "No personal attacks" notices) multiple times on my own talk page; each time that I deleted them, posting a "NPA" template, he deleted that and re-posted his own claims in bold print, engaging in multiple reverts of my user talk page.


 * He claims in various places (Talk:Joseph C. Wilson, the talk pages of various administrators, and my own talk page [which I deleted]) that I have "vandalized" the Wilson article, which I have clearly not done. He has been blocked first for 48 hours for violating WP:3RR and then again for a week (which just expired) for violating WP:3RR (see link above).   He has reverted my deletions of his offensive postings on my talk page multiple times and he has edited and/or deleted my comments from the talk page of the article on Wilson multiple times:


 * I was blocked for 48 hours twice for my attempts to delete what I [legitimately, I believe; espec. in hindsight] regarded as his Vandalism to Joseph C. Wilson. The administrators at the time did not feel that he was vandalizing the article.  I think that he was and is vandalizing it (sources that he gives do not support his statements).


 * Please see Talk:Joseph C. Wilson for more information: if he has deleted my comments again there, I will re-post them. [Since first posting this notice, I have reposted most of those I could recover and updated this in these brackets.] The user has no authority to delete my article talkpage comments [or my comments from my own talk page] and is violating Talk page guidelines in doing so. If more documentation is needed, I will post it.  (I do not use an active link in my signature; but it shows up in editing history contributions, etc.  For more information, see User talk:NYScholar.)  Thank you.  --NYScholar 02:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC) [Updated in brackets; attempt to conform to format at beg. --NYScholar 05:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)]
 * – please list 4 straight-forward diffs within a 24-hour period, where each constitutes a revert, and thus together constitute a 3-Revert Rule violation. Cheers, Anthøny  08:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * He deleted my comments from Talk:Joseph C. Wilson through multiple reverts. In its history, one must examine the following:
 * 21:43 July 30 Diff
 * 21:47 July 30 Diff
 * 21:51 July 30 Diff
 * 21:52 July 30 Diff
 * 21:55 July 30 Diff

from 22:07 on July 30: [See administrator's editing summary in reverting his reverts]
 * He engaged in multiple reverts (over three) to my user talk page: They are obvious in my history page at :
 * 22:07 July 30 &
 * 22:08 July 30diffs
 * 22:10 July 30 diff
 * 22:11 July 30 diff
 * 22:12 July 30 diff
 * 22:12 July 30 diff

[Note: at the top of this page, it states that if all the reverts are basically the same, one does not have to list each "diff" separately.]

See my "N.B." listed for a long time on my talk page. Not only is he himself violating WP:NPA and WP:AGF, but he is violating Etiquette via those violations of WP:3RR.


 * The user had already been blocked for a week for violations of WP:3RR and been warned by administrators that any such further uncivil behavior and subsequent violations of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (including the 3RR) could result in indefinite block. He returned and immediately engaged in this repeat behavior.


 * Along with these multiple deletions of my justifiable comments from Talk:Joseph C. Wilson, he posted a false and disingenuous account on his own talk page about what he was doing User talk:Tim Osman, which elicited an administrator's positive response to the false and disingenuous account (the administrator does not recognize the falseness of the account and, apparently, did not check his actual edits to the article to see if they supported his claims); click on that administrator's talk page for my comment about the problem; I did not respond on the user's talk page to avoid further personal attacks on me, given his behavior on my own talk page (the multiple reverts). His behavior violates many Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  It is not acceptable talk page behavior.   His multiple reverts (deletions) of my comments on the talk page preceded the administrator's reverting his changes to the article.  All his reversions of my talk page are the same sorts of deletions of my comments with unfounded claims of "vandalism".  He violates WP:AGF in removing my work and my comments from the article talk page and then claiming that I am "vandalizing" the article, while he is obviously not following Wikipedia's core policies Neutral point of view, as linked inWP:BLP.  Clearly, the administrator who undid his work to the article later does not agree with him.  This user needs to be warned and blocked.  By refusing to familiarize himself with Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines, he is wasting my time and the time of others, including administrators. --NYScholar 10:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I blocked both editors for 48 hours. Both parties had been violating the talk page guidelines a lot; and technically this was a 3RR violation on both sides but I don't think 3RR is the main issue when it's on a talk page.  Mango juice talk 14:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Gazh reported by User:An Siarach (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 13:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 10:36, 31 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 11:48, 31 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:54, 31 July 2007
 * 4th revert: 13:17, 31 July 2007


 * Blocked for twenty-four hours, per the evidence above. --  tariq abjotu  17:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Bdell555 reported by User:RedSpruce (Result:Closed, see discussion)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 11:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If an editor specifically announces that his strategy is to "edit war", perhaps an admin should have a word with him? Just a thought.
 * Please provide diffs of the user's reverts. Thanks.  E LIMINATOR JR  <font color="#483D8B">TALK  12:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the text in front of your face. RedSpruce 13:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Per the instructions on how to file a 3RR report, the diffs must be listed. I'd also remind you of WP:CIVIL. I have left a note on Bdell555's talk page about his/her attitude. E LIMINATOR JR  <font color="#483D8B">TALK  14:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a violation to me, though I cant seem to find where Bdell555 says his strategy is to edit war. EliminatorJR, please refrain from making such comments. Perspicacite 17:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That was not my comment, but User:RedSpruce's, if you read the history. Bdel555's edit-warring comment does exist, however, and is here.  E LIMINATOR  JR  <font color="#483D8B">TALK  17:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ohh, sorry, the formatting and his lack of signature confused me. Perspicacite 17:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * He (Bdell555) is not saying though that edit warring is his intention. If he was -- if his intention was just to stonewall regardless of consensus -- that would be a blockable offense. Perspicacite 17:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I have left a note to that effect on his talk page.  E LIMINATOR JR  <font color="#483D8B">TALK  17:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said I wanted an "edit war". I just said [an unwanted] one was likely, because the other side seems to have regrettably given up on further pursuing alternative solutions, like further discussion, mediation, etc.  See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RedSpruce&oldid=143323254#Alger_HissBdell555 18:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is why I issued a warning and not a block. I suggest dispute resolution is the way to go here. I have closed this report after talking to RedSpruce, and any further discussion should take place on the article's talk page.  Thankyou. E LIMINATOR  JR  <font color="#483D8B">TALK  18:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Erisch reported by User:Darrenhusted (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 15:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:51, 31 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 14:33, 31 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:56, 31 July 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:08, 31 July 2007
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:01, 31 July 2007

This user has been reverted by User:Bdve, followed by me, followed by User:Bmg916. Apologies for time taken, I have been on a phone call, I compiled the report as quickly as I could. Darrenhusted 15:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours on above evidence.  E LIMINATOR JR  <font color="#483D8B">TALK  18:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

User:140.247.152.100 reported by User:Bakasuprman (Result:24 hr block)
. : Time reported: 16:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 2007-07-22T09:51:22


 * 1st revert: 2007-07-31T09:33:34
 * 2nd revert: 2007-07-31T08:23:26
 * 3rd revert: 2007-07-31T07:56:08
 * 4th revert: 2007-07-31T05:06:33

The user obviously knows about WP:BLP (though misquotes it) and edits from a 140.247.152.xx IP which redirects to Harvard University (incidentally where the subject teaches). (an edit warrior on said page) lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts (incidentally where Harvard is located) and admitted to using a similar IP (Special:Contributions/140.247.23.213). I cannot book hornplease on RFCU because there is no sockpuppetry, but the similarity is uncanny. Baka man  16:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like a violation. You can take this to RFCU based on the anonymous user's incivility and argue it is being used as an attack account. Perspicacite 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Harvard Crimson is a clearly adequate and reliable source. Blocked. &rArr;  <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Denny Crane.  22:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Mean Mr Mustard 17 reported by User:Drappel (Result: User already blocked indef)
. : Time reported: 21:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

Your report will 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:DerHexer has already indef-blocked the perpetrator as a vandalism-only account. No further action necessary. --Stephan Schulz 21:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

User:CmdrClow reported by User:Erik (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 22:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 16:21, July 31, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:49, July 31, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:00, July 31, 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:05, July 31, 2007
 * 5th revert: 18:11, July 31, 2007

Your report will 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: 16:54, July 31, 2007


 * CmdrClow blocked for 24 hours based on above evidence. - Krakatoa  Katie  03:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Xanthius reported by User:Gatorgalen (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 16:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 12:54, 20 July 2007
 * 2nd revert: 03:15, 21 July 2007

What's somewhat interesting here is that after an editor (myself) made three separately substantive edits, to avoid the 3RR rule this user reverted them all at once (ie the 1st revert is actually three), and likewise with the second. So depending on how you look at it that is 4-6 reverts. Gatorgalen 16:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's not how it works; a revert is one undoing of another editor's action or actions. Hence, there have been two reverts undertaken, and (unless there are two more) thus no violation of WP:3RR has been committed ~ Anthøny  20:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. Even by your phrasing, he undid three "other editors' actions" in each time; he merely disguised it as one when it in fact is not.  Please look closer.  Gatorgalen 20:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Rgfolsom reported by User:Orangemike (Result:No block)
. made three reversions yesterday between 1000 and 1300. His reverts today included a ringing declaration that he will continue to revert "falsehoods" and misinterpretations on articles. ("These "facts" are deliberately incomplete and distorted to portray a living person in a negative light. I will remove as often as they appear.") (I believe the subject, Prechter, is Folsom's employer; the history of this and related topics is a highly contentious one here.) -- Orange Mike 19:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Please provide the four diffs that together constitute the WP:3RR violation ~ Anthøny  20:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope these are what you need:   Note that there is an ongoing case about this matter on the BLP noticeboard as well. -- Orange Mike  20:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The 3rr policy does not apply to violations of BLP, which says:


 * "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material."


 * "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is… a conjectural interpretation of a source…. If the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply."


 * These diffs show that THF sides with the critics' material, and uses a conjectural interpretation of a source.


 * As I explained on the BLP notice board, the diffs also show that I have tried to offer compromises edits that another editor received in good faith, but THF rejected the effort with insulting and uncivil language. Bad faith is manifest in these violations, and I have appealed for an administrator's intervention. Thank you.--Rgfolsom 20:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the suggestion of a COI, administrators may wish to know that there was an arbitration case about these issues decided earlier this year: here's the text of the decision.--Rgfolsom 20:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No block. If there are COI concerns, please post at WP:COI/N ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

User:MarkCentury reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 24 hr)
. : Time reported: 22:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:12, August 1, 2007


 * 1st revert: 21:53, August 1, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:12, August 1, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 22:17, August 1, 2007
 * 4th revert: 22:29, August 1, 2007

Your report will 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: 21:56, August 1, 2007


 * Blocked for 24 hours. I count at least 5 reverts. Raymond Arritt 22:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Egyegy reported by User:Taharqa (No block: Page protected)
. : Time reported: 00:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

3rd Revert: 21:57, 1 August 2007 - deletes entire section
 * 1st revert: 21:05, 1 August 2007 - reverts a reference to black soil
 * 2nd revert: 21:57, 1 August 2007 - reverts an entry describing Egyptians and Greeks.
 * 4th revert: 22:11, 1 August 2007 - Littering article with tags, couldn't wait to discuss, compromising article's integrity and he was even reverted by more than one person..
 * 5th revert: 23:48, 1 August 2007 - Restores picture that was previously reverted.
 * 6th revert: 23:48, 1 August 2007 - Restores tags that were previously reverted.

^^Reverts almost everyone who makes a contrary edit.. Ironic..Taharqa 00:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How are these "reverts"? I was placing tags on the questionable claims and I added a ref for the first. And "deletes entire section"? Have you heard of the phrase "gaming the system"? Egyegy 00:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

^I was doing something similar and you reported me.. Either way, it is disruptive editing and aside from the tags, you reverted more than 3 times. It was a disruption. You even reverted the tag (dubious) even when it was sourced. You restored the picture, reverted black soil statement, deleted a section, etc, etc.. You are not innocent at all and have certainly caused may lay.Taharqa 00:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Page is now protected. No block.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:AdrianTM reported by User:L (Result: 24 hrs)
. : Time reported: 03:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: Continually changing "used" (which is well known and provable) to "inspired by", which is highly POV, and WP:OR.


 * 1st revert: 2:19
 * 2nd revert: 3:33
 * 3rd revert: 3:44
 * 4th revert: 3:49


 * User has been editing for over a year, and has been blocked for edit warring at least once before. Perhaps they need to be put on WP:1RR for awhile? --L--- 03:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 24hrs. User should know better by now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:FollowerofAllah reported by User:Arrow740 (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 04:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:46, 31 July 2007 (with minor changes from other editors)


 * 1st revert: 07:47, 1 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15:18, 1 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:32, 1 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 03:38, 2 August 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:16, 15 July 2007


 * FollowerofAllah blocked for 24 hours. - Krakatoa  Katie  07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:DJ Bungi reported by User:VanTucky (Result:No violation; warning issued)
. : Time reported: 05:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

First off, obviously the following revert history is not in the same literal day. But since DJBungi, after being canvassed by the now blocked (for edit warring related to the same article) user User:Chichichihua, has consistently reverted the lead image of Chihuahua once every day for several days running now, against consensus and without any discussion at all. This user has been reverted, and sternly warned, by multiple editors and admins. I feel that this extended pattern of a once-a-day revert is an attempt to game the system so he can continue reverting indefinitely. VanTucky (talk) 05:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1st revert 16:13, July 28
 * 2nd revert 01:32, July 29
 * 3rd revert 16:57, July 31
 * 4th revert 22:52, August 1
 * No violation – no WP:3RR violation has been committed. However, spreading out reverts to avoid a 3RR block is not acceptable, and a final warning has been issued ~ Anthøny  14:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Aquatraveller reported by User:Dreadstar (Result: 31 hrs)
. : Time reported: 02:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:21, 1 August 2007


 * 1st revert: 18:37, 1 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:51, 1 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:05, 1 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:06, 1 August 2007
 * 5th revert: 22:09, 1 August 2007
 * Editor was apparently reverting under an IP address: 16:42, 1 August 2007

Your report will 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: 19:06, 1 August 2007


 * Now that user is warned, if he reverts again, post a notice here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Edit warring seems to have stopped for now, I made some changes to the article that may address most of Aquatraveller's concerns.  I'll repost if he continues.  – Dreadstar  †  04:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User is back, deleting content and reverting:
 * 01:18, 2 August 2007
 * 01:14, 2 August 2007

User:70.189.74.49 reported by User:Ursasapien (Result: already blocked for vandalism)
. : Time reported: 07:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:42, August 2, 2007


 * 1st revert: 23:53, August 1, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 02:20, August 2, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 02:42, August 2, 2007
 * 4th revert: 03:00, August 2, 2007

Your report will 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: 02:48, August 2, 2007


 * Comment: This user was previously blocked for this exact same behavior on the same article. The perponderance of his edits have been to this article and this user appears to be a single purpose account.  They have become increasingly incivil and stubborn.  Ursasapien (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I blocked the IP for 72 hours for vandalism before I saw this 3RR report. - Krakatoa  Katie  07:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:padraig reported by User:Biofoundationsoflanguage (Result:Blocked, 10 hours)
. : Time reported: 09:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:57, August 1, 2007


 * 1st revert: 21:01, August 1, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 09:12, August 2, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 09:24, August 2, 2007
 * 4th revert: 09:36, August 2, 2007


 * Sorry if I've done this wrong, first time doing this. It is a difficult subject this Northern Ireland flags issue and deliberately ignoring consensus on wikipedia is making it more difficult. Biofoundationsoflanguage 09:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note - I've fixed some errors- need to give the dates and times in the diffs listed above Astrotrain 10:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Both these editors are inputing false information into these articles, the Ulster Banner is not recognised by either the British Government or the Northern Ireland Assembly or its Government The Northern Ireland Executive. The Uslter banner was used between 1953 and 1972 by the former Northern Ireland Government as a government banner, this Government was abolished in 1973 under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and its banner was abolished with it. The flag has some sports use today but that is un-official.  They are trying to insert it into articles and templates dealing with Northern Ireland today, which is wrong and shouldn't be allowed in Wikipedia as it undermines the worth of the Encyclopedia.  I should also add that User:Astrotrain has been blocked about six times since January for both edit warring on this issue and making personal attacks on me and other users, he seldom posts here and when he does its mainly to engagein edit wars.  I regard his constant edit wars as vandalism, and inserting WP:OR and WP:POV, therefore although I may have technically broken 3RR on this, I haven't checked if I have or not it wasn't intentional.--padraig 10:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked – 10 hours, for a WP:3RR violation ~ Anthøny  12:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:SqueakBox reported by User:Samantha Pignez (Result:Blocked, 31 hours)
. : Time reported: 10:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: N/A (multiple versions) on 31 Jul and 1 Aug.


 * 1st revert: 19:23 (31 Jul)
 * 2nd revert pt (a): 20:01 (31 Jul)
 * 2nd revert pt (b): 20:01 (31 Jul)
 * 3rd revert: 20:32 (31 Jul)
 * 4th revert: 23:14 (31 Jul)
 * 5th revert: 23:37 (31 Jul)
 * 6th revert: 00:05 (01 Aug)

Seems to be a moderately nice guy and established user with good faith, but his repeated reverts coupled with accusations towards other users / libelling websites as pedophile friendly is actually quite disruptive to this article. Apparently, he is a fan of "Perverted Justice" and wants their "corrupted" opponent out of the article altogether. Any help in shadowing this new article is very much appreciated. Regards, Sam. Samantha Pignez 10:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked – 31 hours, for a WP:3RR violation (with previous violations) ~ Anthøny  13:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:82.13.91.237 reported by User:Ursasapien (Result:Blocked, 10 hours)
. : Time reported: 11:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:11, August 1, 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:11, August 1, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 06:33, August 2, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 06:52, August 2, 2007
 * 4th revert: 06:55, August 2, 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 06:54, August 2, 2007
 * Blocked – 10 hours, for a WP:3RR violation ~ Anthøny  13:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Nishidani reported by User:Amoruso (Result:8 hours)
. : 14:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:36, 1 August 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:52, 2 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:29, 2 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:36, 2 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 15:54, 2 August 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 16:06, 2 August 2007


 * 8h. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  16:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:209.212.28.50 reported by User:Erik (Result:24h)
. : Time reported: 16:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:32, July 31, 2007 (not sure if this is how it is done?)


 * 1st revert: 12:29, August 2, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:35, August 2, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:40, August 2, 2007
 * 4th revert: 12:51, August 2, 2007

Your report will 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: 12:42, August 2, 2007
 * 24h. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  17:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Nakagawa0 reported by User:ShadowJester07 (Result:already blocked)
. : Time reported: 17:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Previous (Not Sure if this the right way to do it)


 * 1st RV - 10:26, 2 August 2007
 * 2nd RV - 10:31, 2 August 2007
 * 3rd RV - 10:36, 2 August 2007
 * 4th RV - 10:47, 2 August 2007
 * 5th RV - 12:39, 2 August 2007
 * 6th RV - 12:41, 2 August 2007
 * 7th RV - 12:43, 2 August 2007
 * 8th RV - 12:46, 2 August 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME - 12:17, 2 August 2007

Comment: This user has reverted the page at least six different times today. In the past, he has attempted similar things, despite a consensus on the talk page. Me, and another user have already asked him to stop, and pointed out why we were reverting hat he was doing. Alas, he is bent on using the Wikipedia page to express his opinion about racism in video games. -- ShadowJester07 ► Talk 17:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: I just reported this user on AIV as an SPA troll. I wasn't aware of this report at the time. As a result the user was blocked for 7 days.--Atlan (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Rgfolsom reported by User:Ministry of random walks (updated) (Result:Article protected)
. : Time reported: 23:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:42, 1 August 2007 (partial revert)


 * 1st revert: 19:09, 1 August 2007 removes disputed paragraph beginning "In July 2007…"
 * 2nd revert: 19:46, 1 August 2007 reverts to version without paragraph (as simple revert, as seen here)
 * 3rd revert: 20:24, 1 August 2007 reverts to version without paragraph beginning "In July 2007…" (as simple revert, as seen here
 * 4th revert: 22:31, 1 August 2007 again removing paragraph beginning "In July 2007…"
 * 5th revert: 16:05, 2 August 2007 again removing paragraph beginning "In July 2007…".
 * 6th revert: 16:36, 2 August 2007 again removing paragraph beginning "In July 2007…"


 * Diff of 3RR warning: here

Further comment. Rgfolsom claims to be deleting because of WP:BLP, but that policy says (here):
 * This material is not derogatory (though negative) and is well-sourced to a Dow Jones publication, one of the best sources in the industry. (This has been refiled with the update.)   Ministry of random walks 18:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This material is not derogatory (though negative) and is well-sourced to a Dow Jones publication, one of the best sources in the industry. (This has been refiled with the update.)   Ministry of random walks 18:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This report ignores the outcome of a 3rr report filed less that 24 hours ago -- all the reverts involve the same text that violates BLP. The result yesterday was no block: "No block. If there are COI concerns, please post at WP:COI/N ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)" Please see above, the report is still on this page. Thanks.--Rgfolsom 18:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The earlier filing was rejected because it was mal-formed and Rgfolsom had not yet violated 3RR: he was on his third revert, as a comparison of Jossi's post and the revert list above shows.  Since Rgfolsom has reverted three more times since then, he is now in breach of 3RR.  Ministry of random walks 21:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The article has now been protected by Jossi. However, I cannot see a violation of WP:BLP in the paragraph that User:Rgfolsom continues to remove, so this is a final warning that removing sourced information will result in an immediate block.  WP:BLP is not a 'get out of jail free' card to remove sourced material, so edit sumaries such as "Reverting BLP violation, as often as it appears" are not relevant in this case. Content disputes belong on the talk page of the article.  E LIMINATOR  JR  01:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User:FerryUser reported by User:Erik (Result:Already blocked)
. : Time reported: 19:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:41, August 2, 2007


 * The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
 * 1st revert: 14:59, August 2, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15:06, August 2, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:11, August 2, 2007
 * 4th revert: 15:17, August 2, 2007
 * 4th revert: 15:23, August 2, 2007
 * 5th revert: 15:30, August 2, 2007

Your report will 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: 15:19, August 2, 2007


 * Indiana Jones 4
 * 1st revert: 14:54, August 2, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15:01, August 2, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:14, August 2, 2007
 * 4th revert: 15:21, August 2, 2007
 * 5th revert: 15:28, August 2, 2007

Your report will 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: 15:29, August 2, 2007

The page history clearly shows the user signing on from his IP to his registered handle in the process, as the registered handle had not made any edits before that. 172.209.243.209, the editor's IP, may need to be blocked as well.

User:Frater FiatLux reported by User:GlassFET (Result:User already indef blocked)
. : Time reported: 20:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:59, 1 August 2007


 * 1st revert: 15:29, 1 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:13, 1 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:19, 1 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 23:26, 1 August 2007

User knows about 3RR as they have been previously blocked for it, see their block log. User has also threatened intentional disruption of multiple articles here. GlassFET 20:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * I'm semi-involved here so I won't do it, but the "on wheels" nature of the current dispute would make a page move protection, until there is consensus, helpful.--Isotope23 talk 20:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Frater FiatLux is already indef blocked by User:Grandmasterka for his page moves Alex Bakharev 23:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Tigeroo reported by User:Beit_Or (Result:1 week)
. : Time reported: 21:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:56, 31 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 15:03, 1 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:00, 1 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 13:27, 2 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 13:57, 2 August 2007

All reverts pertain to "In Hinduism" and "In Judaism" sections. Beit Or 21:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Tigeroo for one week. It is his fourth 3RR block in a row Alex Bakharev 23:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Picapole reported by Pete (Result: Final warning)

 * This editor does not repeat reversions very quickly, so there has been no violation within a 24-hour period. However, nearly every edit the editor has made has been the same unwarranted reversion. Attempts to engage him/her in discussion by several editors have been ignored. I believe a block is warranted.

-Pete 23:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Editor hasn't reverted since being warned two days ago, but will warn the editor that any further edit warring without discussion will lead to blocks. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I must have lost track of the sequence. Thank you, your resolution seems appropriate. -Pete 01:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Yankee.doodle.666 reported by User:arcayne (Result: Warning)
. : Time reported: 23:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:

Contributor was warned before they performed their 4th (and 5th) revert of the edit. Account appears to be mostly a single-purpose user, although the edits appear to be in good faith. Except for this violation, the editor seems to have good edits. I would recommend either a warning or short block, to keep the article stable. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of the reverts in question. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure (though I thought that if they were all the same, multiple diffs weren't needed), my bad:
 * 4
 * 3
 * 2
 * 2a (partial)
 * 1
 * 1a (partial)

Note that the partial reverts addressed part of the information reverted in the other reverts, specifically the middle name of Sirius Black and the statement by Sirius mistakenly calling Harry Potter by his father's name. I think the partials are also reverts in their own right, but I would imagine that it could be open to interpretation. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  00:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The editor appears fairly new and has engaged in some discussion, so no block for now, but has been warned that further edit warring will lead to blocks. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters reported by Getaway (Result: 24 hours each)

 * This editor has been removing information from the Ward Churchill article over and over, 4 times in 3 and one half hours. The information has been in the article for almost two years.  The information is highly relevant and it is reliable sourced.

--Getaway 23:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of the reverts in question. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The diffs of the reverts are:
 * Previous version reverted to: 21:21, 29 January 2007


 * 1st revert: 18:32, 2 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:33, 2 August 2007

--Getaway 23:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3rd revert: 20:51, 2 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:40, 2 August 2007

Both editors violated 3RR, 24 hours each. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Muntuwandi reported by User:Fourdee (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 00:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 20:26, 1 August 2007 reverts
 * 2nd revert: 22:20, 1 August 2007 reverts
 * 3rd revert: 08:34, 2 August 2007 reverts
 * 4th revert: 09:44, 2 August 2007 reverts


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 03:59, 15 July 2007

User has been warned for 3RR before and has reported others for it, knows full well about it. Has been engaging in edit war with User:MoritzB in this article quite persistently. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 17:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Frikkers reported by User:VanTucky (Result: 31 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 03:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC) This is technically between the 29th and today, but as there are again four reverts in this time period, all directly following a previous block on the 28th for 3RR violation on the exact same article in the exact same manner, I feel this is still an application of the 3RR. Frankly, the continued once a day reversions seem like an attempt to game the system by staying outside the 24-hour period. The user still completely refuses to make talk comments of any kind, despite extensive warnings by multiple users. For a history of blocks and warnings, see the user talk history, as the user regularly blanks his talk. VanTucky (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1st reversion 02:18, July 29
 * 2nd reversion 13:02, July 30
 * 3rd reversion 00:42, July 31
 * 4th reversion 08:33, August 1


 * 31 hours block ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Yqbd reported by User:ConfuciusOrnis (Result:72 Hours)
. : Time reported: 04:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:21, 3 August 2007

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * 1st revert: 03:41, 3 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 04:13, 3 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 04:17, 3 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 04:18, 3 August 2007
 * 5th revert: 04:25, 3 August 2007
 * 6th revert: 04:29, 3 August 2007
 * 7th revert: 04:50, 3 August 2007
 * 8th revert: 04:54, 3 August 2007
 * 9th revert: 05:10, 3 August 2007
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 04:19, 3 August 2007


 * 72 Hours Spartaz Humbug! 06:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Zirtechie reported by User:bakashi10 (Result: Edit Warring has Stopped)
INSEAD. : Time reported: 06:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:21, 2 August 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:18, 2 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:31, 2 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:17, 2 August 2007
 * 5th revert: 20:21, 2 August 2007

Your report will 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:


 * This user wasn't warned until after the last violation. Since they are so new, I'm not inclined to block at this stage but please re-report if they start reverting again. Spartaz Humbug! 07:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User:L reported by User:AdrianTM (Result:No Action)
. : Time reported: 06:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 06:53, 28 July 2007 User removed essential sentence about Linus Torvalds from the introduction, after I added back in a place where it made more sense he kept reverting the original consensus-built sentence. With this occasion I will satisfy my curiosity to see if: "In cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally" are only empty words for admins.


 * 1st revert: 22:27, 1 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:35, 1 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:47, 1 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:07, 2 August 2007


 * I didn't warn User:L about 3RR, but he seems very well versed in 3RR since he managed to fill in a 3RR form to report me in 7 minutes after my last revert.


 * You just came off a 24 hour block so I understand why this wasn't posted before but we are not going to block a user for a 3RR violation that took place 2 days ago. The idea is to halt revert warring not to even the score. Spartaz Humbug! 07:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for being reasonable Spartaz, but just for the record, according to WP:3RR A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, which means the first one was clearly not a revert, as I was just editing, not undoing their actions. In addition, the fourth one wasn't intentional, as I was just adding a source to my statement. I wouldn't have reverted their content if it had matched what the source has said. That leaves us with just two revisions, and that's just asking for WP:RS --L-- 12:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * While I understand this position, I don't understand why the first admin who took action against me didn't heed the bolded text on this very page: "In cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally". I am also disappointed that people well versed in 3RR reports get a free ride while users who don't look into ratting other people get banned. Again, to me only to figure out where and how to fill in the 3RR report form took a long time, while User:L who apparently is not a stranger to 3RR warring and bulling people took no time at all and filled in the report form in less than 7 minutes after my last reply. That in itself would not be a problem if admins would apply the rule uniformely and as the bold quote said all sides equally -- that's my real problem in this case. Thanks for your attention though, I didn't even expect somebody to review this because people usually think that the person who put the issue in their face is the problem and don't investigate the real issue. User:L, be happy you got scot-free this time with 3RR and you managed to block the other editor involved, bravo, well done! -- AdrianTM 13:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And once again, I did not violate the rule. As to the rest of it, yes, I am familiar with policy, as all editors should be. It has nothing to do with bullying or getting 'the other editor blocked', and the fact that you think that's what it's about shows you are far, far off the mark in your reason for reporting this --L-- 13:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't kid yourself, you did violate the policy, you didn't get banned for the reason explained above by Spartaz, not because you didn't violate the policy. To the admins: that's exactly why you should apply the policy to all the sides equally because users get the impression that they didn't do anything wrong if they are not punished while the other party involved gets punished. It's also a simple matter of fairness.... not that fairness is something THAT important... -- AdrianTM 14:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's enough of this, from both of you. This page isn't for arguing. End of discussion. Next person to comment gets their edits reverted. --Deskana (banana) 14:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Lester2 reported by User:Blnguyen (Result: 48 Hours)
. : Time reported: 06:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 2:26


 * 1st revert: 3.13
 * 2nd revert: 3.53
 * 3rd revert: 4.01
 * 4th revert: 4.13
 * 5th revert: 4.39

Your report will 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 talk:Lester2 has been blocked before for the same article July 27..
 * User did 5 reverts on the same article on July 25 but was not blocked. . Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 06:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 48 hours (second offence block) Spartaz Humbug! 07:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Blnguyen reported by User:Pigmypossum (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 21:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:47, 3 August 2007


 * 1st revert: 01:45, 3 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 02:33, 3 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 03:37, 3 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 03:56, 3 August 2007

Your report will 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:Blnguyen is an Admin who has issued recent 3RR warnings to others in the same dispute for the same article, but continued to violate the rule himself. 3RR rules state that it applies to "all Wikipedians.""A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." (See Block request above this one)

No violation: this edit was a reversion of simple vandalism and is not counted under the 3RR. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Denny Crane.  21:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Scisser104 reported by User:Scorpion0422 (Result:24-hour block)
. : Time reported: 19:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 15:36, 3 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:12, 3 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:19, 3 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:01, 3 August 2007
 * 5th revert: 18:56, 3 August 2007
 * 6th revert: 19:12, 3 August 2007

Your report will 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: 17:20, 3 August 2007

User:Gaimhreadhan reported by User:Brixton Busters (Result: 72 hrs)
. : Time reported: 00:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:48, 3 August 2007


 * 1st revert: 14:10, 3 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:37, 3 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:11, 4 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:22, 4 August 2007

User is constantly changing PIRA to IRA (amongst other changes) despite there being no consensus for this on the relevant talk page. Brixton Busters 00:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 72 hours - 4th block in last month. Crum375 02:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

User:81.154.139.58 reported by User:JForget (Result:24 hrs)
. : Time reported: 02:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Edit war by the IP and User:Discospinster. The IP keeps on persisting that there is a market every Wednesday at that location. Discospinster and a few others editors and including myself reverted the change because it was non a notable entry or event and was poorly written also but the IP kept on doing for 6-7 times over the last hour.


 * Blocked for 24 hours. Crum375 02:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

User:padraig reported by User:Biofoundationsoflanguage (Result: Warnings)
. : Time reported: 10:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:12, August 3, 2007


 * 1st revert: 12:33, 3 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:01, 3 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:37, 3 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:12, 3 August 2007

His disguised reverts have been against the wishes of three editors. Sorry if I have done anything wrong. This is only my second time doing this (the first time I was assisted). Biofoundationsoflanguage 10:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * He was blocked for 10 hours for breaching the 3RR a couple of days ago (see above). I asked him on his talk page to undo his most recent revert which he has ignored.


 * Comment I didn't ignore his message there, I replied to him on my talk page, this editor and User:Astrotrain have been disruptive editing on a number of articles over the past few days and editwarring and revert all attempts to fix the errors they are inserting. They have been removing verified information and links to push their POV. I have ask admins a number of times to intervene, but so far nothing has been done.--padraig 11:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * They have also ignored the discussion on the Talkpage here.--padraig 11:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Padraig's first "revert" wasn't one, so technically no violation here, but looking at the history there are a number of editors skirting up to the limits of 3RR before someone else from their POV takes over. Looking at the talkpage, there doesn't appear to be much hope of agreement between the two factions either;  still, this needs to go back to the talkpage, rather than this pointless edit-warring.  If necessary, the page will have to be protected (in the Wrong Version of course), and blocks handed out for violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of 3RR.  E LIMINATOR  JR  12:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Dale-swiss reported by User:Van helsing (Result: 4 days by Rama)
. : Time reported: 12:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


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

Your report will 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:Porches reported by User:Prester John (Result:Indefinite by Tom Harrison)
. : Time reported: 21:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 17:48 4 August
 * 2nd revert: 19:53 4 August
 * 3rd revert: 20:37 4 August
 * 4th revert: 20:53 4 August


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:49 4 August

This new user created an account (believed by several editors to be a sock) less than 3 hours ago, and has been edit warring on multiple articles ever since.
 * Would the blocking admin also please prevent the IP from creating new accounts? If it's User:His excellency there will be another sock to follow. It seems to be his hobby on the weekends to waste his and others' time this way. Arrow740 21:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems like the right call has already been made. We still should use checkuser to get to the bottom of the sock puppeteer. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 21:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The admin who works this case may wish to see this discussion for context. Raymond Arritt 21:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The context is that a banned editor is being allowed to influence the project. The merits of the edits are not part of this discussion. Arrow740 22:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Bremskraft reported by User:Neitherday (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 03:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:36, 3 August 2007


 * 1st revert: 21:36, 4 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:04, 4 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 22:24, 4 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 03:21, 5 August 2007

Your report will 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: DIFFTIME

User has well over 500 edits, though I'm not sure if what the qualifications are of newer users, so I understand if this ignored. I failed in giving a warning, this is my first time reporting a 3RR. Neitherday 03:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

User has acknowledged violating WP:3RR and refuses to self-revert. 


 * Comments I believe User User:Bremskraft is certainly able to make good edits but is abusing the system and disruptive editing on numerous fronts. My first interaction was reverting edits to the Discrimination template which stopped once they were confronted and then told the template was not what needed changing but the articles needed improving. This has been a very frustrating experience digging through all the edits to see where the potentially usable material of an article went. Please note this from the Fringe theories/Noticeboard and User:Bremskraft deleting talk page comments asking for explanation for certain edits including prior 3RR warning tags
 * New user User:RebelAcademics is also a potential puppet of User:Bremskraft created to weigh in on talk page comments after this 3rr was started. Benjiboi 05:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also new user User:Ladeda76 seems coincidentally available. Benjiboi 05:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked 24 hours. Let me know if Ladeda76 edits disruptively. Spartaz Humbug! 05:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * For reference User talk:131.216.41.16 might also be the same person Benjiboi 06:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Duggy 1138 reported by User:arcayne (Result: Article protected)
. : Time reported: 06:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Comment: this editor began reverting edits, adding uncited information, then began adding 'cn' tags (1, 2) to facts not needing citation (being part of the actual current storyline). Duggy1138 offers other edits that are equally uncited (frankly, the info needed isn't forthcoming just yet, as the series is ongoing), so the edits are not successive or seeking consensus. He is attempting to introduce uncited info. WP:RS, ATT and V have all been pointed out numerous times on both the user's Talk page as well as the article Discussion page, to no avail. A block seems necessary (and maybe some mentoring), as the constant edits are disruptive and contrary to WP stated policy. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  06:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't feel my edits are any more speculation than many of those accepted in the same section. I have been fumbling for a wording that implies less, and have offered a citation (non-textual, but visual).  The addition of attributing the speculation to forums that have made that speculation was clearly a disaster.  However, I am of the opinion that when discussing the promotional poster in question, the obvious references that the creators are making (whether true or tricks) should be made.  One of the characters looks like someone, and is meant to look like someone, and should be mentioned as such or the reader is missing important information.
 * Duggy 1138 08:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * With respect, that sort of debate is discussed in the Discussion area for the article, not in numerous edit summaries of your reverts. When you ignore the advice from people talking to you in your User Talk page, asking you to take it to Discussion instead of reverting, and choose to revert yet again when you are told that a 3RR report was filed about your violation, it sends a clear message that you think your viewpoint is more important than the rules that we all have to follow. What you have done here is address your reasons for reverting, not the idea that you have broken the rule in the first place, and simply don't care. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The spirit of 3RRR is to stop sterile edit wars. To stop to opposite points of view simply reverting what the other has said.  Three is a number so that there is a line to draw.  However, I have, for the most part trying to configure the information I feel needs to be on the page in such a way that it confirms to the interuptation of the rules as appears around it.  You have a very strict interuptation of the rules which stops some important information appearing in the article, but somehow allows other information and ironically ignores WP:IAR.  I completely agree that we can't interupt the information for the reader, but we need to be able to give the reader all the information.  I'm just trying to find a way within the rules to give the reader that information.  You just revert anything you don't like.
 * Duggy 1138 23:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Article protected. There appears to be longstanding conflict over the past week or two. --  tariq abjotu  02:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Vitalmove reported by User:Perspicacite (Result: 24 h, all participants admonished)
. : Time reported: 21:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 06:19


 * 1st revert: 17:29
 * 2nd revert: 18:14
 * 3rd revert: 19:16
 * 4th revert: 19:26


 * He's already been blocked in the past for 3RR. I asked him to self-revert and he ignores the post. Considering his history of personal attacks (and the many he's made today) and his past block for violating 3RR I think an extended block is in order. Perspicacite 21:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that your request to self-revert was phrased in a rather confrontational manner. Raymond Arritt 22:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Another user, Cool Hand Luke, already suggested he self-revert. I was trying to get the no personal attacks means no personal attacks across to him. Perspicacite 22:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As noted in these talk pages, Cool hand luke and I are in agreement about the content of the page. The changes which he and I painstakingly discussed and agreed to were reverted by Perspicacite. The three links are below. Someone please read the ANI compaint against him and so something. --Vitalmove 22:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see earlier ANI complaint against Perspicacite for cyber-bullying here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ANI#Please_help_re:_User:_Perspicacite. Also, please not that the prior 3RR block was initiated by perspicacite and was unblocked as soon as people learned about his cyber-stalking. Perspicacite is attempting to game the rules to bully anyone who disgrees with him on an edit dispute. Please read the ANI complaint with all its included links. --Vitalmove 21:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you misunderstand the point. You knew about the policy when you violated it this time (and last time too). The only reason Vitalemove was unblocked last time is because it had been too long since the violation to take administrative action - words of the blocking administrator, not me. Perspicacite 22:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You did three reversions first. 10:39 Aug 5,  19:10 Aug 5,  19:19 Aug 5. You deleted revisions which Cool hand luke & I had painstakingly discussed and agreed to in . That's the point. You're attempting to game the rules to cyber-bully, which is the topic of your ANI complaint. Previously, as noted in the ANI article, you falsely accused me of cyber-puppetry, joined with someone (who later abandoned you) to delete another of my articles (you failed), and filed numerous baseless complaints about me all over the board. It's all in the ANI complaint. I only hope someone takes the time to carefully read it and do something about you. --Vitalmove 22:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ? When did I ever accuse you of cyber-bullying? You were already admonished on WP:AN. Perspicacite 22:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant cyber-puppetry. I edited to fix it. I'm going to keep those ANI complaints up and add to them every time you do something to disrupt my Wikipedia experience. Don't think for one second that you are going to harass me, or anyone, out of wikipedia or any other forum. I suggest you find another outlet.--Vitalmove 22:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm blocking User:Vitalmove for 24 hours, based on the 3RR violation but also in part on the aggravating circumstances presented by this disturbing edit. All parties involved in PRESS TV are admonished to refrain from edit warring and to focus on the edits, not on the editors. Raymond Arritt 23:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Mista-X reported by User:turtlescrubber (Result: 100 hours)
. : Time reported: 21:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly. Edit summary warning: User talk page warning:
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Then he threatens me "I will make sure you get fucked as well" and is not worried about being blocked, ""Big deal, I know you're a little bitch by the way you have been acting, and 24 hours doesn't hurt.""' 

He also calls me a "dumbass" and says: "you really need to grow a brain pal." So with the 3rr, civility issues and the threat, I would like to see some sort of action taken. I have had no previous interactions with this user and all of this is from today and over a relatively minor issue. Thanks for your time.---Added fifth revert


 * note....user has also violated the 3rr rule on page: as seen here... This second 3rr violation is directly related to the subject of the Kimbo Slice page.

Turtlescrubber 21:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for one hundred hours, per the evidence above. --  tariq abjotu  01:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Turtlescrubber 02:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Bloggerhead reported by User:Kww (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 21:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:57, 5 August 2007


 * 1st revert: 12:35, 5 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 13:19, 5 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:05, 5 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:00, 5 August 2007
 * 5th revert: 16:31, 5 August 2007

Your report will 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: 15:09, 5 August 2007

User:Bason0 reported by User:Komdori (Result: warned 31h)
. : Time reported: 12:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:45, 6 August 2007


 * 1st revert: 11:57, 6 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:00, 6 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:02, 6 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 12:04, 6 August 2007
 * 5th revert: 12:06, 6 August 2007
 * 6th revert: 12:09, 6 August 2007
 * 7th revert: 12:19, 6 August 2007
 * 8th revert: 12:23, 6 August 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:04, 6 August 2007

Insistent addition of false biographical material about me on my user and my talk page. Newly registered account being used in a coordinated effort at reverting several articles.


 * I warned the user. Tom Harrison Talk 13:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, Tom, I just blocked the user for 31 since I felt he/she was clearly harassing Komdori. Did this before I saw your reply. If you want, we can discuss this further. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * i know, i blocked. so i will not edit like previous. and i attacked by 3 japanese user.(japanese ijime) next time, i have edit neutrality point of view. same use with dokdo/liancourt rock/tkeshima. Bason0 13:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Komdori reported by User:Bason0 (Result:no violation)
. : Time reported: 12:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:


 * Necessary for newer users: he is a japanese. act like a korean. and edit so many korea japan relation topic. biased to japan. must correct his country. check his ip, and modify false information about him. No racsim. and no personal attack. just he pretend to korean. and edit korean page. also, insert false information and delete some page.(japan and china biased edit) this is a point. and admin, plz check his ip, and change his country.Bason0 12:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No violation. Tom Harrison Talk 13:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Nightshadow28 reported by User:Bason0 (Result:no violation)
. : Time reported: 18:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 2007-07-29T19:11:50


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This is an ongoing thing, but the reverts I listed are within the last 24 hours. (Apologies if I did something wrong; this is my first time reporting one of these.) he is a remove my edit, continually. also, my edit is proved. and no vandalsim. but, he continually, delete my page. request to admin : plz, stop his valdalsim reverting. if you see my edit page, my edit page at is toally legal.Bason0 12:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This reporter have not been fully understanding the rule of WP:3RR and other Wikipedia's rules. Moreover, as it is in other report by Komdori, reporter has performed destructive edits. I wish rejection of this report. --Nightshadow28 13:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop removing other person's comment. --Nightshadow28 13:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (2nd) Please stop removing other person's comment. Please do not vandalise Admin's noticeboard. --Nightshadow28 13:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No violation. Tom Harrison Talk 13:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Searchmaven reported by User:Ghepeu (Result:Blocked, 10 hours)
. : Time reported: 19:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:38, August 2, 2007


 * 1st revert: 21:47, August 5, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 05:19, August 6, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:26, August 6, 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:01, August 6, 2007
 * 5th revert: 23:08, August 6, 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:50, August 6, 2007


 * Comment - When notified on his Talk Page after his 4th revert, User:Searchmaven promptly reverted for the 5th time (4th time on August 6), copied the notification and pasted it on my Talk Page. GhePeU 21:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked – 10 hours, for a WP:3RR violation ~ Anthøny  21:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Chrisjnelson reported by User:Jmfangio (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 19:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * There has not yet been a direct violation of this today. There have been warnings issued in the past and this violates the spirit of the rule (and that is reportable according to the project page).  Please see Template_talk:Infobox_NFLactive where  impartial parties support this. RFC has confirmed this as well.  WP:ANI has been raised as well regarding behavior surrounding this. User is asserting a circumvention of the spirit of this rule here.  Previous warnings were done here19:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There doesn't appear to be a violation. Perhaps if you provide the 4 diffs that together constitute a 3RR violation, as well as the 4 diffs that show the information reverted by the user being inserted (thus proving the first four diffs as reverts), we can take action. Until then, No Violation. Anthøny  21:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is so ridiculous. How many times do I have to do this? I have opened up all forms of DR, I have mentioned related behavior at WP:ANI and now the guy is trying to adjust a poll without discussing it. Would an adminstrator on here please take some responsibility and do something about this? Even if there needs to be an Arb. hearing on this, the behavior leading up to this is totally ridiculous.  Do something, I don't care what...just do something! Juan Miguel Fangio|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> ►Chat  22:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What did you expect? You reported me on a noticeboard for a violation I had not committed.► Chris Nelson  22:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User:76.19.31.154 reported by User:Fall Of Darkness (Result:no violation)
. : Time reported: 19:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

User continuously vandalizing with nonsensical content. User was warned 3 separate times on their talk page.
 * 1st revert: 17:17, 6 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:19, 6 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:21, 6 August 2007
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:18, 6 August 2007; 17:21, 6 August 2007; 17:22, 6 August 2007


 * This isn't a 3RR violation, but instead simple vandalism. Please report that on the WP:AIV. Also note, the user has not vandalized since the last warning, and it has been a number of hours since they last edited, so a block based on vandalism is also uncalled for at this time (but keep an eye on if the user starts editing again).-Andrew c [talk] 21:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User:70.162.217.91 reported by User:Fall Of Darkness (Result:no violation)
. : Time reported: 19:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 19:18, 6 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:22, 6 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:22, 6 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:24, 6 August 2007
 * User continuously reverting and removing biographical information from page, such as birth date and place. User was warned their talk page.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:24, 6 August 2007

This is vandalism and should be reported at WP:AIV if the user vandalizes past the final warning.-Andrew c [talk] 21:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Worldatlas1989 reported by User:Algie The Pig (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 21:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:59, 24 July 2007

Your report will 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: 20:57, 1 August 2007


 * Where are the diffs? Report will not be considered until it is presented in proper form. Raymond Arritt 23:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No evidence, no violation. --  tariq abjotu  02:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Taharqa reported by User:Egyegy (Result: Protected)
. : Time reported: 21:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 2:40
 * 2rd revert: 16:26
 * 3nd revert: 16:53
 * 4th revert: 21:20

One of these is by an IP that he admits is his. Could someone also tell him to stop making racial comments and attacks like these. This is not the first time that he was blocked for making very offensive  attacks. Egyegy 21:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, excuse me to whom ever this my concern, but that last so-called revert wasn't a revert at all, it was a contribution of my own, I didn't revert him in anyway. I can assure you that if you check the history of the page this person has never ever contributed to the article and his abuse in trying to undermine every single edit I make I'd consider wikistalking and harassment. He's followed me from page to page, reverting me on articles he's never ever dealt with before and is trying to intimidate me and cause me stress by doing this, and then making false reports such as this. I strongly feel that I don't deserve a block due to the situation and the fact that I didn't revert but made a contribution.. This is exactly what the person wants, "for me to be blocked".. The last edit was an addition, a contribution, I never knew that after reverting someone, you weren't allowed to make anymore contributions/good-faith edits for the rest of the day..Taharqa 22:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Now he is reverting thru a sock/meatpuppet   that hasn't been used since his case was opened. Egyegy 22:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about (we've been thru that nonsense!)? See this is what I mean, the person has an issue that I think would be better resolved with dispute resolution so he doesn't have to pursue so many outlandish claims. I reiterate, the fact that I know about the 3rr and noted that the said IP address was mine and I just wasn't logged in, should be a tell-tale sign that I was not reverting and intended on adhering to the policy... The first couple was reverting original research/POV, Jeeny also reverted the person. Yet this person here saw that and decided to join in the edit dispute. I did not revert him and only contributed a passage that reflects another source. That's it, I don't understand why this person would report me for that, unless he just WANTS me blocked. Not holding the person in bad-faith, but I do suspect harassment as he's been following me and reverting every edit I make. I seriously suggest dispute resolution as an alternative so that the person can stop following me around. Not trying to rant, so excuse me.. Taharqa 22:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about you. The concern that this is your sockpuppet has been expressed by different users, it's hardly "outlandish". You also give yourself too much credit when you say that I'm "following" you or out to "harass" you. I always edit articles about Egypt. You only show up at these same articles to cause trouble and have apologized for it once . But a short time after that you made those racial attacks on all Egyptian users. That's what harassment is. Egyegy 23:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

^Expressed by different users? Please. Even tho that isn't the issue, it was once expressed by Urthogie and due to your conflict disputes with me, you felt a need to submit to that preposterous conclusion which I won't entertain. Anyways, I stand by what I've stated above. Also please keep in mind that I've been on this article from the start and this person just showed up today, lead there from other article's i've edited where he's followed me.Taharqa 00:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You need to take this discussion to WP:RFCU. This is not the place. Perspicacite 18:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The page was protected a week ago. --  tariq abjotu  02:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

User:SchmuckyTheCat reported by User:Qaka (Result: Qaka blocked as sock)
. : Time reported: 20:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:29, 25 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 18:50, 6 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:11, 6 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:58, 6 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:27, 6 August 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:38, 6 August 2007


 * Response
 * Qaka is a sockpuppet of permanently banned user Instantnood. I'm free to revert him a thousand times a day. SchmuckyTheCat
 * Well I'd have preferred he be blocked right off the bat, rather than you having to follow him about making all these reverts. But yes, you are correct that your reverts of him were acceptable. Picaroon (t) 02:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Jmfangio reported by User:Chrisjnelson (Result:No block, for now)
. : Time reported: 21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 14:05 August 6, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:16 August 6, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:48 August 6, 2007
 * 4th revert: 15:56, August 6, 2007


 * User has been warned by an admin about violating 3RR before (see: User talk:Jmfangio/1, though clearly fails to understand how it works as he still denied he had. Further evidence that he does not understand 3RR is that he has twice reported me for it, including once today, yet both times I had not as indication by the history of the articles.► Chris Nelson  21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Fix the difs please, right now what I see are three reverts each, watchlisted and who ever reverts after, block. Jaranda wat's sup 22:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My bad about the diffs. You can clearly see by the history he made four identical reverts within a two-hour period though.► Chris Nelson  22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Still needs to be fixed, from what I see, first edit isn't a revert Jaranda wat's sup 22:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

reported by User:Melsaran (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 21:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:38, 6 August 2007

I raised a concern regarding a semi-protection of his, because I thought that it was perhaps not entirely appropriate.
 * 1st revert: 23:21, 6 August 2007 he decided to remove my comment as "trolling"
 * 2nd revert: 23:24, 6 August 2007 I was shocked, and reinstated the comment, asking why he thought I was a troll, but he reverted me (using admin rollback)
 * 3rd revert: 23:25, 6 August 2007 I politely asked him not to use admin rollback in such a case, and to reply to my concern; he reverted it again, without a comment.
 * 4th revert: 23:37, 6 August 2007 Because he did apparently not want to talk to me, I filed a Wikiquette Alert. The instructions on this page say that you must notify the person whom the WQA concerns on their talk page, so I did. Again, he removed my message without a comment.


 * This person has been trolling my talk page and adding me as many notice boards as possible.  I've asked Melsaran to take a break and not leave me any further messages if s/he is unable to conduct conversation in a civil manner, and I don't think this is too much to ask.  Thank you, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Trolling? I just raised a concern, is that trolling? You shouldn't use admin rollback for this, and it's considered polite when you respond to my message. And this is not "as many noticeboards as possible", I didn't intend to report you here. When I filed a WQA, I assumed that you wouldn't remove the notice, as WQA requires that I leave you one. And the unprotection request was because I felt that the page protection was inappropriate, and you didn't reply to my concern.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 21:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No violation – WP:3RR does not reply for one's own user talk page. Nevertheless, I'd encourage both users to disengage for a while, before coming together for civil discussion; this behaviour really isn't benefiting the encyclopedia ~ Anthøny  22:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Tim Osman reported by User:Commodore Sloat (Result:Month)
. : Time reported: 22:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:39, 31 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 14:54, 6 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15:18, 6 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:22, 6 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 15:26, 6 August 2007


 * Not a new user; Osman has been blocked before for 3RR warring on the same page, and has been warned both on his talk page and on the article talk page to stop the disruptive edits. csloat 22:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I blocked for a month, what I didn't like is coming back from a one week block just to revert war again, he's lucky it's not indef Jaranda wat's sup 22:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Bsharvy reported by User:GTADOC (Result: Protected; Bsharvy blocked for 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 23:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:23, 6 August 2007


 * 1st revert: 12:26, 6 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:22, 6 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:30, 6 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:56, 6 August 2007

Not a new user, this user was warned by myself and another editor for 3RR, edit warring, personal attacks, and generally being disruptive. This user responded by vandalizing talk pages and more personal attacks, edit warring, and another reversion. Gtadoc 23:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The article has been protected by . --  tariq abjotu  02:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Southern Texas reported by User:JCO312 (Result: Protected)
. : Time reported: 23:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * 1st revert: 21:21, 6 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:19, 6 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 22:31, 6 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 23:30, 6 August 2007
 * I think it should be known that the last revert was the revision of trolling while we were compromsing on the talk page.-- Southern Texas  00:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think he's a new user, but he is definitely aware of the 3RR, as he mentioned in in the edit summary linked to below.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 18:17, 31 July 2007


 * Protected the article, as there has clearly been intermittent edit warring in the past week. --  tariq abjotu  02:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Opinoso reported by User:Dalillama (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 01:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 19:46, 6 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:13, 6 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:57, 6 August 2007
 * User has repeatedly engaged in 3RR violations with a particular user (João Felipe C.S). May warrant blocking of other user as well--though he has not broken the 3RR in this instance, he has done so in the past.
 * User has previously been blocked for 3RR violations.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:41, 27 June 2007


 * Four reverts, not three, make a three-revert rule violation. --  tariq abjotu  02:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Per WP:3RR, user need not actually break the rule to be blocked. He has been blocked once before, warned twice of three reverts in a 24hr period and has, for exampled, labeled his reverts as "rv vandalism" when there was a content dispute but no vandalism. I would consider this repeated disruptive behavior, even if he held short of the 4th revert--Dali-Llama 02:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not really convinced. The near-protection gives me the sense that Opinoso is not the only problematic editor. --  tariq abjotu  03:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Megaman89 reported by User:Kuralyov (Result:Megaman blocked for 8 hours for personal attacks)
.
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4

He also has been abusive and racist towards me in edit summaries and article/username talkpages. Kuralyov 05:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC) You have reverted four times as well and refused to come to the talk page and stalked me and I have not been racist at all I don't even know what race you are Megaman89 05:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

User:75.176.32.12 reported by User:David A (Result: Blocked, 10 hours)
User:JJonz / User:75.176.32.12


 * Continuous Sock-puppetry, currently during a 1-month ban:
 * 75.176.32.12 user contributions
 * Jjonz user contributions
 * Ignoring any warnings and refusing to take it to the talk:
 * 75.176.32.12 talk
 * Jjonz talk
 * Three-revert rule violation on :
 * 1st revert: 09:28, 7 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 09:41, 7 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 09:44, 7 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 09:48, 7 August 2007
 * Recurrent personal attacks, most recently here:
 * 
 * 

This user is fanatically attempting daily reverts of any edits done whatsoever for the last month or so on most articles he 'patronises'/overviews. If there is some way to permanently block his ip from any further vandalism, which seems to be his one and only occupation/purpose at Wikipedia, this would be very appreciated, as it is taking several contributors a lot of time to keep track of him, while he only seems to thrive from the attention and wasting our energy. Thank you for the help. Dave 12:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked – 10 hours, for a WP:3RR violation ~ Anthøny  20:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Searchmaven reported by User:Ghepeu (Result: Blocked, 1 day)
. : Time reported: 16:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:38, August 2, 2007


 * 1st revert: 21:47, August 5, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 05:19, August 6, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:26, August 6, 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:01, August 6, 2007
 * 5th revert: 23:08, August 6, 2007
 * 6th revert: 18:14, August 7, 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:50, August 6, 2007


 * Comment - User:Searchmaven was blocked for 10 hours by Anthøny  at 21:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC). After the block expired he reverted again (and again for the 4th time in 24h) and pasted the 3RR notification in my Talk Page. Please notice that I did not revert the page to the previous accepted version, but heavily modified the text in two occasions, adding more sources to the disputed section. Since he keeps reverting I don't really know what to do. GhePeU 16:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked – 24 hours, for a WP:3RR violation ~ Anthøny  21:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

User:67.38.138.26 reported by Perspicacite (Result:Already blocked (24hrs))
. : Time reported: 16:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:59


 * 1st revert: 16:15
 * 2nd revert: 16:23
 * 3rd revert: 16:25
 * 4th revert: 16:36

Your report will 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: 16:29
 * I would also point out that John already warned this user for vandalism. Perspicacite 16:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Kuralyov reported by Perspicacite (Result: Blocked, 10 hours)
. : Time reported: 16:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:44


 * 1st revert: 04:52, 7 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 05:00, 7 August 2007


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:03


 * 3rd revert: 05:06, 7 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 05:13, 7 August 2007


 * If you look above you will see Kuralyov reported another user for 3RR. Perspicacite 16:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * fixed diffs - please provide the date, as well as time. Anthøny  21:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked – 10 hours, for a first-time WP:3RR violation ~ Anthøny  21:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

User:MichaelCPrice reported by User:Str1977 (Result: Blocked, 20 hours)
. : Time reported: 18:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:28, 24 July 2007


 * 1st revert: 6:53 7 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:32 7 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:40 7 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:47 7 August 2007


 * User talk page shows that he has been warned about 3RR before: . He also has been blocked before:


 * Comment. User User:Str1977 has never taken his concerns to the talk page or tried to reach a consensus of any sort.  Instead he repeatedly inserts his own unbalanced, unsourced comment to poison the well against a sourced comment, in violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.  These policies have been explained to him on other pages (e.g. Ebionites where there are other active editors to keep him in check.). --Michael C. Price talk 20:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked – 20 hours, for a second violation of WP:3RR ~ Anthøny  21:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Watch844 reported by User:JFD (Result: Already blocked (24 hours))
. : Time reported: 22:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:14, 3 August 2007


 * 1st revert: 12:11, 7 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15:55, 7 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:51, 7 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:15, 7 August 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 16:54, 7 August 2007


 * The user has already been blocked by Kylu, and rightly so.  The Behnam 22:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

User:G2bambino reported by User:Lonewolf BC (Result:No block)
. : Time reported: 23:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 00:58, 7 August (full revert to 18:45, 5 August 2007)
 * 2nd revert: 14:30-16:44 (showing overall diff of consecutive edits by G2bambino, over the given timespan) revert is to the version of 14:34, 31 July 2007 and consists of:
 * in the opening sentence, re-adding the "monarch" stuff, plus a small wording-revert from "a purpose..." to "having served..."
 * in the 2nd paragraph (which was the 3rd paragraph back on July 31), deletion of the "guest residence" material


 * 3rd revert: 17:03-17:11 (showing overall diff of consecutive edits by G2bambino, over the given timespan) revert is to the version of 18:47, 4 June 2007 and consists of:
 * in the opening sentence, re-adding the "monarch" stuff (including "Ottawa"), with "top billing"


 * 4th revert: 18:27-19:23 (showing overall diff of consecutive edits by G2bambino, over the given timespan) revert is to the version of 17:11, 7 August 2007 and consists of:
 * in the opening sentence, re-adding the "monarch" stuff (including "Ottawa")
 * in the second paragraph, deleting all "guest residence" material

Gbambino was lately blocked for edit-warring and shortly afterward for a separate 3rr violation, besides other 3rr breaches or incident reports; habitually dances up to 3 reverts and sometimes beyond. See also his record as Gbambino06 and Gbambino: he has been indulging in this kind of behaviour for quite a long time & first was warned about 3rr shortly after debuting on WP, Feb 2005. -- Lonewolf BC 23:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, looking at the actual recent history - i.e., not back to edits on June 4 (!) - that would be two reverts in 24hrs, if indeed they could be classified as reverts, which removing your OR and POV, and attempting to recompose to satisfy all parties involved is not, especially as you refuse to engage in the discussion at talk where User:GoodDay and I were working out the issues. As per edit wars: shall I raise your behaviour at List of palaces, Canada Day, Royal tours of Canada, Monarchy in Ontario, etc., etc.? Be careful when trying to smear my character. --G2bambino 00:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at the edit history, there are not 4 eligible reverts in a 24 hour period; neither is there any listed above. However, it would be prudent for y'all to stop editing the page and hash out your differences on the talk page. I may lock the page to that effect. -- Avi 14:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but currently two of the three editors involved are satisfied with the present result. Lonewolf continues to offer no comments. --G2bambino 14:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Y'all now have 2 weeks to work this out. If you feel consensus has been reached earlier, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page or on WP:RFPP. Good Luck! -- Avi 14:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I missed one revert, but as blocks are meant to be preventative, not punative, I do not feel further action needs to be taken. Based on a conversation on my talk page, however, dispute resolution may be in the offing. -- Avi 05:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So be it, but for the record I do not think that is the wisest course, given the circumstances and the offending editor's history of violations, particularly the very recent history. I foresee more "playing chicken" with, and violations 3RR by G2bambino, before long. -- Lonewolf BC 06:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's also have the record show that Lonewolf himself is guilty of multiple 3RR breaches, even recently. He's only skipped recourse because he hasn't been reported.  I'll certainly not be so lenient in future. --G2bambino 14:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The record (my contribution history) can only show what it really shows, which is nothing of the kind. -- Lonewolf BC 19:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you both try assuming good faith and start the discussion anew with mind for content and not personal rancor, y'all may be surprised. Good Luck. -- Avi 06:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussions are started, it's just that Lonewolf doesn't consider them worthy of his time; he does his "debating" through reverts. --G2bambino 14:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Discussions were started by me, and the truth is that I've contributed to them more substantially than has Bambino (or so it seems to me), albeit not so many times or as lately. (I fellow can't do everything at once, and thoughtful considerations cannot be churned out at a high rate.)  Again, the actual record (article's talk-page) rather contradicts the accusation. -- Lonewolf BC 19:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * For all your verbosity you had one main concern: the Monarch came before the GG. Your subsequent edits removed all mention of the monarch, cited as they were, removed mention of the very city in which Rideau Hall is located, and added all sorts of OR about Rideau Hall being a guest house for the Queen and heads of state staying there; all this with not one single comment on the talk page.  The article has been edited to address your initial, and so far only valid, concern. --G2bambino 20:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's no more accurate than your last two Parthian shots. This is not the place to argue that, though, and anyone else who comes upon this report and cares enough -- the likelihood seems tiny -- can read the article's talk-page and decide for themselves. -- Lonewolf BC 19:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that a good way to start anew, G2 [[Image:Face-wink.svg|25px]] -- Avi 15:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Local667forOb reported by User:Bobblehead (Result: Local667forOb blocked as sock)
. : Time reported: 00:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: This is a complex revert, more edit warring

First two sent back to this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=149292303&oldid=149254616 This one back to this version: There isn't a specific version for this one, but keeps adding info about Dan Hynes being endorsed by IFOP in primary, after it's been removed by multiple editors. Here's a version from today:
 * 1st revert: 15:37, 7 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15:46, 7 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:07, 7 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:43, 7 August 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: There isn't a warning, but user admits to knowing about 3rr in edit summary. 16:01, 7 August 2007
 * I would argue against blocking Local in this case because his 4th 'reversion' and his understanding on WP:3RR are debatable. Perspicacite 02:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User:71.107.171.45 reported by User:Eiorgiomugini (Result: 24 hours; see below reports)
. : Time reported: 02:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Statement by 71.107.171.45
I am glad that this was reported because I was reverting cut and paste moves by Eiorgiomugini, which is considered vandalism, thus not qualifying as a 3RR. Please see my talk page for further explanations.--71.107.171.45 02:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever this guy is trying to plead himself is totally nonsense, since he was the one who had been cut and paste while reverting my edits over the past few day under different ip addresses. It seems like this ip is obviously another sock puppet of User:JarlaxleArtemis who created the article Ch'in Chiu-Shao under the redirect page. Anyway he had violated the 3RR rules. Eiorgiomugini 02:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Already reported twice. IP blocked 24 hours by another admin for 3RR. MastCell Talk 19:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

User:71.107.171.45 reported by User:Eiorgiomugini (Result: 24 hours; see below report)
. : Time reported: 02:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Statement by 71.107.171.45
I am glad that this was reported because I was reverting cut and paste moves by Eiorgiomugini, which is considered vandalism, thus not qualifying as a 3RR. Please see my talk page for further explanations.--71.107.171.45 02:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Multiple reports. IP blocked for 24 hours for 3RR by another admin. MastCell Talk 19:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

User:71.107.171.45 reported by User:Eiorgiomugini (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 02:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Yet another 3rr, this time with personal attack. Obviously a sock puppet of Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis, who have history of making WP:NPA. An exceed 3rr reverts as shown from page history Eiorgiomugini 06:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You do know that you are also reporting yourself, right?--71.107.171.45 06:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not exceed it pal. Eiorgiomugini 06:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's funny, making inaccurate assumptions like that. Typical of a revert warrior, I suppose. See this for further details.--71.107.171.45 06:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If Eiorgiomugini does not have basic counting skills, how can he be trusted to edit Wikipedia?--71.107.171.45 06:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * IP blocked 24 hours by another admin. MastCell Talk 19:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Yqbd reported by User:SheffieldSteel (Result:Improperly formatted report combined with no apparent violation)
. : Time reported: 05:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

This edit by Yqbd was reverted by another user and then Yqbd reinserted his desired text (not strictly a revert but it is in spirit) here This move by me of a lengthy debate to a sub-page was reverted here by Yqbd This move by another editor of another lengthy section to the sub-page was reverted here by Yqbd
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: none yet. I'm appealing on the spirit of 3RR, not the letter.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * A warning was issued though unnecessary, since the user had only just returned from his third ban (for 3RR violation on this article) and was almost banned permanently | "This is the third block in as many days - I seriously considered making this an indefinite block. Stop disrupting this article right now or you will lose your editing privileges permanently." I have tried to reason with this editor and I hoped 3 days ban would be enough for them to made a new start but they are still disrupting this article.


 * Please follow the 3RR report format (shown at the bottome of this page). Thank you -- Avi 14:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Further, there does not appear to be a violation of 3RR. In the future, please submit 3RR violation reports formatted in the proper fashion, otherwise they may not be processed. -- Avi 14:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Anoshirawan reported by User:Raoulduke47 (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 08:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

Your report will 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:

This user has also been edit warring on several different articles concerning Afghanistan: Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, Durrani Empire and Hotaki. Raoulduke47 08:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours. MastCell Talk 19:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered reported by User:Kyaa the Catlord (Result: 8 hrs)
. : Time reported: 12:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:32, 7 August 2007


 * 1st revert: 22:08 August 7 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:24 August 7 2007
 * 3rd revert: 06:43 August 8 2007
 * 4th revert: 11:27 August 8 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: PalestineRemembered is not a newer user.
 * User:PalestineRemembered is continues to place potential copyvio text (notably the Jordanian report to the UN on the Battle of Jenin). User has been warned that replacing copyright violations in articles will be deleted and challenges the policy, even to the point of disregarding WP:AGF. Kyaa the Catlord 12:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have expected to be warned of this, or at least informed on my TalkPage that the allegation was made against me, otherwise this looks very much like an attempt to stop me working, industriously and properly on this article. (Which urgently needs this work). I will check these diffs and come back in a moment, this is plainly not a 3RR in any regular sense. PalestineRemembered 13:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The lack of a warning prevents a block only in cases where the editor can be reasonably assumed not to be cognizant of our policy. This does not hold for an editor such as yourself, who, as of November 12, 2006, knew enough about 3RR to call others "3RR specialists". Other than simple vandalism and BLP issues, there is no general permission for violating 3RR, which it appears you have plainly done here. -- Avi 14:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Chaldean and User:Nochi reported by User:gscshoyru (Result: 24 hours for Nochi, 72 hours for Chaldean (repeat offender))
. -- : Time reported: 12:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Chaldean:
 * Previous version reverted to:

Nochi:
 * Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Chaldean:
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Nochi:
 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * 24 hours for Nochi as a first offender, 72 hours for Chaldean as a repeat offender. MastCell Talk 18:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

User:EliasAlucard reported by User:Vonones (Result: Article protected)
. : Time reported: 15:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: (removes with no explanation)
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:


 * This is a pretty clear 3RR violation, but as the article has already been protected by another admin, a block at this point would be punitive rather than preventive, and would inhibit Elias from discussing the dispute on the talk page and thus inhibit consensus. MastCell Talk 18:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 8 reverts deserves a block. He violated the rule thus a block is very necessary. --Vonones 19:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Eidah reported by User:Avraham (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 15:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:26, August 7, 2007


 * 1st revert: 03:26, August 8, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 08:44, August 8, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 10:22, August 8, 2007
 * 4th revert: 11:29, August 8, 2007


 * Reverts are all to reinsert "extremist" and "smaller" claims.

Your report will 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: 11:30, August 8, 2007
 * This was not not a pre-violation warning. However, the user's response is telling:

Other than simple vandalism and BLP issues, there is no general permission for 3RR violations. -- Avi 15:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 24 hours, given refusal to self-revert when informed of 3RR. MastCell Talk 18:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Dacy69 reported by User:VartanM (Result: Suggest moving to ArbCom enforcement)

 * Three-revert rule 1RR violation on various articles
 * Time reported: 17:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The user gamed the system by meatpupeting for Grandmaster and Atabek by reverting for them when they exhausted their 1RR's. Please note that he never edited the following articles before, neither did he participated in the talkpage before or after he reverted. His explanations in the talkpage for the reverts, were only a sentence long. He is clearly trying to circumvent his parole and continue his edit warring.
 * Dacy69 is under arbcom parole on 1RR per week, and has been blocked three times since the arbcom limited him on 1RR.

Sahl ibn Sunbat reverts, edit summary: (rv - pls. engage in talkpage)

Talk assumes bad faith and accuses ArmeniaArmenia of being a sock, says that current version accommodates both versions. He never edited the article before, neither did he participated in the talkpage.

House of Hasan Jalalyan reverts, edit summary: (rv - dont delete sourced info)

Talk "And put your arguments here so we will be able to discuss". Never edited the article before, neither has he participated in the discussion.

List of Azerbaijani films 1898-1919 reverts, edit summary: (rv)

Talk "Discussion about the name of Azerbaijan does not belong here: Never edited the article before, neither has he participated in the discussion.

Movses Kaghankatvatsi reverts, edit summary: "(rv - see discussion. we should use in article like that neutral source)"

Talk "MarshalBagramyan, your last edit has refrence to non-neutral source while you have reverted neutral source.". Never edited the article before, neither has he participated in the discussion.

Khojaly Massacre revertes, edit summary: "(rv - see talkpage)"

Talk ":Statement is full POV we dont have personal interpretation here." Never edited the article before, neither has he participated in the discussion.


 * Comments: There is no instance of 1RR presented above. A party to an ongoing ArbCom case, User:VartanM is currently engaged in removing sourced content from Azerbaijan-related pages, particularly at Khachen: . He also alleviates any attempts to insert dispute tags, despite the fact that he himself continues disputing at Talk:Khachen - . In addition, he chooses to personally attack the users that don't agree with his opinion - see the edit comment here: . He is also known  to make disruptive reverts and call others' edits as "vandalism" 19 times in a row. Atabek 17:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have extensively participated in the talkpage of those articles and always justified my edits. For Makalp see how he vandalized the Armenian articles here Your edit on Anti-Turkism and number of other articles where you removed Armenian Genocide was an attack on Armenian users and was reported to Arbcom for trying to create a battle along national lines. Now please stop stalking me and soapboxing admin's noticeboard. VartanM 18:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Armenian "Genocide" is a claim being made by only one side in what was communal warfare and massacres. It has not been recognized under the U.N. convention on genocide. I don't see how my reflection of the facts on various pages is supposed to be an "attack along national lines", when I only replaced "genocide" with "massacres". Assume good faith and review WP:SOAP. Atabek 18:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest moving this report to the ArbCom enforcement page, as it is not strictly a 3RR violation, but a violation of ArbCom-imposed sanctions. MastCell Talk 18:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

User:69.232.66.4 reported by User:Neil916 (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 18:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:00, August 6, 2007


 * 1st revert: 16:12, August 7, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 01:54, August 8, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 13:32, August 8, 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:56, August 8, 2007
 * 5th revert: 18:12, August 8, 2007

Your report will 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: 18:11, August 8, 2007

Note: This user has a history of 3RR blocks for edit warring on the same article when editing as.


 * 24 hours. If he returns with dynamic IP's, consider requesting semi-protection at WP:RFPP. MastCell Talk 18:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The user's contribution history suggests a fairly static IP address, or a dymanic IP address that changes very infrequently. Thanks for stepping in.  Neil916 (Talk) 19:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

User:NCdave reported by User:MastCell (Result: 72h)
. : Time reported: 18:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 16:30, 1 August 2007


 * 1st revert: 06:22, 7 August 2007 (undoes immediately prior edit)
 * 2nd revert: 17:50, 7 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 05:05, 8 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 09:04, 8 August 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: NCdave is aware of 3RR, having been previously blocked twice for 3RR violations.

This is acutally 4 reverts in 27 hours. However, I'm reporting it because this user has just come off a 1-week block for 3RR on this same article, and has gone right back to edit-warring over the same issues without discussion on the talk page (until after the 4th revert). He is a repeat edit-warrior and his behavior continues unabated after his previous block. Four reverts in 27 hours, under the circumstances, is gaming the system and violating the spirit of WP:3RR. MastCell Talk 18:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ GDonato (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Concerned2030 reported by User:FutureNJGov (Result:Article already protected)
Young Republicans. : Time reported: 18:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 12:19
 * 2nd revert: 13:59
 * 3rd revert: 14:26
 * 4th revert: 14:46

These are the only contributions by this user, leading me to believe the account was created solely to protect Glenn Murphy's image. Anthony Hit me up... 19:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * GDonato (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User:KarenAER reported by User:The Behnam (Result:Not 4 reverts, no vio)
. : Time reported: 19:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 18:07, 8 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:53, 8 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:05, 8 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:25, 8 August 2007

Comment - Seems to be the same user as, who was very similar a banned user who warred on the same topic. Incidentally, they all act the same. I present this information because it may be of use in deciding block length. The user is not new here. The Behnam 19:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Admits to using KarenAE here 04:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Note that 2nd "revert" is not a revert. I did that for the first time after disussing it in the talk page. 3rd and 4th reverts was to the 2nd one. 1st one was to couple days ago....KarenAER 20:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you realize that it is the undoing that is focused upon here? It doesn't matter if that is the first time you undid that particular action - it counts if you undid it. The Behnam 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I didnt undo anything in the second link. I changed the layout. KarenAER 20:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If so, it was against consensus. - Jeeny Talk 20:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's definitely not a change in layout, anyway. That's pure OR - taking Nouri al-Maliki out of the gallery into his own box labeled with the original conclusion that he only fits some of the definitions provided in the article.  The Behnam 21:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment You did not gain consensus on the talk page. You took it upon yourself, by telling others their views were irrelevant. Therefore, you have dismissed other editors concerns, so you go on and keep reverting anyway. Also received warning before but deleted it.diff. - Jeeny Talk 20:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Created user page after the user was reported. To throw people off? diff. - Jeeny Talk 20:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * GDonato (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleemosynary reported by User:A.V. (Result: Eleemo blocked 1 wk, other user blocked 24h)
. : Time reported: 19:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 6:47, 8 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 6:52, 8 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 6:56, 8 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 8:24, 8 August 2007


 * User has been blocked for 3RR several times.
 * Comment: The edit war involved several editors, but I’m not sure how to fill out multiple form. Eleemosynary has 5-6 past blocks based on user talk page. I couldn’t see any previous blocks with the other editors. There have been many more than three reverts between Eleemosynary and other users in the past two or three days.
 * has offered to assist in this report, so please wait for him to sort it out before handling the report has been sorted (small fixes made); Administrators: feel free to handle this report.  Anthøny  20:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * See also current issues at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy, again]. - Crockspot 21:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

resultEleemosynary blocked 1 week. Steven Andrew Miller blocked 24hr. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Denny Crane.  03:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Chanakyathegreat reported by User:Mzajac (Result: 24h for both)
. : Time reported: 19:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 04:51
 * 2nd revert: 11:07
 * 3rd revert: 22:54
 * 4th revert: 02:12
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 09:49
 * 5th revert: 10:34

I warned user:Chanakyathegreat after he violated 3RR once. He proceeded to revert again immediately, thus violating the rule a second time. —Michael Z. 2007-08-08 19:51 Z 


 * This appears to be a first offence for user:Chanakyathegreat
 * Relevant discussion about the template: template talk:Modern tanks
 * Chanakyathegreat's response to my 3RR warning: 10:33
 * —Michael Z. 2007-08-08 20:01 Z 
 * Both violated. GDonato (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Edwardsville reported by User:Jakew (Result: 24 hrs)
. : Time reported: 20:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:31, August 6, 2007


 * 1st revert: 03:50, August 7, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 04:23, August 7, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 13:40, August 7, 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:33, August 7, 2007 (as IP, see below)
 * 5th revert: 02:12, August 8, 2007 (as IP, see below)

Your report will 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: 19:52, June 4, 2007 and 19:25, July 26, 2007

I'm reporting Edwardsville/74.230.142.124, as recommended at Suspected sock puppets/Edwardsville, for five full or partial reverts in 24hrs.
 * 24hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User:67.165.246.163 reported by User:216.21.150.44 (Result: 1 month)
. : Time reported: 00:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:45, 8 August 2007


 * 1st revert: 20:23, 8 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:25, 8 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:44, 8 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 23:48, 8 August 2007
 * 5th revert: 23:52, 8 August 2007
 * 6th revert: 23:54, 8 August 2007
 * 7th revert: 00:56, 8 August 2007
 * 8th revert: 00:04, 8 August 2007
 * 9th revert: 00:52, 8 August 2007
 * 10th revert: 02:02, 9 August 2007

Comment has already been blocked several times for edit warring and vandalism on the Jimmy Page article. 216.21.150.44 00:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Recurring violation of editing privileges. One month. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Corticopia reported by User:Dark Tea (Result: 14 days)
. : Time reported: 07:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:44, 8 August 2007


 * 1st revert: 01:18, 9 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 01:13, 9 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:58, 9 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 23:11, 8 August 2007

User:Corticopia is not a new user. It only appears that way because s/he blanked her talk page and did not archive it.Corticopia has been blocked 7 times for gaming the 3RR.


 * Blocked for fourteen days, per the evidence above and the user's history. --  tariq abjotu  16:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Watermint reported by User:Bason1 (Result: Blocked, 10 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on many page.
 * Time reported: 13:25, 9 August 2007

i already warn his talk page.:


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

he continually distruptive edit at 'dokdo/liancourt rock/takeshima' word. he did not obey alphabetical order. dokdo's "d" is ahead of takeshima's "t". and this island governed by korea gov. also, korean people residence there. no japanese in that island. this island contolled by korea gov. japan is just "claim". in japan, they can't go to dokdo by ship and airplane. (they need permit by korea gov.) but korean can. i already metioned this to article's discussion page.  so, his change is clearly out of neutral point of view. i already warn him. also, he insert false information at. he did not obey alphabetical order, and that image is not fishline. Please see his many edit of his korea relation edit. This user Watermint has engaged in seriously edit war.Bason1 12:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion. Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Please chack time stamp. I did not violate the policy. Bason1 is not understand the 3rr policy. Moreover, I suspected this user engaged in Sock puppetry. I have already reported.

--Watermint 11:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * i'm not socket puppet. bcz, i do not act like other guy. also, i did not discussion like other people. or protect my second ID i do not violation any rule. do you understand Sock puppetry mean? i already explain this at Bason1 11:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This reporter reports repeatedly without fully understanding the rule of WP:3RR. The previous case is in archive 54 (reports for Nightshadow28 and Komdori). --Nightshadow28 12:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * your claim no relation with this. bcz i point a distruptive edit war. and my previous case no relation. also, if you find my previous edit of Bason1, i edited a Neutral point of edit. but, he is non-neutral point of edit. he delete dokdo in some page. but i edited 'dokdo/liancourt rock/takeshima'(same use), also, obey alphabetical order.(dokdo's "d" is ahead of takeshima's "t".) very neurtal point of view. also, he insert false edit at . this image is NOT fishing line.Bason1 13:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked – 10 hours, for a 3RR violation. Anthøny  22:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Khampalak reported by User:Beh-nam (Result: Blocked, 10 hours)
. : Time reported: 16:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


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


 * Comment: This user is aware of the 3RR violation rule since he has reported other users for it. Please see here. --Behnam 17:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked – 10 hours, for a 3RR violation. Anthøny  22:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Central2 reported by User:156.34.208.242 (Result:blocked 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 16:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:45, 8 August 2007


 * 1st revert: 10:42, 9 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:06, 9 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:28, 9 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:37, 9 August 2007
 * 5th revert: 15:02, 9 August 2007
 * 6th revert: 15:11, 9 August 2007
 * 7th revert: 15:39, 9 August 2007
 * 8th revert: 16:05, 9 August 2007
 * 9th revert: 16:36, 9 August 2007
 * 10th revert: 17:24, 9 August 2007

Comment also edits as (a fact the user confessed to here. Central2's IP has been blocked for 1 month for repeated violations of WP:VAN, WP:NPA, WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL User:Central2 is simply repeating all the sam edits to the Jimmy Page article that earned IP 67.165.246.163 his 1 month block. Central2 has been issued several warnings but has blanked his talk page. 156.34.208.242 16:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeeny reported by User:KarenAER (Result: User self-reverted; no sanctions warranted)
. : Time reported: 16:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: complex


 * 1st revert: 16:33, 8 August 2007


 * rv to:


 * 2nd revert: 18:10, 8 August 2007


 * rv to:


 * 3rd revert: 19:00, 8 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:15, 8 August 2007


 * rv to:


 * 5th revert: 02:21, 9 August 2007


 * rv to:


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Not a new user. Warned me of 3RR violation herself/himself. 22:51, 5 August 2007

Comment Note that the user has been blocked before KarenAER 16:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC) The edits undone are: As Jeeny has undone these edits, there is no violation. I think Jeeny now knows to better keep track of the number of reverts. Lesson learned :-) The Behnam 18:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just a note that user Jeeny has undone her last two edits and should therefore be back under the 3RR limit. However, this looks like a case which may require mediation. As a somewhat involved party, I'll vouch that user KarenAER has plainly edited against consensus and user Jeeny's edits were plainly meant to re-establish consensus version as per the talk page.--Ramdrake 18:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I second Ramdrake's comments. Even if Karen did not technically violate 3RR, he certainly violated the spirit, especially since his edits were completely unacceptable.  The Behnam 18:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1), invalidating 1 and 5.
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4), invalidating 2.

User:Beh-nam reported by User:Mirrori1 (Result: No vio)
. : Time reported: 17:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


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


 * this user knows about 3rr and i warned him/her anyway. he/she is also removing well sourced informations which he/she does not like to see., he/she must stop behaving this way.Mirrori1 17:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually the 3RR violation is for making more than 3 of the same edit, not just 3. And you forced me to revert 3 times since you kept putting in something that was unreferenced! --Behnam 17:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There was not a violation here on Beh-nam's part, but please discuss on the talk page instead of edit-warring. MastCell Talk 03:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Digwuren reported by User:RJ CG (Result: No vio; only 3 reverts listed)
. : Time reported: 19:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 18:00, 9 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:07, 9 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:16, 9 August 2007

Your report will 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: 18:39, 9 August 2007
 * User deleted this warning shortly after I added it but refused to revert his action. RJ CG 19:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There are only 3 reverts listed here; the rule is broken on the 4th revert, so there hasn't been a violation. It would also be helpful to provide diffs; see WP:DIFF for instructions on how to generate them. MastCell Talk 03:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Mirrori1 reported by User:Beh-nam (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 01:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 12:14, 9 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:03, 9 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:24, 9 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:33, 9 August 2007


 * 1st Diff of 3RR warning: 19:23, 15 July 2007
 * 2nd Diff of 3RR warning: 07:46, 18 July 2007


 * Stop x nuvola with clock.svg User(s) blocked. for 24 hours. MastCell Talk 03:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Bason1 (User:Bason0) reported by User:Endroit (Result: 48 hours for main account; sock blocked indefinitely)
. : Time reported: 12:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:52, 30 April 2007


 * 1st revert: 11:13, 10 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 11:24, 10 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 11:37, 10 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 12:04, 10 August 2007
 * 5th revert: 12:24, 10 August 2007
 * 6th revert: 12:38, 10 August 2007

Other violations: Broke 3RR in
 * Previous version reverted to: 10:16, 9 August 2007


 * 1st revert: 11:08, 10 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 11:19, 10 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 11:36, 10 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 12:25, 10 August 2007

Yet another violation, using a sock: 3RR in
 * Previous version reverted to: 10:19, 9 August 2007 Bason1


 * 1st revert: 02:23, 10 August 2007 Bason0
 * 2nd revert: 11:09, 10 August 2007 Bason1
 * 3rd revert: 11:35, 10 August 2007 Bason1
 * 4th revert: 12:59, 10 August 2007 Bason1


 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: See 05:47, 10 August 2007, User:Bason1 is essentially the same user as, recently blocked for 3RR violation and harrassments.--Endroit 12:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * when i was beginner, i was missed. but, this is NO relation with previous block and edit.Bason1 13:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.


 * he did not 3rr warning. at this moment.Bason1 12:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, was already blocked for 3RR, and  admitted they are the same person here.--Endroit 12:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah, Bason0 is my other ID. when i was begginer, i was blocked. but this revert 'naming dispute' is NOT cause by me. some japanese first start, you know. also, japanese continually revert word. Bason1 12:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * i already report to admin. 1st of all. some japanese change article to non-neutral point of view. change naming dispute. Bason1 12:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * wow, i attacked by many japanese(maybe same guy?). are you same person with Nightshadow28? Bason1 13:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is that Bason1 has used multiple accounts and engaged in multiple edit wars, against multiple editors, in many articles. By the way, since I've been asked here, Endroit is my sole user name.--Endroit 13:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop x nuvola with clock.svg User(s) blocked. for 48 hours (Bason0, which appears to be the main account). I've indefinitely blocked the sockpuppet account, Bason1, as this user is editing disruptively and potentially using a second account to avoid scrutiny. MastCell Talk 18:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Nightshadow28 reported by User:Bason1 (Result: No violation)
.
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Previous version reverted to: 12:52, 30 April 2007


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

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly. Bason1 12:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: See


 * This reporter reports repeatedly without understanding the rule of WP:3RR. User:Alison warned once for similar report by this reporter. --Nightshadow28 12:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * not repeteadly warning. you did violation in sing page, 3 times. i revert from vandalism. also, your edit is non-neutral point of view.Bason1 12:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * when i was beginner, i was mistake, but this situation is different. this situation, you break 3rr rule, too. Bason1 12:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No violation; only 3 reverts reported. MastCell Talk 18:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Bason1 reported by User:Nightshadow28 (Result: Already dealt with above)
. : Time reported: 13:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:41, 6 August 2007


 * 1st revert: 02:23, 10 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 11:09, 10 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 11:35, 10 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 12:59, 10 August 2007

Your report will 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: 11:45, 10 August 2007


 * User:Bason0 = User:Bason1. There is a evidence. --Nightshadow28 13:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * ok, i did revert. but, this naming dispute was NOT all cause by me. some japanese first start. and we must obey alphabetical order. Dokdo's "d" is ahead of takeshima's "t". i just fixed. if you see my change, this is only alphabetical order change. not false information edit.Bason1 13:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * See earlier report of this user. Bason1 indefblocked as a sockpuppet; Bason0 blocked for 48 hours as main account. MastCell Talk 18:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I thank you for all of your works. --Nightshadow28 04:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

User:69.232.66.4 reported by User:Neil916 (Result: 1 week)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 16:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:33, August 2, 2007


 * 1st revert: 00:47, August 10, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 03:06, August 10, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 04:01, August 10, 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:30, August 10, 2007
 * 5th revert: 15:55, August 10, 2007

Your report will 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: 18:11, August 8, 2007

Note: This user is fresh off a 3RR block for edit warring on the article and has several other 3RR blocks under the following ID's:



In all cases, the user has refused all communication attempts to justify his edits, yet has demonstrated competency in English by making grammatical corrections as 69.232.73.33 and contesting a 3RR block via email when editing as 70.230.215.18.


 * Blocked for 1 week as a repeat offender. I semi-protected the target article for a week as well. If he returns with a dynamic IP, the semi-protection can be extended - see WP:RFPP. MastCell Talk 18:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Wallak reported by User:Anonimu (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 16:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:15, 9 August 2007


 * 1st revert: 22:07, 9 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:31, 9 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:18, 10 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:25, 10 August 2007
 * 5th revert: 18:52, 10 August 2007
 * 6th revert: 22:05, 10 August 2007
 * 7th revert: 22:15, 10 August 2007 (note that this revert is 24 hours and 7 minutes after the first one)

Your report will 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: 20:08, 9 August 2007

Comment: revert war against 3 4 users by a suspected sock of User:Bonaparte.

My defense: I'm not socket puppet. I don't know if my edits are like that person or not, but I did discussed like other people on talk page. The person above has just reverted me without a single edit on talk page. Please see his edits. That was just a provocation from him. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#ECF1F7;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Wallak Talk 17:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sock or not, definitely violated 3RR. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

User:82.95.194.23 reported by User:Famspear (Result:Blocked for one week)
. : Time reported: 17:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:01, August 10, 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:57, August 10, 2007


 * 2nd revert: 14:18, August 10, 2007


 * 3rd revert: 14:35, August 10, 2007


 * 4th revert: 14:41, August 10, 2007


 * 5th revert: 15:31, August 10, 2007


 * 6th revert: 15:36, August 10, 2007


 * 7th revert: 20:04, August 10, 2007


 * 8th revert: 22:17, August 10, 2007

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly. [I added a warning template to the user's talk page after the user's 7th reversion. Famspear 21:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)]
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:19, August 10, 2007

This is the first time I've ever reported an apparent violation, so I'm not sure I'm doing this correctly. In the article on Income tax, the putative violator has been repeatedly inserting a link to a video with some tax protester rhetoric that is not supported by the video and which is non-neutral language. The violator was asked to move the material to the talk page for the article where this material arguably really goes (if at all), which is the article Tom Cryer. The violator has not responded at all, and offers no explanations for his/her edits, aside from repeatedly reverting other editors. Yours, Famspear 17:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: No 3RR warning was issued to the user. I have added a warning here (17:25, August 10, 2007).  Neil916 (Talk) 17:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: I apologize. I believe I made a typographical error on the IP address of the violator. The IP address involved is IP82.95.194.23, not IP82.95.194.123. Yours, Famspear 17:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: My fumbling fingers also induced user Neil916 to post a warning on the wrong user talk page. For that I apologize. Yours, Famspear 17:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem continues. Seventh revert in less than 12 hours is at. User has reverted three different editors without providing any explanation in edit summaries, or any response on talk pages. Warning template was added to user's talk page after the seventh reversion. Famspear 20:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear editors: The user was informally warned here at 15:12 on 10 August 2007:

And again here, at 17:19 on 10 August 2007:

And here, with a formal warning template, at 20:19 on 10 August 2007 (i.e., after the seventh reversion):

The eighth reversion occurred here, at 22:17 on 10 August 2007:

This user has now reverted four different editors in the same article a total of eight times in less than twelve hours. Yours, Famspear 22:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

AND NOW... another one (the 9th?) 23:42, 10 August 2007. -- DS1953 <sup style="color:green;">talk 23:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

User:G2bambino reported by User:Lonewolf BC (Result:)
. : Time reported: 19:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 00:17, 9 August 2007 (straightforward full revert) Previous version reverted to: 02:36, 8 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 01:26, 9 August 2007 & 01:34, 9 August 2007 (a consecutive pair of edits) Previous version reverted to: 01:18, 28 July 2007 (or, more clearly though less lately, 09:39, 25 October 2006) Revert: capitalisation of Monarch/monarch ("The Monarch of the Commonwealth Realms...", in reverted-to version --> "The British monarch...", in just-before-revert version --> "The British Monarch...", in revert) ("The British Monarch...", itself, was last used in the version of 09:39, 25 October 2006) Comment: this revert was mainly a disruptive edit of a non-revertive kind -- an introduction of an absurd format of presentation, seemingly ironically or as an edit-war tactic, or both.
 * 3rd revert: 14:31, 9 August 2007 Previous version reverted to: 02:50, 28 October 2006 (among others, each in part, but mainly this one) Revert: Deletion of a passage that had developed over many edits and a long span of time Comment: Because of the nature of this revert, it is partially a revert to each of several previous versions, each of which is the version just before some part of the deleted passage became incorporated therein. The given reverted-to version is the main one, though, whereas the edit following right after it (06:15, 28 October 2006) established the deleted passage's basic form and more of its words than did any other edit.  Other bits of it originated afterward, or even before.
 * 4th revert: 18:46 & 18:51, 9 August 2007 (overall diff of two consecutive edits by the reverter) Previous version reverted to: 00:17, 9 August 2007 Revert/comment: This revert is tricky, but it is a revert in spirit and substance and, technically, in some particulars. It reverts the affected section from the simple "British monarch" language to the "monarch, separately, of each of the Commonwealth Realms" language favoured by the reverting editor.  More particularly, and following along in the order of the passage:
 * "The British monarch..." is replaced by wording pointing to her being severally the monarch of many countries
 * "...does not have a passport..." is reverted to "...does not have any passport..." [my italics on the reverted word]
 * "...British passports..." is replaced with particularist language using "...in each..." (cf. "...passports in each of those countries...", in reverted-to version, and "...in each state passports...", in revert)
 * "In Commonwealth Realms (which share the same monarch as the UK)..." is replaced by particularist language pointing to the UK's being merely one Commonwealth realm among the rest (cf. "...as per his or her role as sovereign of that particular country," and "...as Queen of that particular kingdom,...", etc.)
 * There are certainly very particular bits which are reverted in this case (though they are also quite small), so technically this is a revert. However, what is more important for the present purposes is, I believe, its more diffuse revertive character.  The effect of the edit is to revert to the earlier version, meaning-wise.  The exact words used to do so are somewhat changed and stirred around, but this seems to serve no purpose other than to obscure that (or even throw into question whether) a revert has been made -- in what might be an instance of system-gaming.  I think, though not without a shadow of doubt, that this is a revert.  I shall be interested to see what expert opinion says.  However, it is not actually needed to make a tally of four reverts.


 * 5th revert: 21:24, 9 August 2007 (straightforward, full revert) Previous version reverted to: 18:51, 9 August 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:28, 9 August 2007 (Not really needed, whereas the breaching user was first warned about 3RR in Feb 2005)

See also the preceding edit-warring on this article, and the reported 3RR breaches by the same offender, on different articles, on 7 August (above), 28 July, 15 July (resulting in a block, though this is not noted in the report; see his blocklog), and block for edit-warring on 11 July. The edit-war on this article is temporarily quiet, with the article in G2bambino's favoured form. Please consider the pattern of behavior shown, though, and its implications for the likelihood of further edit-warring by the offender. -- Lonewolf BC 19:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was, quiet as of that last writing, but reverting has resumed, with G. taking part. -- Lonewolf BC 02:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * October 2006!!? Surely this can't be serious.  Yet another witch-hunt by Lonewolf to try his best to get me blocked, digging through ancient records to find some edit that coincidentally matches one I made yesterday.
 * I made two reverts in the period between 00:17, 9 August 2007 and 21:24, 9 August 2007: 00:17, 9 August 2007 to 02:36, 8 August 2007, and 21:24, 9 August 2007 to 18:51, 9 August 2007.
 * As for the other allegations by Lonewolf:
 * 01:26, 9 August 2007 in no way matches 01:18, 28 July 2007
 * 14:31, 9 August 2007 in no way matches 02:50, 28 October 2006
 * 18:46 & 18:51 in no way matches 00:17, 9 August 2007
 * This really is getting beyond ridiculous and is bordering on harassment, all because this particular user has some twisted obsession with me. --G2bambino 02:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by involved admin. I'm a regular editor of the article so will take no action but this edit war on passport needs to stop. Now. While, it seems to be quiet now, I guess that most of the protagonists are asleep. You don't need to revert 4 time to get a 3RR block - you need to be revert warring and disrupting an article and that's what's happening now. Please cease now and use the talk page to reach a consensus. If this doesn't happen there will inevitably be sanctions. Spartaz Humbug! 10:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, agreed. But there is no reasoning why the other users engaged in the "war" aren't targeted as I am, especially User:TharkunColl. This whole situation is very bizzarre; it was I who twice (1, 2) requested page protection for Passport to stop edit warring, and twice it was declined. --G2bambino 13:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * ...there is no reasoning why the other users engaged in the "war" aren't targeted as I am"... No reason other than that you broke 3RR (at least arguably) and everyone else has stayed within in (certainly). That you were therefore the one who was reported for a 3RR violation is not "bizzarre". -- Lonewolf BC 19:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still going to say your 3RR breach is a bit of a fantasy. Yes, I might have edited the text so as to make it similar to something that was done nearly a year ago (though by my reading I see no real similarity between the edits you highlighted), but I will tell you with all certainty that I did not go digging through year old records to find a version to revert to. In other words: a true 3RR breach would be where someone intentionally reverted three times, not accidentally.  If the latter were true, every editor would have to be familiar with every previous version of an article so as to not accidentally perform a revert when trying to make a genuine edit.  I reverted twice w/in 24 hrs. I admit that, and I take responsibility for that.  But the others were pure coincidence if even "reverts" at all. --G2bambino 00:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Much better, now the article will be more stable (which is paramount for uninvolved readers), thanks Spartaz (for the warnings). GoodDay 19:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Wallak reported by User:Dahn (Result:24H)
. : Time reported: 19:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:25, 10 August 2007


 * 1st revert: 15:52, 10 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15:52, 10 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:05, 10 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:15, 10 August 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:08, 9 August 2007
 * It's already explained above.--<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#ECF1F7;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">Wallak Talk 19:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Eyrian reported by User:Casliber (Result:No vio)
. : Time reported: 23:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * All 4 reverts:


 * Person not given a warning as he is an admin. I should add that this is the culmination of alot of antagonistic behaviour in Pop Culture articles and comes after a disputed AfD.

I only see 3 reverts. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hang on:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * 4 reversions in 3 hours:

Same issue, actually. The first edit you list isn't a reversion. It's simply an edit. I went through the history of the article and I don't see where that edit reverts to. The other 3 are reversions but that one isn't. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK point taken.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

User:74.86.28.230 reported by User:Shell Kinney (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 02:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:02, August 10, 2007


 * 1st revert: 16:34, August 10, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:51, August 10, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:50, August 10, 2007
 * 4th revert: 22:06, August 10, 2007

Your report will 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: 22:03, August 10, 2007


 * Second violation on the same article; apparently some WP:OWN issues. Shell babelfish 02:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 24 hours Spartaz Humbug! 16:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Cosmos416 reported by User:Abecedare (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 15:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Repeated addition of a redundant and overly broad sentence to the lead of a featured article, even after he has been explained the reasons why it is unneeded on the talk page. Reverts accompanied by incivility and personal attack against editors and threat to edit war.See here and here.


 * 1st revert: 18:25, August 10, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:21, August 10, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 02:14, August 11, 2007
 * 4th revert: 15:48, August 11, 2007

Your report will 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: 00:22, August 11, 2007


 * 24 Hours Spartaz Humbug! 18:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Art 281 reported by AquariusBoy01 (Result: Blocked, 10 hours)
Please help i have no clue what to do, he keeps changing Torrie Wilson signature moves, saying she doesn't do the Suplex and he keeps taking it away, saying she hasen't done it in a while she did it a couple days ago and i have proof. So please somebody help me.
 * Blocked – 10 hours, for a 3RR violation; but, in future please file a report as instructed at the bottom of the page. If you require assistance, feel free to contact me. Anthøny  09:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Majeston reported by User:Fourdee (Result:)
. : Time reported: 01:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 13:53, 11 August 2007 reverts 11:13, 11 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 08:29, 11 August 2007 reverts 21:50, 10 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:25, 10 August 2007 reverts 16:20, 10 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:23, 10 August 2007 reverts 04:27, 10 August 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 09:39, 18 May 2007

User is edit warring and reinserting same POV material in conflict with two separate editors. Has been warned previously - even links to 3RR on his user page. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 01:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Ahnew81 reported by User:Kjoonlee (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 10:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 2007-08-12T09:04:39
 * 2nd revert: 2007-08-12T12:13:30
 * 3rd revert: 2007-08-12T12:22:07
 * 4th revert: hasn't happened yet, but see below for anonymous reverts, please.
 * 2007-08-11T19:56:24
 * 2007-08-12T11:21:41

Your report will 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: 2007-08-12T12:21:04


 * I don't think Ahnew81 understands English well, so I've tried to leave a clearer 3RR warning on his talk page. If he reverts again, leave a message here and/or let me know, because he has no excuse after that. -  Krakatoa  Katie  13:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If it has not happened yet then take this to WP:RFCU to check if the anonymous edits are by a sockpuppet. If he makes a fourth reversion then file a 3RR report. Perspicacite 18:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User: 67th Tigers reported by User:North Shoreman (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 11:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 16:14, 11 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:52, 11 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:10, 11 August 2007
 * 4th revert: DIFFTIME 18:29, 11 August 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 01:00, 12 August 2007


 * 5th revert: 06:44, 12 August 2007

The issue for me is not whether my version or 67th Tiger's version will be in the article. When I restore my original I simply move his version to a separate paragraph since my paragraph is covered by a footnote. Tom (North Shoreman) 11:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:83.67.217.135‎ reported by User:Dreaded Walrus (Result:page semi-protected)
. : Time reported: 12:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert: (e.t.c. - Many more reverts can be found here.)

Your report will 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: (placed at a time when there were already 10 reverts by user)


 * Note: User is still reverting established users, now with a second administrator in User:Zzuuzz. See  . User seems to have no interest in following consensus. --Dreaded Walrus t c 13:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That's quite a scene you've got over there, not just with him but another IP editor too. I semi-protected the page, so they will either register or... not. If either one persists somewhere else, report him. - Krakatoa Katie  14:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The one I reported above has already registered, and been blocked for sockpuppetry, see . I would have added 81.179.78.4 at the same time as this, but at the time of submitting this, there had been no further reverts by that user after I placed the 3RR warning on his page. Since that time there has been, but perhaps for now, it would be best to not block either, so that we can all try and convince 83.67.217.135 of the reasons his edits almost universally go against Wikipedia policy. --Dreaded Walrus t c 14:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Conypiece reported by User:Padraig (Result:blocked)
. : Time reported: 16:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: (13:49, 10 August)


 * 1st revert: 14:50 12 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15:23 12 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:32 12 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:30 12 August 2007

Your report will 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: DIFFTIME I had already warned him on another article for breaching 3RR which he ignored, he then did the same here.--padraig 16:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be noted however, that pradaig either, 1. refuses to answer on talk pages, or 2. Completely changes the point, ie avoids the question. Conypiece 17:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have answered your questions here Talk:Harry West Talk:Gerry Adams Template Talk:1981 Hunger Strike User Talk:Conypiece User Talk:Padraig.--padraig 17:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate it if you could answer the questions asked the 1st time they are asked, instead of relying on other editors (of similar pov to yourself) to edit the page. Regards Conypiece 18:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * An I would appreciate if you remained civil.--padraig 18:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would respond to the matters at hand. Conypiece 18:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I have temporarily blocked the user. Tom Harrison Talk 21:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

reported by User:GreenJoe (Result:)
. : Time reported: 17:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 11:11, August 12, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 13:06, August 12, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 13:08, August 12, 2007
 * 4th revert: 13:10, August 12, 2007

Your report will 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:
 * I realize this may not actually be 4 "reverts" but he's doing it on articles affecting every Canadian TV station. GreenJoe 17:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see two reversions, not three or four. I would argue against a block. Perspicacite 18:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There are three there. Plus other pages, like this one. GreenJoe 18:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5 reversions. But as I said below, let this edit war is far too lame. No block, I say. The Evil Spartan 22:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:GreenJoe reported by USER:72.142.251.81 (Result:)
. : Time reported: 18:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


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

Your report will 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:
 * This is clearly 4 reverts within a 24 hour period on the same article with the same exact revert each time. I warned him but he repeatidly blanks the warning I added to his talk page. This is not the only article with 3 reverts, ie [|one], [|two], [|three], [|four] and there are many others as well. 72.142.251.81 18:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I try to be very careful not to violate the 3RR rule. But as you can see, he broke it here too. GreenJoe 18:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm very careful not to violate any rules on Wikipedia, but I was protecting these pages from vandalism. 72.142.251.81 18:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure you were. You're not even willing to discuss your edits. GreenJoe 18:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am completely willing to disscuss my edits. GreeJoe was the first one to revert my edits back from when I made them without giving a reason to why to you reverted either by contacting me directly or giving a reason in the edit summary. 72.142.251.81 18:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This was an extremely lame edit exchange (I am reticent to call it a war, given its breadth). I have no doubt that 72.142.251.81 knew the rules, and is happy to see a registered user blocked, and he can just hop to another IP and has no record. I suggest no block. The Evil Spartan 21:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:SOXman reported by User:THF (Result:7 days)
. : Time reported: 19:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:36 Aug. 12 and 22:06 Aug. 10

Editor (previously blocked for 3RR violation as anon ) repeatedly adds spam link to sarbanes-oxley-forum.com, despite unanimous talk-page consensus against violation of WP:EL. See Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR


 * 1st revert: 17:36 Aug. 12 (as anon, reinserting deleted spam link in different place)
 * 2nd revert: 18:40 Aug. 12 (again reinserting spam link)
 * 3rd revert: 18:57 Aug. 12 (reinserting spam links and deleting legitimate links as WP:POINT)
 * 4th revert: 19:34 Aug. 12 (straightforward revert)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:02 Aug. 12, though, as mentioned, user is familiar with 3RR policy, having previous been blocked.
 * 5th revert 19:58 Aug. 12 (straightforward revert_


 * Blocked for 7 days since this is a second offence. Spartaz Humbug! 21:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Squash Racket reported by User:Roamataa (Result:blocked)
. : Time reported: 20:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


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

Your report will 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:


 * 6st revert:

I have blocked User:Squash Racket for 24 hours. Tom Harrison Talk 21:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Hillock65 reported by User:Irpen (Result:too late to block)
. : Time reported: 01:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert 13:46, August 11, 2007 removed image and text, while the text was added earlier the same day by another user
 * 2nd revert 20:04, August 11, 2007 removed image one hour after it was added by another user, this being also a 100% revert
 * 3rd revert: 20:52, August 11, 2007 POV tag readded,
 * 4th revert: 12:10, August 12, 2007 POV tag readded
 * 5th revert: 20:20, August 12, 2007 POV tag readded, which was also an exact revert
 * 6th revert: 22:06, August 12, 2007 POV tag readded, which was also an exact revert (also note frivolous summary: "only admins can remove the tag")

Also, another 100% revert 12:44, August 10, 2007, one day earlier than the 1st revert above.

Notes: The user has a repeated history of revert warring, violating 3RR and egregious POV pushing. See block log that includes:
 * First four reverts (1 to 4) fall into a 24 hour frame.
 * Revert 5 and revert 2 (a total of four in between) are 24 hours and 16 minutes apart (attempt to game the system).
 * Revert 6 and revert 3 (another frame with four reverts) are 25 hours and 14 minutes apart (another attempt to game the system)
 * Revert 6 and revert 2 (a frame with five reverts) are 26 hours apart (five reverts in 26 hours)
 * two 24 hour blocks twice for past 3RR violations
 * a 31 hour block for "sterile edit warring" over the very same article
 * a one week blocks for especially egregious behavior, see discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive166 and threads that follow at the same ANI archive page.

I have exhausted my patience of trying to talk to him lately to no avail. --Irpen 01:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The infraction is flagrant and merits 48h. Hillock is given to revert-warring, he knows the rules very well, but he will not stop revert warring just because he feels he has a free pass from admins. This is very disturbing. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * now too historical to justify a block Spartaz Humbug! 19:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User:76.100.218.253 reported by User:Bookandcoffee (Result: 24 h)
. : Time reported: 03:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 09:55, 12 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 10:17, 12 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 10:48, 12 August 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:34, 12 August 2007

Your report will 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:

Trying to sort out an apparent conflict of names/interests, but no discussion from this anon.--Bookandcoffee 03:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * IP blocked for 24 hours. Circumstances look odd (perhaps two different organizations claiming to be PATCO?) but that's neither here nor there for purposes of 3RR. Raymond Arritt 03:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Lester2 reported by User:Prester John (Result:48hrs)
. : Time reported: 04:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:

All reverts are the same.
 * 1st revert: 10:32 12 Aug
 * 2nd revert: 21:08 12 Aug
 * 3rd revert: 03:42 13 Aug
 * 4th revert: 04:12 13 Aug

This user is a single purpose account that has already been blocked twice for edit warring on the John Howard article. User insists on on pushing a POV by synthesizing information from non reliable sources(op-ed pieces). Given that the user has made 192 edits and has been blocked twice due to actions on this particular article, I believe a much longer block, perhaps an indef block, is neccessary.
 * I've already blocked User:Lester2 and reverted his last edit (not as an endorsement of that particular version, though). Sarah 05:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)