Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive56

User:Alans1977 reported by User:Hornplease (Result: Warning)
. : Time reported: 21:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:47, 4 Sep

Not a new user, apparently. Unwilling to use the talkpage, although I have indicated, including in edit summaries, that I await discussion. Hornplease 21:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1st revert: 2:06 5 Sep;2:08 5 Sep
 * 2nd revert: 2:49 5 Sep
 * 3rd revert: 6:59, 5 Sep;7:01, 5 Sep
 * 4th revert: 16:40, 5 Sep
 * Well he's not a new user, but he's never been warned for 3 revert rule. I'm not going to act on this one, but I just wanted to point that out. We can't assume that people know about the 3RR. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * He has not been warned about the 3RR; I have warned the editor accordingly. --  tariq abjotu  17:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Vonones reported by User:Caligvla (Result: No violation )

 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caligvla (talk • contribs) 23:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Very nice try but that was only 3 reverts I asked you to use the talk but you ignored it. --Vonones 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As he said, only 3 reverts. --Haemo 01:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Egyegy reported by User:Tiamut (Result: 5 days (Eg), 5 days (Ti))
. : Time reported: 01:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

After deleting the word "Egyptian" twice:, Egyegy proceeded to enter the same sentence four times:


 * 1st revert: 00:17, 6 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:40, 6 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:49, 6 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 1:08, 6 September 2007

Egyegy has never edited this article before today. His first edit there came half an hour after I made an unrelated edit adding an external link. Over the past couple of days, we have been having a bit of personal dispute over comments he made at the Arab talk page and comments I made at his talk page.

 
 * Diffs of 3RR warning:
 * Egyegy's response:


 * Tiamut went on an edit warring campaign today to basically revert any and all of my edits     . Notice that I didn't revert Tiamut when she added something  and didn't restore the footnote I added to the other page when she deleted it, but she has done nothing but revert me. My first edit on that page was a revert of an anonymous . My fourth edit in the link she says is a revert was me trying to rewrite the sentence because of her repeated edit warring. Tiamat was let off the hook from a week block for edit warring/3rr, but obviously that meant nothing. And we most surely have NOT been having a "personal" dispute, I couldn't care less what Tiamut does with her time on Wikipedia. However, she's been harassing me on my talk page for the last 2 days which only escalated with her editwarring/revert campaign today. I'm sure this is meant to get me blocked on purpose. I warned her about gaming the system. Egyegy 02:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Examination of the diffs Egyegy has provided will show that I tried to accommodate some of what he inserted, despite my belief that it is WP:UNDUE and unrelated to the article at hand. Egyegy seems to have wikistalked me to Arab diaspora. Note that his first edit there ever follows my own edit at the Arab article by one minute. Egyegy's attitude above is combative, as have been his general comments towards me which can be seen on my talk page or his. I asked him to leave me alone only yesterday, only to have him follow me around today (Check his contribs - besides one other article, all he did today was edit at two pages I edited at, and my own and his talk pages). My own most recent block for 3RR was filed by, who has recently been topic-banned for edit-warring for 6 months. The block against me was lifted by the admin who placed it after one day (see archive 2 on my talk page for more on that). I don't believe this to be relevant here at all, but since Egyegy raised the subject I thought it deserved a response.  T i a m u t  02:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's relevant because of the unbelievable amount of edit warring that you instigate on Wikipedia. If anything I think you should be topic-banned yourself. And your wikistalking charge is just as frivolous as your report. It's comical that you asked me to leave you alone when you posted harassing messages on my talk page to start. I never even responded to anything you said on the Arab page, which I've been editing for centuries. I can see that might be tough on the ego, and the fact that I couldn't care less about the Palestinian topic either, but if you weren't so obsessive in pushing your nationalist pov toward Egyptians in the last couple of days, and let's not forget this time, I wouldn't know you even exist. Egyegy 02:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry Egyegy, but your comment is internally contradictory. On the one hand, you claim that I "instigate" an "unbelievable amount of edit warring" and that I should be "topic-banned", while on the other hand, you claim that your interaction with me is extremely limited. Further, the animosity in your comments, presented with little in the way of evidence that supports the claims made, belies your earlier claim that we have no personal dispute. We most obviously do. Anyone can see that from our talk pages. So please, let's try to stick to the issue here. I warned you about 3RR before the fourth revert and after you made the fourth revert anyway, I asked you to self-revert to avoid having to make a formal 3RR report . You scoffed at my request . And now we are here. I realize that you might be upset because of our interactions yesterday, but that doesn't excuse continuing violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF (which I have also reminded you of on your talk page more than once).  T i a m u t  02:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it just means I don't need to be a psychic to notice something clear as day. The comments on your talk page when I responded to your attack are obviously more than enough. By the way, when you're off the soapbox, I hope you actually realize that continuing to game the system like you're doing now is not actually helping you. Egyegy 02:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What evidence do have that I'm "gaming the system"? (ie. Where is your evidence that I am making anything close to just under 3 reverts in 24 hours?) I just checked your block log and you have been blocked for 3RR four times in the last six months. This will be your fifth violation, an average of almost one 3RR violation per month, and you feel comfortable throwing accusations at me, based on some comments on my talk page? Could this be an attempt at deflection?  T i a m u t  03:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Uhuh, three times in row by the same admin who I reported (I didn't violate 3rr in those). I love the the irony when all of these things come together, same things involved every time. Also your life might revolve around this 24/7, but it doesn't mine. Have a nice time wasting someone else's time. Egyegy 03:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I blocked both editors for five days; they were both edit warring on this article and they both have been blocked for 3RR multiple times before. --  tariq abjotu  18:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Prester John reported by User:Lester2 (Result: no 3RR violation, no block, warning to Lester, Brendan and Prester )
. : Time reported: 07:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Edit War violation on


 * This is not a technical 3RR. It's about edit wars with various other editors over the same piece of information. There have been a total of 3 reverts in the past 24 hours. However, there is a history of reverting this same information from the same article.

User:Prester John's edit summaries always say "consensus" when none has been found. User:Prester John was previously blocked on 13 August (see Block Log) for edit warring on this same John Howard article, however since being unblocked he continues to edit war over the same information.

The information that User:Prester John continually reverts is about acquiring plantations in New Guinea.


 * 1st revert: 22:38, 5 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:16, 6 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 05:37, 6 September 2007

Previous reverts of the same information
 * 15:39, 4 September 2007
 * 06:21, 2 September 2007
 * 06:09, 2 September 2007
 * 17:58, 1 September 2007
 * 22:40, 26 August 2007
 * 17:04, 26 August 2007

My most recent warning to User:Prester John:
 * 02:16, 6 September 2007 warning from User:Lester2

Other annoyed users have also since warned him:
 * 05:51, 6 September 2007 warning from User:Brendan.lloyd
 * 06:08, 6 September 2007 warning from User:Shot info

While not technically 3RR, this history of disruptive reverting (after being unblocked the previous time) is annoying many other editors. I feel a block is the only way to stop the edit waring.


 * Comment. I support the request. This user barely participates in the talkpage discussion, instead preferring revert-baiting and wikilawyering. When he does make comment (on talkpage or Edit summaries), they are often snide, irrelevant and/or false. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 07:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I haven't looked through all of your diffs, but if it really isn't a 3RR violation, it shouldn't be brought up on this page. Next time around, please report this sort of disruptive editing to WP:AN/I, the administrator's noticeboard for 'incidents' in genera.  You Can ' t Review Me!!! 07:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment; Yes please look through the nominators history on this article and his block log record. This nomination is in such bad faith it should be grounds for User:Lester2's indefinite blocking from wikipedia. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 07:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC). Also I must say the amazing hypocrisy shown by User:Brendan.lloyd in his comment is quite astounding given he has made three reverts in even LESS time and his contributions to the talkpage include gems such as this Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 07:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: This warning is just an example of Lester2 engaging in a bit of gaming.  I applied level 1 "friendly" warnings to all the above (ie/ Lester, Brenden, Skyring and Prester John) to help them remind them to disengage a little bit.  I note that Brendan.lloyd rather than taking it on board has chosen to start ramping up the personal attack quota a bit on the talkpage of John Howard.  Examining their block logs show that there is a lot of WP:POT going on.  Shot info  07:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Shot info ought not accuse people of "ramping up the personal attack quota" when he/she makes insinuations on the same talkpage about other editors' motivations. Prester's history is similar and he has been doing it for a very long time. His userpage seems to indicate he is proud of it. WP:POT indeed. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 07:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment User:Prester John established the 2RR precedent some time ago. He's made numerous requests for others to be blocked for 2RR, and sometimes he's been successful in getting other people blocked for 2RR on this board. The latest attempt is still at the top of this page, where he argues for someone else to be blocked for 2RR. Three reasons why User:Prester John should receive a penalty are because of repeated reverts over a period of time on the same line of text, his previous bans for edit waring on the same page, and his success in having others blocked for 2RR (because they are edit waring) on this board. His success in banning others for the same 2RR offense should be applied equally to all parties. Thanks, --Lester2 10:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Actually, here Prester John tried to have me blocked for 3RR. The adjudicator not only found his claims about me mistaken, but identified that Prester John himself was in breach of 3RR. Despite this, the adjudicator protected the article instead of blocking Prester John. Yet in a later 3RR report by Prester John against me, despite the same circumstances (ie. Prester John performing a non-consensual revert, initiating an edit war, and misrepresenting my original edit as a revert), he succeeded in having me blocked for 24hrs. This wilful negative behaviour, contrary to the best interests of encyclopedia building, ought not be overlooked. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 14:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a 3RR and I'm not going to block anyone, but I am going to tell you lot (Prester, Lester and Brendan) that if you keep this up, I'm going to block the lot of you for your disruption. I concur with User:Shot info, Lester, that you're trying to game the system, and if Prester is blocked, then you have to be blocked as well because your editing of the article is equally disruptive, if not more so because you are trying to force information that you have failed to gain consensus to include. You lot all need to stop playing games, stop trying to manipulate administrators and stop edit warring. This is the last warning you're going to get, if you continue in this vein, you'll all (Lester, Brendan and Prester) be blocked for your disruption. Sarah 15:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I need clarification as to what I did to "force information", as I have no idea. I need clarification as to what I am doing to "game the system". I'm not asking for a second berating, but I really don't understand these criticisms. Lester2 07:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You and Brendan are trying to force information by doing things like this and this when you know full well there is no consensus for that material to be in the article. You and Brendan are playing games by edit warring with Prester and then coming here to ask for him to be blocked when you're both just as guilty, but you both forgot to explain that bit in your complaints, didn't you? Seriously, there are lots of administrators watching these articles now and any one of them will step in and block the lot of you if you keep this up. Sarah 09:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sarah, that was a single revert I performed. I don't believe I made any others in that time frame. The reason I posted this 2RR notice against Prester was because you blocked me a month ago for 2RR after Prester's complaint on this same board. The precedent was set back then. I wouldn't have normally posted any 2RR complaint, but for Prester having others blocked for that offense, while continuing himself. I'm staying out of this edit war, Prester continues, and I get the brunt of the warnings. All I want is for all sides to be treated the same way.Lester2 12:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, Prester didn't report you for 2RR; he reported you for 3RR. All sides are treated fairly. Last time I blocked all parties who were editing warring, including the complainant, and I'm warning now that the same thing will happen again. Is that really what you want? You might be right that that was your only revert that day (I haven't examined each individual edit), but you and Brendan have been tag-teaming Prester when you know full well that there is no consensus for the material you want to include. Instead of continuing in this vein, I recommend that the three of you go back to the talk page and not re-add that material until you've reached a consensus with the other editors. Sarah 01:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sarah, can you please clarify how you formed the view that consensus was absent? Between the two sections on the Howard talkpage about the copra plantation fact, a greater number of editors expressed support for at least minimal inclusion of that fact. What should consensus minimally look like, in your view or according to policy, before the inclusion of a fact can be justified? Please also keep in mind the perceptions of non-neutrality and conflict of interest that arise when you, as an admin user, adjudicate on a matter relating to contentious edits, about the content of which you have taken a particular side in the talkpage discussion, as an editor. Lastly, if you're going to allege tag-teaming, please be even-handed and look at the coincident activities of Prester and Skyring, lest the aforementioned undesirable perceptions be exacerbated. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 12:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Jtummolo reported by User:Leuko (Result: 24 hours )
. : Time reported: 17:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 12:22
 * 2nd revert: 12:29
 * 3rd revert: 12:37 Includes page blanking
 * 4th revert: 12:41
 * 5th revert: 13:09


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:58


 * 24 hours. --Haemo 20:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Bolekpolivka reported by User:Darwinek (Result: 24 hours )
. : Time reported: 20:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 18:33
 * 2nd revert: 18:57
 * 3rd revert: 19:17
 * 4th revert: 19:48
 * 5th revert: 19:58


 * 24 hours. --Haemo 20:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Opinoso reported by User:Dalillama (Result: 72 hours)
. : Time reported: 04:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:07, 6 September 2007

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * 1st revert: 22:52, 6 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:57, 6 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:03, 6 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 23:08, 6 September 2007
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning for this instance: 23:07, 6 September 2007

Notes
 * This user was reverted by two separate editors, and was warned before breaking the rule.
 * User has also labeled legitimate content dispute reverts as "rvv" and "Vandal user erased it", violating WP:AGF.
 * Opinoso launched WP:SKILL personal attacks against one of the other reverting editors (here).
 * Has been blocked before for violation of the 3RR and stopped short of breaking again after being warned several times in the recent past: here, here and here.

Note: This is a plan to make me be bloked. This user does not have good faith. Just read this page, please: Opinoso 04:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Opinoso 04:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Comment - There has been a heavy edit war going on in this article involving both Opinoso above and João Felipe C.S, Opinoso did break the 3RR just now but to be fair João Felipe C.S broke the 3RR hours ago when he edit warred with another user over an image, perhaps the best solution here is to protect the page temporaly. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  05:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I've been told, traditionally one doesn't protect the page if there are several editors (in addition to the warring editors) working on the page, which is the case. I'd rather see individual users blocked than a whole page protected because of two editors. We've been here before, with the same users, on the same page, over the same issue of pictures. I guess I should take the fact that it's a different picture this time as some form of progress.--Dali-Llama 05:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 72 hours Spartaz Humbug! 18:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 31 hours for Joao Felipe C.S for their own 3rr violation. Spartaz Humbug! 18:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

User:75.127.65.218 (User Talk:75.127.65.218) reported by User:SomeHuman (Result: Page protected )
. : Time reported: 13:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

''The original contribution I, SomeHuman, had added today, to my knowledge, was not some revert to anything that had existed before; the object of the following reverts had been a part of a series of my edits mainly to provide references because the article itself and several statements in it had been tagged. I don't think I had ever edited that article before, it had only incidentally come to my attention, and while looking for references I also had found what appeared a most appropriate and useful External link.''
 * Previous version reverted to: undid contribution:
 * 1st revert: 2007-09-07T07:42:32
 * 2nd revert: 2007-09-07T09:28:45
 * 3rd revert: 2007-09-07T09:46:14
 * Please note that the 3rd revert's edit comment ended with "And please debate on the talk page rather than creating edit war." but that there was nothing on the article's talk page to respond to.
 * Thus I (SomeHuman) reverted the 3rd revert with edit comment "undid 3th x revert by 75.127.65.218 of original contribution. Nope. No national "shop": look for DIN and get pages with DIN & buy in English at German NGO http://www.din.de/cmd?lang=en&level=tpl-home".
 * I then found a message on my talk page, to which I immediately started to respond but long before I could close the reply [with only one or two lines written at the time], found out that there already had been a 4th revert (thus further writing my reply much more comprehensively than originally intended as quick reply):


 * 4th revert: 2007-09-07T10:32:45


 * Diff of 3RR warning: apart from already 3RR warning in edit comment on the history page (see above), because I could not possibly be quick enough, after the 4th revert: 2007-09-07T12:56:09

Comment: Though I think there should be an easier way to report 4RR without spending all the time to report someone who does not take a such time to cause problems, the IP contributor might be unexperienced, in which case – provided he/she had never a 3RR warning before – one might consider to have an admin giving only a further, final, warning (and once again asking to sign/date talk page comments) instead of a temporary block. Please notice that I am going to reinsert a link to the same site, though this time one that has the advantage of allowing to checkmark only the ISO/IEC specifications, which makes it all the more appropriate for this ISO article. See also the talk page of the article (in case there would appear more than when I just checked, a copy from the relevant section on my talk page) — SomeHuman 07 Sep2007 13:50 (UTC)

Aftermath (?): Meanwhile I provided an even more appropriate "advanced search" link, which was replaced by the IP-contributor with one that does about the same but only for ISO standards (not necessarily an improvement, because readers might prefer a search engine that looks for all international standards as the ANSI link could do as well as looking only for ISO/IEC) though incorrectly calling it "ISO advanced search", which in turn I replaced by the actual ISO advanced search page. For me it is not worth a further 'fight' though I would prefer having both the ISO and the more general ANSI links there, for the practical reason I just stated. See current history (edits of 2007-09-07 14:13, 14:24 and 15:30). — SomeHuman 07 Sep2007 15:46 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to just protect the page, rather than blocking both the editors involed. --Haemo 19:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've done so, and encourage you all to discuss on the talk page. --Haemo 00:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Proving you're not following much, really. The last series of edits that I showed here above in the history link, and that latest comment itself, made clear that everything had already been settled for now as we both had edited by linking to the same (by 75.127.65.218 newly found and introduced) search site; two formerly "edit-warring" contributors continuing to edit alternately does not necessarily mean that their disagreement would still continue. A short further talk went on at the talk page without anyone having noticed the page protection (at least I do not think any of the two editors envolved had noticed such, and I just verified it by checking the article's history from the link provided in this very section). Whether also the link to the ANSI search site should go into the article again depends on possible reactions (by other contributors, I would hope) on the talk page. — SomeHuman 08 Sep2007 14:37 (UTC)

User:EliasAlucard reported by User:Akhilleus (Result: 72 hours /unblocked)
. : Time reported: 14:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:15, 6 September 2007


 * 1st revert: 08:03, 7 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 09:49, 7 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 10:11, 7 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 10:35, 7 September 2007


 * The dispute is about whether the article's infobox should contain the information that the ancient Assyrians spoke Akkadian (Assyro-Babylonian), and that their religion was Assyro-Babylonian religion. EliasAlucard's reverts all restore information about the ancient language/religion. User has been blocked for 3RR before. (P.S.: I'm involved in the dispute.) --Akhilleus (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 3 days. --Haemo 19:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * {ec}Akhilleus, your report fails to mention that the last revert did not revert your content. Your recording of the diffs was defective and in manually reviewing the history of the article I ended up miscounting the number of reverts and blocked. I have not allowed the block to stand for two reasons, firstly it takes 2 to revert war and secondly the user was attempting to discuss the issue on the talk page albeit their commonts were borderline uncivil. Spartaz Humbug! 19:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note, our resolution of this report has crossed, I left a note for Haemo. Spartaz Humbug! 19:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Haemo unblocked. Spartaz Humbug! 22:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Persian Poet Gal reported by User:Not this time (Result: Reporter blocked indef )
. : Time reported: 19:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:14, 29 April 2007


 * 1st revert: 18:56, 7 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:57, 7 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:00, 7 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:03, 7 September 2007


 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Not necessary, he's an admin.

Not this time 19:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I support Persian Poet Gal's actions; we don't link editor's names in disambig pages (unless something has changed regarding that). OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Silly troll wasting our time. Blocked. Moreschi Talk 19:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with the block. --Haemo 19:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Folken de Fanel reported by User:Erik (Result: no violation )
. : Time reported: 23:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:47, September 7, 2007


 * 1st revert: 16:47, September 7, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:38, September 7, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:48, September 7, 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:57, September 7, 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: 18:52, September 7, 2007
 * #1 is a different edit. You have both been edit warring. I suggest you use the talk page instead. Spartaz Humbug! 23:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 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." It does not matter if the material is different. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed this. Its resolved. Spartaz Humbug! 23:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Erik is actually trying to game an AfD process, by transfering content from and article that is currently being discussed for deletion (here's the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Ball Z (film)|AfD).
 * Seeing the majority of the AfD comments are supporting the deletion of the content for unverifiability, Erik seems to have decided to have it his own way, by reintegrating the disputed (and most likely deleted) content in another article, without taking into account the opinions of the people who've deemed it unsuitable for Wikipedia.
 * Erik has been revert-warring in order to reinsert disputed and unverifiable content, while refusing to just discuss about it. Instead, he just went on with his ideas, without even waiting the closure of the AfD. Erik's behavior is close to vandalism. Folken de Fanel 23:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No its not. Vandalism gets bandied around far too freely. The 3RR report is closed. Spartaz Humbug! 23:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR reported by User:151.33.88.130 (Result: no violation)
. : Time reported: 23:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: -20:43, 6 September 2007 151.33.93.231 (Talk) (15,196 bytes) (read discussion)-


 * 1st revert: -11:16, 7 September 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (12,399 bytes)-
 * 2nd revert: -13:43, 7 September 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (12,434 bytes) (See discussion.)-
 * 3rd revert: -18:14, 7 September 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (12,461 bytes) (See discussion, this time)-


 * No violation here, by my count. --Haemo 00:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Poiuytrewq4 reported by User:Hornplease (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 07:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:03, 5 September 2007


 * 1st revert: 01:31, 8 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 01:46, 8 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 02:30, 8 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 02:48, 8 September 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 02:33, 8 September 2007

SPA repeatedly warned for blanking. Refuses discussion. Hornplease 07:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I just realised I was on this board for the first time in a long while a week or so ago, and have been back twice since. Is it because it's September? (Just the old Usenetter in me worrying, I suppose.)Hornplease 07:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 24 hours Spartaz Humbug! 09:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User:219.90.146.98 reported by User:Cyrus XIII (Result:semi-protected)
. : Time reported: 13:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:35, September 8, 2007


 * 1st revert: 09:41, September 8, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 09:49, September 8, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 10:12, September 8, 2007
 * 4th revert: 10:14, September 8, 2007
 * 5th revert: 10:17, September 8, 2007
 * 6th revert: 10:42, September 8, 2007
 * 7th revert: 10:59, September 8, 2007
 * 8th revert: 11:50, September 8, 2007
 * 9th revert: 14:42, September 8, 2007


 * A 3RR warning was issued by Pairadox at 11:15, September 8, 2007.


 * Note: Judging from field of interest, behavior and data provided by WHOIS, this editor appears to be the same who recently engaged in similarly disruptive editing on Skin (Japanese band), which means that this person already has a track record of personal attacks and 3RR blocks.    I'd like to inquire whether in that light, something more permanent could be done about the 3RR offender or if the currently disrupted article could at least receive semi-protection for a while. - Cyrus XIII 13:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point blocking an ip when I think this is the second time this article has been on AN3 recently. I have semiprotected for 3 weeks. Spartaz Humbug! 14:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the last 3RR violation on the Visual kei article was not IP based (the ones at Skin (Japanese band) were), but thanks for the semi, it should help quieten things down. The IP based editor now appears to be registered under User:Jun kaneko and is now handing out accusations of vandalism at Talk:Visual kei and actively editing related pages. - Cyrus XIII 16:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You did just remove a bunch of sourced information from the page - his edits were confirmed by reliable sources, as I posted to the talk page before your reverted. We'll get it worked out.  This user has a lot of knowlege to contribute, and is slowly learning "wiki ways" - lets work nicely with them to help them learn how to edit here.  Yes their behavior is not correct, but they have been treated with a lot of hostility. Denaar 16:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User:P.W.Lutherson reported by User:Will Beback (Result: Page Protected )
. : Time reported: 21:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:52, September 6, 2007


 * 1st revert: 02:43, September 8, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:05, September 8, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:53, September 8, 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:58, September 8, 2007
 * 5th revert: 21:28, September 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: 21:04, September 8, 2007


 * It appears that is a sock puppet of  and was created to avoid a 3RR block on that user. Auno3's block has expired, and I'm going to block the sock account.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User:The way, the truth, and the light reported by William M. Connolley (Result: one week )
. : Time reported: 21:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 2007-09-08T18:32:39
 * 2nd revert: 2007-09-08T19:27:10
 * 3rd revert: 2007-09-08T21:05:59
 * 4th revert: 2007-09-08T21:15:02

2-4 are marked as rv's. #1 rv's this (notice from the edit summaries that the use of "local" in the section header is a large part of the dispute). Or, if you prefer a larger block of text, #1 also reverts this (...has been argued that...)


 * Note that The way is a serial offender whose most recent block log is: 2007-06-19T21:58:55 Tariqabjotu (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "The way, the truth, and the light (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation: at Thermal energy and Heat (fourth block in two months, has been participating in overall edit-warring recently, like at Anal sex))


 * The first of those edits was not a revert but an original edit. The first of Connolley's citations clearly shows that my edits were not the same as TMLutas's (which I had not seen anyway) and the second is totally different. In any case the article is at his preferred version now. Also, he is guilty of edit-warring more than I, as I tried to justify my edits on the talk page, while he did not and simply continued to revert. The way, the truth, and the light 21:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * One week. If I see this editor edit warring again I will consider an indef block. Spartaz Humbug! 06:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:71.227.236.102 reported by 62.64.201.37 (Result: blocked both accounts for 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 23:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 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

Now reverting as User:Smartissexy An obvious SOCKPUPPET
 * Originally I blocked the IP for 24 hours and Smartissexy indefinitely, but I think actually I will change the block to 24 hours for each. Either way they have both been blocked. ugen64 00:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:O reported by User:Geni (Result: Page protected, a note left on talk page.)
. : Time reported: 23:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:27


 * 1st revert: 21:37
 * 2nd revert: 22:10
 * 3rd revert: 22:15
 * 4th revert: 22:20


 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

User has over 1000 edits.
 * The edits look close enough to vandalism that I don't think O should be blocked. Look at Mm555's contributions - all of them are to highway-related articles and about 70% of them are editing the highway infobox in a manner that is clearly against consensus. He was warned multiple times about this. ugen64 00:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've admitted and apologised about this issue in these two mailing list posts. For some reason I am having a bad day editing and collaborating.  Back to the original subject, Talk:U.S. Route 50 has said that the same editor under his username and an IP has edit-warred the infobox before this (check history).  I only got involved in this one, since I was just going to my watchlist and something weird from the US 50 article popped up. —O (说 • 喝) 00:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ugen64 which would fall under exactly which section of WP:VAND?Geni 01:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Protected. Navou banter 01:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that I was going to suggest —O (说 • 喝) 01:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Thrillmecd/User:72.65.8.54 reported by User:MusicMaker5376 (Result: 24 hous)
. /: Time reported: 03:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:29, September 7, 2007


 * 1st revert: 09:16, September 8, 2007 -- as User:Thrillmecd
 * 2nd revert: 10:04, September 8, 2007 -- as User:Thrillmecd
 * 3rd revert: 16:16, September 8, 2007 -- as User:72.65.8.54
 * 4th revert: 22:55, September 8, 2007 -- as User:72.65.8.54


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:21, September 8, 2007

I think it's obvious that the two users are one editor. Claims to be the author of the subject of the article, constituting a violation of WP:COI. His actions are in violation of WP:OWN.


 * 24 hours. Please learn how to make diffs so your reports will be acted upon much quicker that way. Spartaz Humbug! 07:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies. I looked at the way they were done in the report before mine and that's how they were.  I should have known better.  Thank you for the block, though.  &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  19:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Anoshirawan reported by User:sarabseth (Result: 72 hours )
. : Time reported: 05:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:12, 30 August 2007


 * 1st revert: 07:58, 31 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:00, 31 August 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:13, 1 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 01:31, 1 September 2007
 * 5th revert: 06:46, 1 September 2007

User has more than 800 edits
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:56, 8 September 2007

This user has reverted this article 20 times since August 27, making the same change each time. Refused to yield to the consensus of other editors 16:48, 30 August 2007. Refused to enter into a discussion on the talk page (beyond dismissing the concerns raised)12:28, 5 September 2007.


 * Second block plus refusal to discuss. 72 hours for this one. Future blocks will escalate further quickly. Spartaz Humbug! 07:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:BIG Daddy M reported by User:J Greb (Result: 24 hours )
. : Time reported: 06:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 16:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2nd revert: 20:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3rd revert: 20:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4th revert: 04:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Previous series resulting in the Sept 1 warning:
 * Previous version reverted to: 16:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 19:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2nd revert: 05:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3rd revert: 12:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4th revert: 18:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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: 18:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Same issue, previous run w/o actual reporting
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 05:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 1 day. --Haemo 06:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Skatewalk reported by User:Zerida (Result: no violation )
. : Time reported: 07:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:21, 7 September 2007


 * 1st revert: 16:28, 7 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: in pair 21:11, 7 September 2007 and 21:13, 7 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: one 23:52, 7 September 2007
 * 4th revert: in pair 22:23, 8 September 2007 and 22:27, 8 September 2007

A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion:


 * First diff of 3RR warning for a previous violation on the same article that I did not report: August 26.
 * Second diff of warning for the last violation 00:05, 8 September 2007.

Comment: You might be wondering about my comment in the 2nd warning. User:Skatewalk's conduct has been excessively disruptive of late on this article, consisting primarily, not of any actual substantive contributions, but of the tendentious reverts for which I am reporting him (adding the word "Christian" and deleting a reference) as well as of canvassing of other users who share his POV to join him in "fixing" the Egyptians article    , using article talk pages as a forum to air out views meant to flame other editors, including posting openly racist remarks , all of which have contributed to a general hostile atmosphere. — Zerida 07:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Revert #1 is not the same and more then 24 from #4. No violation. Spartaz Humbug! 07:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:84.221.71.33 reported by User:Iain99 (Result: 48 hours )
. : Time reported: 11:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 9 September 2007 11:17
 * 2nd revert: 9 September 2007 11:23
 * 3rd revert: 9 September 2007 11:28
 * 4th revert: 9 September 2007 11:38

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: 11:28

User is repeatedly inserting a clause into the lead giving what most editors reagrd as undue prominence to occasional tabloid speculation about Prince Harry's paternity: may be WP:BLP issues as well. Iain99 11:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * blicked 48 hours. Try requests for page protection if this comes back. Spartaz Humbug! 11:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Towerblocktom reported by User:81.76.40.119 (Result: 8 hours )
. : Time reported: 12:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:01, 9 September 2007


 * 1st revert: 14:21, 8 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 11:27, 9 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 11:58, 9 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 12:10, 9 September 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 11:49, 9 September 2007


 * 8 hours and a prize for the the world's lamest ever edit war. Spartaz Humbug! 12:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:WOverstreet reported by User:ElKevbo (Result:indef blocked )
. : Time reported: 16:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:31, September 8, 2007

Please note that two of the reversions were performed by 161.253.37.233, an obvious sockpuppet (maybe a meatpuppet - but unlikely) of WOverstreet. The editing pattern and history make that relationship clear. There also appear to be ownership and civility issues with this editor. --ElKevbo 16:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1st revert: 01:45, September 9, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 11:32, September 9, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:03, September 9, 2007
 * 4th revert: 12:11, September 9, 2007
 * And also note that Spartaz has indefinitely blocked WOverstreet. THis 3RR report may thus be moot.  --ElKevbo 17:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct. I actually blocked as a result of this report and a cursory glance at their contribs. They can apply to be unblocked when they learn to behave. Spartaz Humbug! 17:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Swapant reported by User:MezzoMezzo (Result: Page protected)
. : Time reported: 17:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:49, 8 September 2007


 * 1st revert: 16:26, 8 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 04:05, 9 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 11:08, 9 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 11:15, 9 September 2007
 * 5th revert: 12:45, 9 September 2007

The first and last revert were performed by User:Swapant, while the three reverts in between were performed by 212.12.160.47. There is currently an open sockpuppet case which can be found at Suspected sock puppets/Chubeat8, involving both this user and IP address in addition to another user and two more IP addresses. You may also see from Talk:Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz that much of this sockpuppet activity is occurring there as well. While the sockpuppet case is still pending, I find it very interesting that after I warned the IP address as noted below, it was the user that came in performing the same revert. Please review the suspected sockpuppet case above for more information. Thank you in advance for any help that may be lent. MezzoMezzo 17:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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: 11:20, 9 September 2007

User:Ferrylodge reported by User:Italiavivi (Result: Page protected, noted on talk page.)
. : Time reported: 18:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:36, 9 September 2007

Please note the removal or shifting back of Fred Thompson's legal birth name, "Freddie." There is an ongoing Talk discussion concerning Thompson's legal birth name.


 * 1st revert: 05:52, 9 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 06:05, 9 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 06:20, 9 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 06:33, 9 September 2007
 * 5th revert: 16:09, 9 September 2007
 * 6th revert: 17:41, 9 September 2007
 * User was warned: Ferry is not a new user, and has even issued 3RR warnings in this dispute. He is aware of editing guidelines, but was warned regardless.
 * 7th revert (after being warned) : 17:50, 9 September 2007

I've protected this page. Navou banter 18:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is a user who reverted seven times in 24 hours (including once after being warned) not being blocked? Italiavivi 18:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not have to block, I have stopped the disruption, no? Navou banter 18:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you have not. The user in question immediately went to your User_talk page and asked for advice on how to get his preferred version protected. Italiavivi 18:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The question and editprotect template use was not disruptive. Now if the editor continues to argue for "the wrong version" or use the template repeatedly, after having the principle explained, then we are looking at blockable disruption.  However, I am assuming good faith here. Navou banter 19:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad to see we're extending such good faith to a 7RR violator who has already been blocked twice for 3RR in the past. Italiavivi 20:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge is a longstanding disruptive editor, and has been blocked for 3RR violation before. I find this disturbing that he was not blocked for this blatant edit warring. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  22:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Kappa reported by User:Boricuaeddie (Result: Page protected. )
. : Time reported: 23:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:39, 9 September 2007
 * 1st revert: 22:22, 9 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:42, 9 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 22:54, 9 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 22:57, 9 September 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:49, 9 September 2007

I decided to remove the word "well-known" from the article per WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK, and he reverted me 4 times, even after I explained my reverts on his talk page. -- Boricu æ  ddie  23:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Please be sure not to call folks names on the user talk pages. Also, I've protected the article, please use the talk page to discuss changes. THanks, Navou banter 05:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Who is that directed at Navou? As far as I can see Boric was being attacked not Kappa. I'm disturbed that this obvious 3RR violation has not resulted in a block. I think you are being far too lenient with 3RR. Spartaz Humbug! 05:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Directed at Kappa. I've stopped the disruption at the article in lieu of the block.  I think this is appropiate if it results in discussion.  If you feel a block is warranted, you can of course block.  Best regards, Navou banter 05:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Its not clear that Kappa will read this here. Perhaps you should leave a note on their talk. I left you a note on your talk page. Spartaz Humbug! 06:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Demonesque reported by User:Mrzaius (Result: Page protected )
. : Time reported: 04:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Previous version reverted to: 04:07, 9 September 2007


 * 1st revert today: 15:23, 9 September 2007
 * 2nd revert today: 23:25, 9 September 2007
 * 3rd revert today: 23:35, 9 September 2007
 * ''Note that the user has shown a repeated pattern of this nonsense over the last few weeks. Just getting worse recently.

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: 23:49, 9 September 2007 (Pre-cursor: )

Try and sort it out on the talk page. I've protected the article. Regards, Navou banter 05:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:FallenAngelII reported by User:Someguy0830 (Result: Article protected)
. : Time reported: 09:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:54, September 7, 2007


 * 1st revert: 08:32, September 9, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 01:50, September 10, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 02:00, September 10, 2007
 * 4th revert: 02:04, September 10, 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * 1) 14:35, August 29, 2007
 * 2) 12:13, September 9, 2007


 * Article protected for 48 hours, seeing as the reporter was up to 3 reverts. Please get this thrashed out on the talk page, or seek a third opinion. I'm not really prepared to block anyone for a fight over something so petty. Moreschi Talk 18:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR reported by User:Giovanni Giove (Result: User Warned and Page Protected)
. : Time reported: 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Deletion of the sources by Direktor:
 * Original insertion of sources about Polo self declaring "Venetian": 17:08, 7 September 2007
 * 1st revert: 09:23, 10 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:03, 10 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:05, 10 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:05, 10 September 2007


 * Borderline case, as one of the reverts is not clear. As this user is not the only party edit warring over the article, I have protected it for 1 week. Editors are encouraged to discuss the article in the talk page and trying to reach consensus. User:DIREKTOR and User:Giovanni Giove please take this as a friendly warning. The 3RR noticeboard is not really the place to score a point over each other. Let's the mood cool down and try to work out your disagreement in a constructive way. -- Asterion talk 18:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Which revert is not clear? BTW there is no "to calm down" if an user simply delete unconfortable sources (quite clear and evident!). Greetings --Giovanni Giove 18:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Cuchullain reported by User:Jauerback (Result: no violation)
. : Time reported: 20:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * I'm not seeing a 3rr violation there. Could you perhaps be more specific?  Kuru  talk  23:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:ogabadaga reported by User:Jauerback (Result: no violation)
. : Time reported: 20:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * I'm only seeing 3 edits here as well. Please be more specific. Kuru  talk  23:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

user:24.127.156.41 reported by User:dsol (Result: warned)
. : Time reported: 23:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:01, 8 September 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: warning inssued by another anon ip in this edit summary, as well as multiple warnings on the 3RR violator's talk page, the article talk page, and the WP:BLP noticeboard. Violator continues to revert, without engaging in consensus building discussion. Contentious material has two sources already, recognized as valid by other editors at the BLP noticeboard, where two additional reliable sources were also added. Violator has pledged to continue reverting regardless of discussion outcome. Dsol 23:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm only seeing a fairly vague mention of '3rr' in that edit summary - no other explicit warnings to a new user. I've left a specific one on the editor's talk page for now.  Post here if he reverts again.  Kuru  talk  00:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Matcarpenter06 reported by User:WhisperToMe (Result: indef block)
Check the edit summary - He is reverting Perverted-Justice with little explanation - He seems to be new. WhisperToMe 00:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Appears to have been indef blocked by Swatjester as a vandal only account. Kuru  talk  02:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Asams10 reported by User:HiDrNick (Result: stale)
. : Time reported: 04:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 12:41
 * 2nd revert: 13:16
 * 3rd revert: 14:31
 * 4th revert: 04:04


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Warned today, 14:44.
 * Previously blocked for edit waring: 3 September.

Cheers, ➪ Hi DrNick ! 04:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Bueller? ➪ Hi DrNick ! 20:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't a 3RR violation, since the 4th "revert" listed here deals with different material than the first three. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The content of reverts is irrelevant to the application of WP:3RR. However, this violation is clearly stale.  &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 03:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

User:ThreeE reported by — BQZip01 — talk (Result: both blocked 12 hours)
. : Time reported: 05:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

I'm not exactly sure how to report this. It appears to be an edit war, but I'm not sure where else to report this. This user continues to make changes to the article in question and refuses to discuss on the talk page and come to a consensus first. Seeing as this is Today's featured article, I humbly request that this be expedited ASAP — BQZip01 —  talk 05:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You were reverting his edits,   and he was reverting yours.    I'm blocking both of you for 12 hours. Resurgent insurgent 05:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Italiavivi reported by User:Ryan Postlethwaite (Result:48 hours )
. : Time reported: 07:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 06.15
 * 2nd revert: 06.18
 * 3rd revert: 07.29
 * 4th revert: 07.34
 * 5th revert: 07.59
 * 6th revert: 08.07

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: 07.32.


 * Comment about the IPs he's insistent on removing - same IP range and same pages edited. Quacking much? A checkuser isn't needed if you've got enough evidence already. Will (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:76.104.22.182 reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result: 24 hrs)
. : Time reported: 08:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:01, 11 September 2007

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * 1st revert: 00:13, 11 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:42, 11 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:48, 11 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:54, 11 September 2007
 * 5th revert: 00:59, 11 September 2007
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 00:51, 11 September 2007

Anon is back with a different IP inserting essentially the same material into the article ornis ( t ) 09:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 76.104.22.182
 * 76.104.38.60


 * 24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Moe_Epsilon reported by User:Cowboycaleb1 (Result: Article protected )
. : Time reported: 14:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: on05:20, 11 September 2007


 * 1st revert: 04:38, 11 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 04:45, 11 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 05:20, 11 September 2007
 * 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
 * This report is mostly unintelligible, but the history of the article shows a multi-user edit war going back a few days. Article locked up for 48 hours. Moreschi Talk 14:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Truthseeker81 reported by User:Arrow740 (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 15:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:51, 9 September 2007


 * 1st revert: 00:24, 11 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 04:01, 11 September 2007

I decided to tag the original material and move on, but he removed the tag:


 * 3rd revert: 06:10, 11 September 2007

Then I removed the original material, and he then reverted it back:


 * 4th revert: 06:55, 11 September 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 00:08, 9 September 2007

Two days ago the user was simply vandalizing the article, removing material sourced to reliable sources. When he was stopped by myself and another editor, he began to pick facts from websites and provide interpretations of them in this article to suit his ideas. I indicated in edit summaries that this was original material but he did not stop. Arrow740 15:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for twenty-four hours, per the evidence above. --  tariq abjotu  19:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR reported by User:151.33.89.104 (Result: Page Protected)
. : Time reported: 15:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: -04:16, 10 September 2007 151.33.89.217 (Talk) (15,245 bytes)-


 * 1st revert: -08:15, 10 September 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (12,461 bytes)-
 * 2nd revert: -16:41, 10 September 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (21,529 bytes) (Your city of "Zadar-Zara" does not exist. The exact person on the photo is irrelevant for the article, the big picture is.)-
 * 3rd revert: -17:09, 10 September 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (12,461 bytes) ("Italians", in the 20th century! slavs)-
 * 4th revert: -17:46, 10 September 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (12,461 bytes)-
 * 5th revert: -17:56, 10 September 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (12,588 bytes) (PIO, please discuss. We are two intelligent men, I am confident we can reach a consensus...)-
 * 6th revert: -18:36, 10 September 2007 DIREKTOR (Talk | contribs) m (12,568 bytes) (Please stop. This is a controversial atricle, you must DISCUSS before making such edits.)-

Note: 151.33.89.104 is User:PIO (, claiming 'logged out due to technical problem'). Also implicated in using several other IPs in the 151.33.*.* range, all registered to Italia Online. Under 151.33.89.84, PIO also violated 3RR on Istrian exodus. Michaelbusch 16:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Page protected by Riana. ---Haemo 19:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Abtract reported by User:DCGeist (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 21:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:34, September 11, 2007


 * 1st revert: 20:21, September 11, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:30, September 11, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:54, September 11, 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:02, September 11, 2007
 * 5th revert: 21:09, September 11, 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:02, September 11, 2007 (experienced user--on Wikipedia since April 2006)


 * 6th revert: 21:22, September 11, 2007
 * 7th revert: 21:24, September 11, 2007
 * 8th revert: 21:41, September 11, 2007
 * 9th revert: 21:48, September 11, 2007
 * 10th revert: 21:57, September 11, 2007

The above was after this 3RR report was originally filed, and after he was warned by User:DCGeist at 21:02 here. --G2bambino 21:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Already blocked. --Haemo 23:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Carlstar3 reported by User:Ripe (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 23:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

I warned user multiple times on user's talk page not to blank content. I previously reported user here. User persistently deletes a particular piece of sourced information on Sanjay Gupta. User appears to be a single purpose account for this purpose (contribs).


 * 1st revert: 04:49, 31 August 2007
 * 2nd revert: 01:45, 1 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:27, 1 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:27, 2 September 2007
 * 5th revert: 18:26, 2 September 2007

I was the other party reverting user's edits as I regard user's behavior as vandalism rather than a content dispute due to lack of good faith participation in talk page on why the sourced information should not be included, empty edit summaries, and uncivil behavior. The page was locked due to the edit war. I then attempted to engage in discussion on the Talk:Sanjay_Gupta. No sources were provided by Carlstar3 in response to the three that I had provided and did not provide reasons why my cited info was invalid. Carlstar3 continued to be uncivil. Protection on the article expired and user resumed edit warring/vandalism with no edit summary and no further comment on the talk page with this edit:


 * 6th revert: 18:47, 11 September 2007


 * No violation. --Haemo 19:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Skatewalk reported by User:Zerida (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 02:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:09, September 9 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:21, 11 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 13:53, 11 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:40, 11 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:46, 11 September 2007

A diff of 3RR warning:


 * First 3RR warning for a previous violation I didn't report: August 26 2007.
 * Second diff of another warning 00:05, 8 September 2007.


 * Comment: Part of a wider mess . The page move problems have been fixed. No consensus for changes. Attempts at discussion have failed either because talk pages are used as soapbox forums without focusing on the contents of the articles, or they include personal attacks . — Zerida 02:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This report may appear stale, but edit warring is still going on over this same issue. Skatewalk is blocked for 24 hours. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Ehgow reported by User:LWF (Result: 24 hours )
. : Time reported: 02:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:04, 9 September 2007


 * 1st revert: 20:08, 11 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:17, 11 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:21, 11 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:28, 11 September 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: 20:26, 11 September 2007


 * Blocked for 24 hours. --Haemo 19:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Jrhmdtraum reported by User:justinm1978 (Result: Page Protected)
. : Time reported: 03:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:00, 11 September 2007

We've been trying to discuss this on the talk page, and watch/revert is not effective. Would like to still hash this out on the talk page, but it's starting to degenerate.

Update: Jrhmdtraum has become belligerent on the talk page toward other editors, refuses to yield to consensus. This is going beyond 3RR and is becoming disruptive. I know if my report is not properly done, it will be ignored. How do I know if I have properly done this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinm1978 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 02:40, 12 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 01:30, 12 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:16, 12 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:03, 12 September 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: No previous 3RR warning issued, other than note on article talk page saying that he was entering into 3RR territory.

Report Vandilism by justinm1978 on Alpha phi Omega site. Justin continues to ignore wiki rules on ref for eyewitness and trys to whitewash history of apo by "undo" of ref comment. I have asked repeatedly for mediation or suggestion how to write such that he will agree. He refuses. The problem is that I was part of "history" of this organization and as such eyewitness. There are few living such now, althought I have tried to contact them without success for verification. Jrhmdtraum 18:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Page protected. There's no way I'm handing out like 4 blocks to every user.  --Haemo 19:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Kingdom of crash and spyro reported by User:Digby Tantrum (Result: Page Protected )
. : Time reported: 15:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:21, 11 September 2007


 * 1st revert: 14:15, 12 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:39, 12 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:46, 12 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:49, 12 September 2007
 * 5th revert: 15:01, 12 September 2007
 * 6th revert: 15:05, 12 September 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: 14:52, 12 September 2007

Note: This user is not the only one who's gone over three reverts in this particular situation; however, I understand he's reinserting an image which has licensing difficulties, in case that makes a difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digby Tantrum (talk • contribs) 15:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Page protected, image deleted as being wildly improper in its licensing. --Haemo 19:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:CWO5thGroupVet reported by User:Gscshoyru (Result: page protected)
. : Time reported: 04:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 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:


 * Note:I just realized that I had a fourth revert in there, a couple of reverts earlier, when the user was still editing under an IP, which does in fact look like I'm in violation too, for which I apologize. However, the conversation on the user's talk page should show that I was trying to do the right thing, though I'm not sure my last reversion falls under the copyright violation exception of the 3RR. But that's up to the blocking admin to decide. I did not realize that I had made 4 reversion till now, though, and if I had known at the time that there had been three already, and not two, then I would not have reverted. Gscshoyru 04:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * See the report just below. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Gscshoyru reported by User:CWO5thGroupVet (Result: Page Protected)
5th Special Forces Group (United States). : Time reported: 04:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

•	Previous version reverted to: [13] •	1st revert: [14] •	2nd revert: [15] •	3rd revert: [16] •	4th revert: [17]

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: Revision as of 23:53, September 12, 2007


 * This is malformed, but it looks like a copyvio dispute. Page protected until it's solved.  --Haemo 18:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Hardyplants reported by User:Ttiotsw (Result:User warned)
The God Delusion. : Time reported: 08:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

The edits in question are, My (Ttiotsw) original edit on 9th September -
 * 1st revert on 12th September 11:58. NOTE I claim this is disruption by WP:STALK as user has never edited The God Delusion before and simply pick out just my one edit out of the dozen others done by other editors between the 9th and 12th on The God Delusion article. Why just my edit ?
 * 2nd revert 12th Sept 15:33 of another editors changes
 * 3rd revert 13th Sep 04:23
 * 4th revert 13th Sep 05:11 reverting large amounts which was then self-reverted

Then my (Ttiotsw) edit here 13th Sep 05:44 to remove text that does not appear in the sources,. I reworded my edit from the 9th to see if that could fit better.


 * 5th revert  13th Sept 05:51 simply reverting my edit.

User is NOT a new user and should be well aware of 3RR.
 * Regardless of how new the user is, a warning should be given to the user to make it abundantly clear that they will be blocked for 3RR. I'll go ahead and warn the user.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  08:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * User warning was filed actually... at 8:29.


 * 6th "edit" at 8:51 over 20 minutes after user read and replied to my 3rr warning  so he was aware of the issue. Ttiotsw 08:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Which edit was that reverting? I don't believe it was a revert.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  09:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

User:24.127.156.41 reported by User:dsol (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 09:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 13:03, 12 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:32, 12 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:55, 12 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 01:58, 13 September 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Warned by Kuru after first violation


 * Quite possibly a just removal of a BLP violation. BLP extends to articles that discuss living people, not just biographies. The IP was simply removing unsourced statements that talked about living people. I'd say no violation.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  15:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ryan's deduction. Anthøny   ん  16:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Pardon my frustration, but how can you say the material was unsourced? The material on Michael Wines had two valid sources when removed (NY post and media life magazine), and two more were offered on the BLP noticeboard page (salon.com and the NZ student paper Critic). In addition to photos which have been seen by the author of the Salon source, the claim has been public for years and has never been denied by anyone. One source names a specific contact at the NYT who confirmed the report.


 * Would you please consult the extensive discussion on this subject at WP:BLPN and consider revising your decision? So far the material has been reinserted by 3 users: myself, user:the Evil Spartan, and user:149.159.217.161. Only the user I am reporting here has removed it. The reported user was also already warned for 3RR by the admin user:Kuru for the same thing two days ago, and another user (and admin) user:Brighterorange has chimed in at BLPN as well. The reported user is not engaging in any real discussion, and continues to revert without adressing the extensive sources and arguments offered by others. Dsol 16:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I did see that a couple of other admins had a different take on this, however I agree with the IP that this could be considered a BLP violation. Specifically because there no is need to mention the incident involving Anna Kournikova - by stating the incident it automatically defames here because it talks of an incident that is not true. The other statement talking of Spy's bancruptcy, although not of a living person, still has similar implications of that of unsourced BLPs, hence why I do not believe is justified in this case.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  17:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please look more carefully at what is being reverted. I have already stated on the BLP page that I am not presently contesting the removal of Kournikova's name. What is really at issue is the whole well-sourced section on Michael Wines. I had not even noticed that the blanking had increased to include the reference to Spy as well, but that can be easily sourced. Regardless the anon should absolutely be blocked for a 3RR violation in removing the well sourced material on Wines. The fact s/he may have also removed borderline stuff such as AK's name does not excuse this violation.
 * Also, please look at WP:BLPN and see if you think the anon is actually engaging in discussion there, trying to build consensus and follow policy.
 * For now I will only revert the well sourced info on Michael Wines back in. But regarding the blanking of that material I don't feel that 3RR has been appropriately enforced in this case. Dsol 10:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

User:PONDHEEPANKAR reported by User:Gnanapiti (Result:48 hours)
. : Time reported: 15:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: For first 2 reverts, For next 2 reverts


 * 1st revert: 13:55, 12 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:09, 12 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 09:31, 13 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 09:54, 13 September 2007
 * 5th revert: 10:29 13 September 2007


 * Note - In all the four reverts, he has removed legitimate tags added by other editors instead of addressing the issues. He has removed , when there is absolutely NO inline citations in the entire article. Furthermore he is threatening other editors of waging edit wars here and here.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: on his talk page

However he has removed the warning from his talk page. So, he is not interested on improving himself, when cautioned.
 * The warning was given out quite a few hours after the last revert and the user hasn't reverted past this as yet, therefore a block is punitive at this time. Please re-report if further reverts are made.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  15:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note: The 4th and 5th reverts were made after the warning was given. He has even removed the warning from his talk page, as shown in a diff above. Thanks, - KNM Talk 15:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Per the threats of further disruption, and my misreading of the diffs, I've blocked for 48 hours.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  15:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

71.243.172.80 reported by Docta247 (Result:24 hours )
. : Time reported: 18:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:10


 * 1st revert: 17:05
 * 2nd revert: 17:46
 * 3rd revert: 18:03
 * 4th revert: 18:26
 * 5th revert: 18:41
 * 6th revert: 19:03
 * 7th revert: 19:23
 * 8th revert: 21:17 -- as User:Thrillmecd
 * 9th revert: 02:44
 * 10th revert: 15:30

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: 00:21 on 09/09/07 - this user is a sockpuppet of User:Thrillmecd
 * The user was also warned here at 19:20 before reverting once again at 19:23


 * Note: The user is also the sockpuppet of User:Thrillmecd, whose block should be extended. -- Ssilvers 03:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * IP blocked for 24 hours.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  16:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

User:70.190.202.194 reported by User:B (Result: 1 month)
. : Time reported: 20:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Reversion #1 from 70.190.202.194 (again, done over 3 edits, last at 19:35, 12 September 2007)
 * Reversion #2 from 70.190.202.194 (22:08, 12 September 2007)
 * Reversion #3 from 70.190.202.194 (22:47, 12 September 2007)
 * Reversion #4 from Knivesout8 (2 edits, last at 18:13, 13 September 2007)


 * 3RR policy notification given to 70.190.202.194 (22:18, 12 September 2007)

Other:
 * Trolling on my talk page:
 * Vandalism on Strategery:

In addition to violating 3RR, reversion #2 and #3, which characterize his wife as a "former drug addict" without any context are at best deceiving and at worst libel.

I have submitted a request at Requests for checkuser/Case/Knivesout8 to confirm that the user and IP are the same person, although from their edits, it seems almost certain. -- B 20:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This IP has been blocked for 1 month as a sockpuppet. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

John Smith's reported by User:Giovanni33 (Result: Under review at ANI)
and {{{{Article|Bruce_Cumings}}. {{3RRV|John Smith's}}: Time reported: 12:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4th revert:*Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 09:31, 12 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:47, 12 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:37, 12 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 06:28, 13 September 2007


 * User reverted earlier, a total of 6 times if we look beyond simply the 24 hour electric fence. He self reverted after violating 3RR and then reverted again, after waiting right after 24 hours, making a total of 7 reverts. User edit wars as a means an editing style as seen over a wide range of related China/Asia articles. These include Han Dynasty, Shang Dynasty, Xia Dynasty, and has numerous warning to to edit war on his talk page by other users. I include this other article, below, with 6 more reversions a little over 24 hours to illustrate this chonic edit warring and gaming of the system. I think a block will be instructive since he doesn't seem to get the point yet by other means.


 * Some of this users many warnings:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Also note his block log, at least 6 blocks for violating the 3RR rule, including the very article above with the 3 RR violation (he started again after protection ended).

{{Article|Bruce_Cumings}}. {{3RRV|John Smith's}}


 * 1st revert: 22:05, 11 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 09:32, 12 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 06:31, 13 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:35, 13 September 2007

The above is an example of gaming the system, technically out of 24 hours but shows pattern of edit waring. I also show this article (there are others), that user wikistalks for purposes of continuining to edit war.Giovanni33 20:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Response
This is a false report made by someone who is trying to create ways to get me banned because of disputes we are having - we are currently trying to discuss mediation, but Giovanni seems to be more interested in reverting my changes rather than taking part in dispute resolution. He complains he is too busy yet finds time for this.

For the first article, the first two edits were the same reversions. However after that I left the point alone and moved on to a different version to reach consensus. On the 4th "revert" Giovanni lists I self-reverted here because I wanted to propose a different version later on in the day.

For the second article, the idea that I was gaming the system is a complete joke. First of all the four edits are way outside of 24 hours. Second, the first edit is not even a revert - I made changes as I saw needed to be made. In the third and fourth edits I attempted to address Giovanni's points by making various changes - instead he just blanket-reverted, which is not surprising given his block-list (including a recent community ban) and the number of edit-wars he has become involved with. However I notice that I did remove a piece of text in the later edits, so even though they were well outside of 24 hours I restored it.

As to previous blocks, I have not been blocked for editing either of the pages in question, have only received 4 blocks (the last was overruled as Deskana had already actioned the 3RR report) and not had any for the last several months. The allegation of wikistalking is not true, as the person in question (Jon Cumings) was being discussed on the Korean War talk page, so of course I would take an interest on the article of the guy we were discussing. Giovanni always cries wolf when it comes to wikistalking to try to gain sympathy as he knows the people he is in dispute with haven't actually broken the rules.

This is a ridiculous report, and I hope will be closed post-haste. John Smith&#39;s 22:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a block will be instructive since he doesn't seem to get the point yet by other means. Blocks are not punitive or "instructive" - read Wikipedia policy. By the way you are continuing to revert (on the first page) so can't really lecture me on the rules. John Smith&#39;s 22:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe if you didn't appear to be stalking the guy, Giovanni, I might concede you had a point here. HalfShadow 22:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not. I edit that article and check on it regularly, esp. since John Smith has tried to remove that external link (that I placed there many months ago), before but met with too much opposition and couldnt get it removed. Now, it appears he is in a edit waring mode to re-ignite many of his old edit wars. This actually serves to support my general and accurate points above regarding this user needing to get a block for preventive/instructive purposes concerning editing waring.Giovanni33 22:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes you are stalking me. You haven't edited that article for ages. You're clutching at straws when you accuse me of trying to "reignite" edit wars. As I said on the edit summary, the link's broken! Get a working one. John Smith&#39;s 22:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I check to make sure you don't take that link out again, and its one of the article I regularly check, and contributed to. Btw, don't lie, the link is not broken. Your reaons for removal are POV as you clearly admitted to last time you were edit waring over it: ,Btw, even then you reverted over 5 times edit warring over that working link, even without making any arguments on talk. You only stopped because too many other editors opposed you. The timing for you to start that edit war again, is indicative of the reason why you are being reported here: widespread edit waring over many articles, and yet you want to expand this to your old edit wars. Time for a coling off period, I think.Giovanni33 22:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You were stalking me, admit it. You're now making edits to try to cover up for your lack of activity on that page. And the link IS broken - every time I click on it I get an error message. John Smith&#39;s 23:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny that when I click on it, it opens just fine. Also interesting is that you were edit waring over removing that link before, and your reasons were pov (not that it was broken). But, its not broken; the link works fine from my pc. Just don' keep revering everyone you disagree with so much, and never go more than 3 reverts within 24 hours on an article, as you have done above. Its not that hard to follow that basic rule, is it? And, undoing any edit of another editor counts.Giovanni33 23:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, accuse me of lying. The evidence is here.
 * You can talk! You revert anyone you disagree with - the community ban shows that. I haven't reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours on either of those articles. I made my own edits - you've been undoing mine, not the other way around. John Smith&#39;s 23:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not the link, this is:http://monthlyreview.org/0906ball.htm You are simply wrong. Also, community ban? Nonsense. No such thing ever occured. I usually limit myself to one or two reverts at most, and you would be wise to do the same. The fact is that you went over 3rr and reverted about 6 times within 2 days, on almost every article you find yourself in a dispute. You will either learn the easy way or the hard way, i.e. with a block.Giovanni33 23:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it was the link! It's exactly the same - look at the image file. Though it seems to be fine now, so I don't know why it wasn't working.
 * I checked and you didn't receive a community ban, though you were blocked for two weeks in August (lowered to three days). You were condemned by a senior admin of gaming the system here and he was the guy that lowered your block. Hardly a ringing endorsement of your behaviour. John Smith&#39;s 23:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue here is you. I learned my lesson. But, glad you agree. I endore a 2 week block, but would be fine to lower to 3 days for your edit waring. I hope you come out of that a changed editor.Giovanni33 23:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Giovanni, you haven't learnt anything as can be seen by your blanket reversions and insistence that you can veto anything you don't like when talking about "consensus". I don't see you obtaining consensus for your edits on Great Leap Forward, yet you use that for reverting my attempts at compromise on Mao: the unknown story. So I guess it's one rule for me and one rule for you. John Smith&#39;s 23:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This mess is already under discussion in a broader context at WP:ANI. Review of the actions of both parties is in process.  Consolidating discussion is good! --Haemo 20:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Puark reported by User:Tazmaniacs (Result: 24h (Pu), 24h (Ta))
. : Time reported: 22:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 21:39, 12 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:54, 12 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 22:21, 12 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 07:54, 13 September 2007
 * 5th revert: 18:47, 13 September 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 16:24, 13 September 2007


 * Both violated the three-revert rule; both have been blocked. --  tariq abjotu  19:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Dreadfulwater reported by User:Murderbike (Result: 24 hours)
.
 * 4th revert:*Three-revert rule violation on

This user has been warned many times to stop adding unsourced controversial material to this article, as well as that of Douglas Blue Feather and Native American flute

1st is here 2nd is here 3rd is here 4th is here Murderbike 01:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Dreadfulwater was blocked for 24 hours for this 3RR violation. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Arcayne reported by User:Heavy Brother (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 05:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: Varies


 * 1st revert: 20:56, 13 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:40, 13 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:53, 13 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 04:41, 14 September 2007
 * 5th revert: 05:07, 14 September 2007
 * 6th revert: 05:15, 14 September 2007
 * 7th revert: 05:20, 14 September 2007


 * Not a new user.


 * Blocked by someone else for twenty-four hours. --  tariq abjotu  19:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Hornplease reported by User:Prester John (Result: Page protected)
. : Time reported: 15:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 2:23 14 Sept

All reverts are the same.......


 * 1st revert: 2:23 14 Sept
 * 2nd revert: 04:56 14 Sept
 * 3rd revert: 15:01 14 Sept
 * 4th revert: 15:11 14 Sept

User has been blocked before for 5RR and continues to edit war over multiple articles. Should probably be blocked for incivility alone. Check edit summaries to see why this disruptive user needs a nice long extended vacation from the project.


 * Awfully disruptive, I'm sure:) Reverted myself well before I saw this, when I realised I'd been having a bad day. Even apologised to one of the editors in question, actually, though I don't have anything to apologise for, strictly speaking: I've been civil througout, and each edit comment invites people who habitually avoid talkpages, choosing instead to pack-revert in articles, to go to talk. (My sole previous block was withdrawn as an error.) Whatever. I'm off for the day in any case, as I've never even come close to this before. Gaming the system wins, I suppose. Hornplease —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornplease (talk • contribs) 17:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, gaming does win, seeing as you pushed 3RR on the 11th and the 7th also. - Merzbow 17:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Severe edit warring on the article; I have protected for seven days (and I'm curious if that'll be sufficient). --  tariq abjotu  19:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, I didn't even realize this was a different article, he did the same today at Bat Yeor (which is what my comment above was referring to). - Merzbow 05:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This report was incorrectly filed. The user has 6 reverts, the last of which he undid. Should I file again? This user has been recently reminded of the rule: and shouldn't be allowed to so flagrantly violate policy. Arrow740 06:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * He also missed violating the letter of the law at Bat Ye'or by 5 minutes. Arrow740 06:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is no action taken or response from an admin here I will file again. Arrow740 06:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Wolf of Fenric reported by User:Digby Tantrum (Result: No action required)
. : Time reported: 15:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:28, 9 September 2007


 * 1st revert: 06:15, 14 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:46, 14 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:02, 14 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 15:26, 14 September 2007


 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion. This is an experienced user.


 * Note: In case it's not clear, the reverts reinsert a character deemed too minor to mention by other editors (Reporter / Newsreader 3 / US Newsreader). The added references in later reverts make little difference to this.


 * Comment I should also add that User:Wolf of Fenric has recently avowed he won't be making further reverts on this issue (see here). To my mind, this makes my original report redundant; I'm just not sure whether I'm allowed to remove it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digby Tantrum (talk • contribs) 19:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems to be resolved then. --Haemo 20:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

User:NIYet reported by User:Komdori (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 20:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:26, 13 September 2007


 * 1st revert: 14:20, 14 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:59, 14 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:11, 14 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:18, 14 September 2007

All reverts include the same controversial change introduced in the first version by the same user 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: 20:03, 14 September 2007


 * Clear case, and a block for 24 hours. However I suspect sockpuppetry. Sam Blacketer 21:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Kevinkevin112 reported by User:Eliz81 (Result: 48 hours)
. : Time reported: 00:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:42, September 13, 2007


 * 1st revert: 08:39, September 13, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 08:40, September 13, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 01:54, September 14, 2007
 * 4th revert: 09:47, September 14, 2007

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly. Also attempting to evade 3RR block through highly suspected sockpuppet User:Lukeluke112.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 09:57, September 14, 2007


 * I have blocked the user for 48 hours per WP:3RR. The two sockpuppets (Lukeluke112 and Muppetman) have been blocked as well. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Dan Rutherford reported by User:Pharaoh of the Wizards (Result: user warned)
. : Pharaoh of the Wizards 00:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1st revert: 00:18, 15 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 08:40, 00:28, 15 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:37, 15 September 2007
 * User is a username which is is grossly, blatantly, or obviously inappropriate and vandalising the article of the Dan Rutherford using the same username which is wrong as people may concede that the user himself is editing his page.


 * This user doesn't appear to have been warned about 3RR. If there's a problem with his username, please report it to the appropriate noticeboard; this should probably go to WP:COIN since it appears that this account belongs to the subject of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

reported by User:Sarvagnya (Result: 72 hours)
The WP:3RR rules say - ''"...The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence".[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system...".

I would like to bring to the admins notice, the relentless revert warring of User:Wiki Raja across dozens of pages against the consensus of no less than seven editors. The users he is edit warring against include, , , , , and myself.

On all these pages he is trying to game the system by reverting exactly 3 times. He clearly seems to think that he is 'entitled' to 3 reverts a day. Also, he was blocked as recently as a couple of days ago for violating 3RR. He has also served a 3 month block for socking. In the space of a week he even filed three bad faith RfCUs against practically everyone that he warring with. Needless to say, all three were thrown out. His actions are clearly disruptive and I request any admin here to take a look. I am not providing diffs, but a quick look at his Talk page contribs should suffice. Please ask if any specific information or diff is needed. Sarvagnya 01:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To Admin: With all due respect, these WikiProject Dravidian civilizations templates were placed on the talk pages of Dravidian related articles. I have had problems in the past were mutlipe IP sockpuppets were engaged in removing our templates. They were reported by me to intervention against vandalism here while several were reported for a user check here. At least several of the anon IPs were blocked here However, that didn't stop whoever was behind this. Several days later I have recorded around 40 anonymous IPs whom have removed our Wiki Project templates here. Now in the case with Sarvagnya he has no reason to complain. As a matter of fact, I should be the one complaining since it was he along with some of the other users he has listed above. I do not need to go into detail since he has already provided those for you. If you would click where he listed "dozens of pages" and scroll almost half way down the page you will see that a banned sock puppet Mbrdnbry was involved in removing our templates. As a matter of fact, this banned sockpuppet has removed over 70 of our WikiProject templates on Sep. 7, 2007 here. This user account was also created on the day and started reverting right after Gnanapiti and Sarvagnya took turns removing our templates on Sep 5 & 6, 2007 here and here. Sarvagnya complains about me for reverting their removals of our templates. However, he fails to explain that he and the names he has listed above have taken the liberty to take turns removing our templates in mass reverts to avoid being blocked for 3RR. I feel I have said enough, if there is anything else you need, please let me know. As for Sarvagnya, and the others, please stop vandalizing my talk page with your threats and pranks here. Thank you. Wiki Raja 02:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is actually a case of WP:STALK of edits by Wikiraja. Number of editors have ganged up on his edits are are serially trying to remove his edits. Sometimes even WP:SOCKs seem to be follwing his edits around. This compliant is an extension of WP:HARASS of Wikiraja. Taprobanus 03:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 72 hours per WP:3RR. This is clearly not productive at all. Please follow the guideline of "discuss, don't revert". You know that the other users involved would revert your edits again, and that clearly isn't going to solve the matter. It has to be discussed and resolved first. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

User:66.176.138.45 reported by User:Icestorm815 (Result: wrong place, try AIV)
. : Time reported: 04:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:51 September 14,2007

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icestorm815 (talk • contribs)
 * 1st revert: 00:00 September 15,2007
 * 2nd revert: 2:26 September 15,2007
 * 3rd revert: 2:51 September 15,2007
 * 4th revert: 3:44 September 15,2007
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: (Not the 3RR warning, but, still 2 warnings were given.)


 * Try WP:AIV instead. This page is mostly for edit-warring in content disputes, not for simple vandalism.  Melsaran  (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Raul654 reported by User:Melsaran (Result:Article protected)
. : Time reported: 07:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 08:56, 14 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:58, 14 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:29, 14 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 07:45, 15 September 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:39, 14 September 2007 (he was reminded of 3RR by another user, albeit not with a template, but that shouldn't be necessary since he's an admin/bureaucrat/arbitrator and has been blocked for 3RR before)

It could arguably be said that Raul was correct since he retained the existing variety, but WP:3RR is crystal clear on the fact that 3RR applies for anything but simple and obvious vandalism (with a few exceptions).  Melsaran  (talk) 07:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It takes two to tango, and that's exactly what I'm seeing here, Raul wasn't the only person reverting. I've protected the page for 3 hours to give people time to discuss whether 'ass' or 'arse' is better in the article.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  10:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'm not sure Raul actually wants to be treated as someone with special standing, Ryan. El_C 11:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I've warned him as well, it just seems punitive I'm affraid to block him when there was more than one person reverting. I'm not denying that the fact it is Raul came into play, because it's not a good thing having the featured article director blocked.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  11:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the same debate as with his previous 3RR block; he is a person with a lot of responsibility, but I don't feel that we need to treat him differently. There were multiple persons reverting Raul, but he reverted them back with admin rollback and didn't want to discuss the matter ([[Image:Symbol note.svg|20px]] Note that he threatened a block another user in the dispute). It was a pretty clear 3RR violation.  Melsaran  (talk) 11:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's somewhat (though obviously not hugely, but appearances do count for a lot) problematic, seeing how he was actually warned about it, and how there's a prior 3RR block from this year. And then you just happen to protect the page on his version. Well, that I reverted, at least. I have the article on my watchlist due to I-bow-before-Bishonen, and I probably would have reverted to Raul's version once I got to it, but he chose not to waites, so now I had to do the opposite of the edit I favour to inject a greater dose of evenhandedness into this 3rruling. We cannot show favouritisms, even to our beloved FA director. El_C 11:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Outside view - This is not a debate that has any special significance. No BLP or other policy matter hangs on it, nothing that gives it extra standing or merits experienced intervention. Its a simple "use of English" issue, "ass" or "arse". There is zero call for any treatment other than the usual revert a couple of times, talk page, WP:DR if it gets problematic. None whatsoever. I see no basis to 3RR on it, and no justification that an experienced editor might use to override 3RR on it.

I would also endorse a communal view that 1/ policy applies to all editors, and 2/ arbcom precedent states [1]   [2]   [3]  that admins are expected to lead by example. I think that's basically El_C's observation. The advice I give editors is, you can always ask others to check it, or seek dispute resolution. It's good advice, and applies to admins too.

Beyond that, as to "what is appropriate handling"... obviously Raul is a highly respected and experienced editor, with much trust by the community, myself 100% included. Admins aren't expected to be perfect, but 3RR is basic stuff. I'd like a comment from Raul himself... no drama or anything, but just simply how the heck did this end up being a 3RR? Why on earth did he allow himself to be trip over that line, when he has spent so long successfully ensuring policy and communal conduct agreement is kept by others? And will he take extra care not to repeat this, but to seek dispute resolution in future, for simple editorial matters which don't have admin, arbcom, or other specific exemptions? That would be enough for me. I think for an admin of Raul's standing, that is the point that matters.

I'd endorse a consensus that if it happens again, usual 3RR handling would be appropriate. But for now, I'm not inclined to make mountains where not needed. I think Raul will understand his example matters. The rejection by the community of special exemptions - as stated by others - will be all that is needed, there is no need for excessive reaction: Mistakes happen. Don't repeat them. FT2 (Talk 11:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I find it highly disturbing that he's being given special consideration and treatment because of his positions of power. 3RR applies to everyone, and edit warring is unacceptable for anyone. Also, I think the fact that he is edit-warring casts serious doubt on whether he's suitable to be an admin, bureaucrat and FA director (which is too much concentration of power in one person's hands anyway, IMO). WaltonOne 20:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's neutral. I've made similar judgements on non-admins too. Policy - even 3RR - is a way to improve the community, not a stick to beat ourtselves up with. The test is still, what helps the encyclopedia most. I judge that a block here, at this time, would mostly be to make a WP:POINT about "admins with positions of power"... and blocking isn't there for making a point. I'm content with what I wrote. I've made a similar judgement before, as said, for one or two non-admins who I figured would learn given an explicit warning. FT2 (Talk 08:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Kingdom of crash and spyro reported by User:Freqrexy (Result:Warned)
. : Time reported: 13:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * At the time of editing, the fourth revert is the current edit. I reverted the first three but didn't revert the fourth in the event that I would also be prosecuted under this rule.


 * 1st revert: 11:40
 * 2nd revert: 12:22
 * 3rd revert: 12:32
 * 4th revert: 12:50

This user has been reported for 3RR before several days ago, with the result being page protection for that article. The report for this user was also taken to the Incidents board as well. Please deal with this user and revert the fourth edit. Freqrexy 13:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Owing to the protection, and the user being new, I have given him a warning and told him he should not rely on leniency in the future. Sam Blacketer 11:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Butterfly0fdoom reported by User:Psantora (Result: warned)
. : Time reported: 17:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:42, 13 September 2007


 * 1st revert: 11:39, 14 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:50, 14 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 09:39, 15 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 11:04, 15 September 2007

The last two edits were by an IP, but a checkuser may prove that they are the same user. Paul C/T+ 17:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A clear edit war - even if Butterflyofdoom and the IP are different users, they're tag-team-reverting to avoid 3RR. I've already warned User:GnuTurbo, so I'll give Butterflyofdoom a formal warning for the sake of even-handedness. No block needed at present. WaltonOne 20:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

User:GnuTurbo reported by User:Psantora (Result: warned)
. : Time reported: 17:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:37, 25 August 2007


 * 1st revert: 23:02, 13 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:27, 14 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 07:41, 15 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 10:17, 15 September 2007

These are both sides of the same edit war. I'm not 100% sure if they both are legitimate 3RR violations, but they should at least be given a stern warning from an admin that this behavior is unacceptable... Paul C/T+ 17:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * User:GnuTurbo is technically over the 3RR limit, but the reverts were quite widely spread in chronological terms, and it seems like the other side were tag-team-reverting him. Also, he wasn't given a proper 3RR warning (and is a fairly new user). I'll give him a formal warning, but no block is merited at this time. WaltonOne 20:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Walton One. I am subjecting myself to a self-imposed block (for the article) for the time being and have proposed a compromise on the relevant talk page. -GnuTurbo 20:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Eurominuteman reported by User:Man It's So Loud In Here (Result: Eurominuteman blocked indef due to legal threats)
. : Time reported: 17:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 10:42
 * 2nd revert: 10:25
 * 3rd revert: 9:50

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'm pretty sure I haven't filled out this form properly, but the point is that Eurominuteman continues to make the exact same edits to Translation. He has been trying to add the same content to the article for over a month now, previously using IP addresses to edit. He spent some time on the talk page, but attempting to discuss the article with him have proven fruitless. In dealing with Eurominuteman I have at times been less than civil, which is why I would like to back off for a little bit. It seems to me that the only way around this is to prevent him from editing the article at all. Man It&#39;s So Loud In Here 17:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Eurominuteman has been blocked indefinitely due to legal threats. Davnel03 18:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Photouploaded reported by User:Gscshoyru (Result: 24 hour block)
. : Time reported: 19:03, 15 September 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.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * 24-hour block issued to User:Photouploaded per report. Clear and deliberate violation of 3RR (over a fairly trivial point). The user also clearly ignored the good-faith warning they were given. WaltonOne 19:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

User:84.73.140.109 reported by User:Nja247 (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 20:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Notes: I warned user last night after two reverts, he has done another three today (more than five in a 24 hour period) for that article.

Further, he has reverted more than three times in 24 hour period on the article Intel iMac.


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


 * 24 hour block for the IP.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  10:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Hornplease reported by User:Arrow740 (Result: already reported above)
. : Time reported: 23:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

With this edit: 19:27, 13 September 2007, he undid this edit 18:20, 13 September 2007 by User:Intothefire.

The next four reverts are the same:


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:05, 13 September 2007


 * 2nd revert: 2:23 14 Sept
 * 3rd revert: 04:56 14 Sept
 * 4th revert: 15:01 14 Sept
 * 5th revert: 15:11 14 Sept

He had a sixth, subsequent revert which he undid. This established user has been recently reminded of the 3RR: 8:25, 8 September 2007

The user was reported yesterday by a different user. I am filing this report because the first was filed incorrectly, leaving out the first revert. Further, that user was not aware that User:Hornplease missed violating the letter of the law at by 5 minutes, with four reverts between 14:59, 13 September 2007 and 15:04, 14 September 2007. He then had a fifth which he undid. User:Hornplease should not be allowed to violate wikipedia policies in this way. Arrow740 23:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This matter was reported above, and we can assume that the admin who dealt with that report looked at the full context of the reverts. Please focus on solving the dispute through discussion on the article's talk page, rather than attempting to get another user blocked; reporting this matter twice smacks of forum-shopping. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The first of the six reverts was not the same, and was not obvious. Quite frankly, if an established editor is allowed to make five reverts in a day, 3RR has no meaning. Arrow740 03:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering our edit warrior and Akhilleus are two sides of the same coin, I would agree with Arrow that this report is more than relevant and should not be brushed off by an admin with an obvious COI. Speaking of forum shopping, I think Akhilleus has quite a bit of experience with that. Baka man  05:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As I've already noted, this matter was reported and dealt with above. If anyone believes that the administrator who dealt with the report didn't take the full context of the reverts into account, discuss the matter with the administrator, rather than filing a duplicate report. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:BQZip01 reported by User:ThreeE (Result: no violation)
. : Time reported: 02:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:21 15 Sept


 * 1st revert: 16:19 Sept 15
 * 2nd revert: 17:22 Sept 15
 * 3rd revert: 18:21 Sept 15


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:55 Sept 15

User has removed POV tag unilaterally 3 times today. ThreeE 02:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You've added it against consensus 4 times in 6 hours (17:10, September 15, 2007 17:30, September 15, 2007 21:55, September 15, 2007 22:19, September 15, 2007) and have been previously blocked for edit-warring on this article. Additionally, revert 2 listed above is not by User:BQZip01, nor is it a reversion of the NPOV tag. -- Upholder 05:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I linked the wrong diff -- and have now fixed it. Additionally, no consensus has been reached as shown on the talk page (and should be discussed there).  BQZip01 has been blocked previously for edit-warring on this page.  The third instance you reference of my edits was the 3RR warning edit to BQZip01. ThreeE 05:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment three times in 24 hours is NOT a violation. — BQZip01 —  talk 07:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No vio. There are other issues here I will try to address.--Chaser - T 07:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Syed Atif Nazir reported by User:Sefringle (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 07:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:46, 15 September 2007


 * 1st revert: 18:04, 15 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:28, 16 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 01:43, 16 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 01:49, 16 September 2007
 * 5th revert: 07:58, 16 September 2007

He keeps revert warring, removing Dhimmi from the template, despite the consensus on the talk page, and he isn't discussing on the talk page. Sef rin gle Talk 07:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 23:01, 8 July 2007. The user was also let off for violating 3RR recently, see this. Arrow740 07:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted because Sefringle continues to add dhimmi despite no consensus in the talk page (3 editors say NO and 3 say YES). I already added my comments on Talk page earlier here why dhimmi should not be added to this template. I have added and reporting Sefringle's reverts below. ~atif msg me - 08:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the organization of such templates is a matter of personal opinion. I don't personally have any problem with the inclusion of dhimmi though I can understand why one can find it not significant enough to be there. --Aminz 09:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 24 hours block. As reverting has been going on by several others, the template has been protected for seven days to allow debate on the talk page over whether to include Dhimmi. Sam Blacketer 10:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Sefringle reported by User:Syed Atif Nazir (Result:No violation, template protected)
. : Time reported: 08:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 02:54, 14 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 02:58, 14 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:00, 16 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 06:15, 16 September 2007
 * 5th revert: 06:45, 16 September 2007

He has been reverting consistently without getting any consensus on talk page and dismissing other's comments. Want to highlight, Sefringle had already started edit warring (1st/2nd reverts) with user Cunado19 a day before I started editing. ~atif msg me - 08:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Plus, Sefringle has been repeatedly warned twice before for 3RR violations here: 1 and 2 ~atif msg me - 09:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Syed Atif Nazir: The above is obviously not a 3RR violation. Please stop disrupting this place by posting false and absurd reports. -- Karl Meier 10:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking more closely at the diffs at that template, the above actually seems to be an attempt to divert attention from the fact that Arif Nazir has himself violated the 3RR, removing the disputed link to Dhimmi five times within 24 hrs: He has already been warned about the 3RR rule: User_talk:Syed_Atif_Nazir. Now the template has been protected but I don't think that should allow him to get away with gaming the system. -- Karl Meier 10:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There has been no violation here; Sefringle has three reverts in a 24-hour period but no more. However due to the revert-warring, the template has been protected. Please discuss on Template talk:Islam. Sam Blacketer 11:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:ThreeE reported by User:BQZip01 (Result: 36 hours)
. : Time reported: 07:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 17:10, September 15, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:30, September 15, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:55, September 15, 2007
 * 4th revert: 22:19, September 15, 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: user has been warned, blocked, and then deleted the warning

This particular user is quickly becoming extremely disruptive to edits on Wikipedia, throws unfounded accusations of plagiarism, and vandalizing my user pages. The issue at hand has been discussed and he is the sole dissenter, but refuses to work on any compromise. The user is apparently not interested in resolving the situation, only in inflaming it. — BQZip01 — talk 07:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked 36 hours.--Chaser - T 07:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Request reversion to prior text as I cannot do so without violating the 3RR myself. (is that not the intent of the "Previous version reverted to" line?) — BQZip01 —  talk 09:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The above is obviously not a 3RR violation. Please stop disrupting this place by posting false and absurd reports. -- Karl Meier 10:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:216.175.82.79 reported by User:Markh (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 11:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert 01:19 16 September 2007
 * 2nd revert 03:18 16 September 2007
 * 3rd revert 04:11 16 September 2007

This appears to be the same user (different IP addresses who has been editting this page in a disruptive manner). Markh 10:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This report was malformed - please read the guidance on how to file a full report. The three revert rule is violated on the fourth revert in a 24-hour period. However the IP does have four reverts, hence gets a 24-hour block. You may wish to file a suspected sockpuppet report as well, or request a checkuser. Sam Blacketer 11:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Nicksmith2007 reported by User:Steven Andrew Miller (Result: warned)
. : Time reported: 22:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 17:16, September 16, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:21, September 16, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:28, September 16, 2007

Nicksmith2007 continues to change the article (Michael B. Mukasey) to say that Mukasey has been nominated to be the next Attorney General of the United States, when he has not been nominated, but rather it is only rumored in the news. Only days ago Ted Olson was rumored to be the next AG, and the press was sure of it. I have asked Nicksmith2007 to wait for an official announcement but he refuses and keeps reverting the article back. &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Has violated 3RR, but judging from contribs User:Nicksmith2007 is a fairly infrequent user and may not be aware of the three-revert rule. No formal warning previously given, so I'll issue a final warning; a block would be overkill at this stage. WaltonOne 16:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This is totally fair, but only if the same warning/block is given to Steven Andrew Miller. Otherwise, this would be ridicilous. - NickSmith2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicksmith2007 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

User:UoL Monitoring Group (suspected socks) reported by User:Timrollpickering (Result: warned)
. : Time reported: 17:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

An ongoing attempt to insert POV commentary on recent changes to the Institute. Although the actual user account has only made two edits so far, one a minor typo correction to the material, the identical edits to an anonymous account strike me as the same editor creating an account to continue reverting. Timrollpickering 17:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sockpuppetry is obvious here, no checkuser evidence is required; I'll treat all 4 reverts as belonging to the main account. The user is a very obvious POV warrior, and the username suggests a shared account, which is not allowed. However, the user is also too new to necessarily be aware of 3RR, and has not received a formal warning. I'll leave a formal warning on his talk page; further reverts will result in a block. WaltonOne 18:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Pol64 and associated account User:86.156.210.130 reported by User:Dyskolos (Result: Page Protected)
. | : Time reported: 18:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: (n/a: multiple vers), on 17 sep:


 * 1st revert: 00:13
 * 2nd revert: 15:58 (note removal of image as only revert)
 * 3rd revert: 16:52
 * 4th revert: 17:27
 * 5th revert: 17:51

Bear in mind that Pol64 has previously admitted to being the BT IP in question, but continued to abuse it as if it were a sockpuppet. The editor appears to be well intentioned, but is also clearly pushing a POV a la Perverted Justice leader User:XavierVE, as opposed to approaching the subject with a degree of nuance and objectivity, as is the case with most editors on this article and WP:PAW project as a whole. Dyskolos 18:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Article has long history of edit-warring involving other users, so I've protected the page. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 00:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

User:BillyTFried reported by User:Hashaw (Result: 24 hours )
. : Time reported: 19:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

User has made five identical reverts in less than 24 hours:
 * 1st revert: 16 September, 23:56
 * 2nd revert: 17 September, 00:07
 * 3rd revert: 17 September, 00:26
 * 4th revert: 17 September, 19:00
 * 5th revert: 17 September, 19:44

The image that this user is reverting onto the page is clearly POV as discussed in Talk. Hashaw 19:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked. --Haemo 20:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Jossi reported by User:Reuben (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 21:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: various (see below)


 * 1st revert: 20:49, 13 September 2007 reverts by User:Chrishomingtang
 * 2nd revert: 14:53, 14 September 2007 partial revert of by User:Vinsci
 * 3rd revert: 15:00, 14 September 2007 reverts by User:Abecedare, also adding one phrase.
 * 4th revert: 15:04, 14 September 2007 reverts the text added in by User:Greglor

Second example:


 * 1st revert: 17:40, 15 September 2007 reverts by 80.220.8.56
 * 2nd revert: 10:55, 16 September 2007 reverts by User:Dbachmann
 * 3rd revert: 10:59, 16 September 2007 reverts and  by User:Cfrjlr
 * 4th revert: 17:05, 16 September 2007 reverts by User:Abecedare


 * Jossi is an admin, so I don't think a warning diff is needed.

There is heavy editing at John Kanzius, where claims about a scientific topic have been widely and very badly reported in lay media. Issues are the lack of proper sources, very credulous reporting, and the desire to avoid promotion of pseudoscience on Wikipedia. I believe that Jossi has violated 3RR on other occasions on this article, but it's a lot of work to go through the diffs, so I've left it at these examples from Sept. 13-14. I believe that WP:3RR covers repeated reverts to the same article, even if it's not a reversion of the same text or to the same version each time. My apologies if I have misunderstood. --Reuben 21:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Second set of diffs now added. --Reuben 22:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In regards to the first set of evidence, consecutive reverts do not count as separate reverts. In regards to the second, you are reaching on at least one of those reverts. Removing fact templates in response to a request for a source is, for example, not a good example of a revert. --  tariq abjotu  22:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not quite understand your first point. What exactly is meant by consecutive reverts?  Do you mean that reverts only count if another user makes edits in between?  Or only if another editor edits the same text in between?  Thanks. --Reuben 22:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I mean that reverts only count if another user makes edits in between. --  tariq abjotu  22:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification. --Reuben 22:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In the future, it would be nice of you if you let me know if I am busting the line with my edits before posting a report here. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can see now that that would have been a better approach. Thanks.  --Reuben 00:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Jossi reported by User:Reuben (Result: Editor states "will refrain" so result is closed.)
. : Time reported: 21:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: various (see below)


 * 1st revert: 14:53, 14 September 2007 partial revert of by User:Vinsci
 * 2nd revert: 15:00, 14 September 2007 reverts immediately preceding edit by User:Abecedare, also adding one phrase.
 * 3rd revert: 08:13, 15 September 2007 reverts by User:Cfrjlr (adding then removing "current" template)
 * 4th revert: 11:53, 15 September 2007 reverts by User:Vinsci

User:Tariqabjotu has graciously corrected several misunderstandings on my part. However, I do believe there is still an issue, so I am providing a second set of diffs. --Reuben 21:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A couple of those edits are clearly enforcing basic content policy. I'm strongly disinclined to punish sysops, or really any user, for enforcing policy. Also, blocks are preventative (not punitive), and at this point a block would only serve as punishment, rather than serving the intended purpose of protecting Wikipedia from disruption. Vassyana 23:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't ask that Jossi be blocked. I do think that the page needs attention from people with a scientific background, and fast and frequent reverts are discouraging that from happening. According to the text at the top of the page, the only exceptions to 3RR are reverting clear and simple vandalism, which doesn't seem to be the case here. So am I correct in understanding that edits considered to be enforcing policy are not usually grounds for blocking under 3RR, but are still subject to it in principle and should be kept to 3 or fewer per day in compliance with the rule?--Reuben 00:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't interpret my own opinion as a consensus rule, as it is just my own view. However, I think there should be some leniency in regards to rules enforcement, using some sense on a case by case basis. Vassyana 00:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am a bit surprised by this report... There is active editing going on in that article. In any case, I will refrain from further edits to that article for a while. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi, I don't ask that you refrain from further edits to the article. A small reduction in reverts is all I was looking for.  --Reuben 00:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, Reuben. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is much more to do at this point. Navou banter 00:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Steven Andrew Miller reported by User:NickSmith2007 (Result: no violation )
I have a report as well: 22:41, 22:25, 22:18 22:11 all from yesterday, from user Steven Andrew Miller, On the article about Attorney General Michael Mukasey. There are four edits plus others in response to posts that believe I correctly made. - NickSmith2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicksmith2007 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Bleh? I don't see any violation here.  --Haemo 18:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeffmichaud reported by User:Cunado19 (Result: 24hrs for User:Jeffmichaud and User:Cunado19)
. : Time reported: 02:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:09, 16 September 2007


 * 1st revert: 02:42, 17 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 06:21, 17 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 01:56, 18 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 02:08, 18 September 2007


 * User is not a new user.

This series of reverts started when I did a major rework of the page, and arguing over content continued until one contentious paragraph was still being reverted. I don't recommend a full 24 hour block, since this user probably just wasn't paying attention to the time, and did not violate intentionally. Cuñado ☼ -  Talk  02:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Both of you are engaged in an edit war and have violated the three revert rule or at least been incredibly disruptive in simply reverting each other. Please take some time to cool down and work together to resolve you differences.  The dispute resolution page might be of help. Shell babelfish 14:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Jedi Master MIK reported by User:Merzbow (Result: 48 hrs)
. : Time reported: 04:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 2007-09-15T15:33:31


 * 1st revert: 2007-09-16T21:13:30
 * 2nd revert: 2007-09-16T23:17:40
 * 3rd revert: 2007-09-17T14:46:43
 * 4th revert: 2007-09-17T20:37:29
 * 5th revert: 2007-09-17T21:21:03

All revisions restore the "right hand possesses" phrase. User is aware of the 3RR rule, as his talk page contains a warning from earlier this year. Merzbow 04:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Was blocked by Blnguyen for 48 hours. Shell babelfish 14:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Anonimu reported by User:ForeignerFromTheEast (Result: No action )
. : Time reported: 14:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:22, 15 September 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:42, 17 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:36, 17 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:42, 17 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:34, 18 September 2007

A short explanation of the incident: Reply: He's right except the "no proper argumentation from talk" and "3RR violation".Anonimu 15:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This user has been edit warring over this article with no proper argumentation from the talk. He has been blocked multiple times before for 3RR and edit warring. Four reverts in 24hrs, 54 min. obviously aware of 3RR. ForeignerFromTheEast 14:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Four reverts in 25 hours can be and regularly is seen as "gaming the system". Will (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That wasn't my intention. On the other hand, how lucky of me that I was reported exactly in the day you checked AN/3RR. Hope admins won't consider that I'm attempting to harass you by getting reported exactly today.Anonimu 16:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, this is completely neutral. I just looked at the times, not the links themselves. By the way, I have AN3 on watchlist and I might have a look if a thread catches my eye. Will (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a violation, but since there is discussion going on, and you say that it was not your intention, I'll take your word for it. However, I would limit yourself to only one or two reverts for a while to demonstrate your good intentions to the other users.  --Haemo 18:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Kurt Leyman reported by User:HongQiGong (Result:31 hours)
. : Time reported: 05:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 2007-09-18T23:45:34


 * 1st revert: 2007-09-18T23:50:08
 * 2nd revert: 2007-09-19T00:00:15
 * 3rd revert: 2007-09-19T00:40:05
 * 4th revert: 2007-09-19T05:01:24


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 2007-09-19T04:44:48


 * Definitely a violation, and the user is experienced enough to be well aware of the rules here. However, I'm reluctant to issue a block, in light of the good work he seems to have done on the article. I'll leave this for another admin to deal with. WaltonOne 11:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've given him 31 hours, because it was a clear breach and after looking at his block log. Although his last block was just over a year ago, the two most recent blocks were for a month. The edit summaries of some of his user talk contributions indicate a patience being tried, but it's a pity no-one discussed this on the article talk page. Miborovsky has three reverts and I'll advise him to 'cool it'. I don't think it would be justified to block Blueshirts. Sam Blacketer 14:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've been involved with the dispute in question, and thought I would offer my 2 cents. Two other editors have been edit-warring with Kurt since the 15th. While they have not violated 3RR themselves, the last 50 edits or so on the article have been more or less them going back and forth. My suggestion is to block all three of them for a day or so for edit warring, or just full-protect the article for a few days until things cool off, and a consensus can be reached on the talk page. Parsecboy 12:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Studentoftruth reported by User:Arrow740 (Result: final warning)
. : Time reported: 06:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:29, 18 September 2007


 * 1st revert: 05:38, 19 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 05:49, 19 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 05:55, 19 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 06:02, 19 September 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:07, 8 September 2007

The user insists on including material sourced to a person who he has apparently admitted is a partisan source espousing apologetics: see the talk page. This username is also likely a sock of User:Jedi Master MIK who was edit-warring on this article yesterday and is currently blocked for edit-warring elsewhere. Arrow740 06:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The user is clearly aware of 3RR and has been edit-warring. However, s/he has also discussed the issue on the talk page, and I see this as a content dispute rather than simple disruption; as such, I think a block would be a little heavy-handed at this time. I'll issue the user a formal warning for 3RR; to both sides, I recommend dispute resolution to resolve this content dispute. WaltonOne 11:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's just be honest about it and get rid of the 3RR. Arrow740 18:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

User:193.203.82.194 reported by User:Ronz (Result: 24 hours and semi-protection )
. : Time reported: 15:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 09:22, 18 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 10:18, 18 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 10:50, 18 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 09:26, 19 September 2007
 * 5th revert: 09:28, 19 September 2007
 * 6th revert: 09:39, 19 September 2007
 * 7th revert: 09:42, 19 September 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:23, 18 September 2007

Edit warring on this article for months now, always trying introduce NPOV problems to the same part of the article. Previously: one edit 9 February 2007, two edits 12 April 2007, two edits 26 April 2007, two edits 14 June 2007, two edits 15 June 2007 (plus first and only TALK comment), and one edit 18 June 2007. Ronz 15:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 24 hours and semi-protected for 2 weeks. Spartaz Humbug! 16:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Darkieboy236 reported by User:Abtract mainly on American Express (Result 31 Hours)

 * 4 rv of two different editors (same content)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

and two similar rv on High Street, Lincoln
 * 
 * 

all within 24 hours discussion being of an arrogant, pedantic nature. Abtract 16:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 31 hours. This report does not follow the preferred standard. Please use this for any future reports - the template can be found in hidden text at the end of the page. Spartaz Humbug! 16:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies and thanks. Abtract 16:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Mattbuck reported by User:Lurker (Result:page protected & 24 hours block )
. : Time reported: 16:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:30, 19 September 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:36 19 September, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:30, 19 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:21, 19 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:30, 19 September 2007

Edit war over nationality of recently deceased rally driver Colin MacRae. Hotly debated on talk page, yet editor claims this version is consensus. WP:OWN issues seem to apply here, with those who often edit racing-related articles disregarding edits made by others- I've applied for Page Protection. Lurker (said · done) 16:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have fully protected for 48 hours and am also considering a block. Spartaz Humbug! 18:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24 hours Spartaz Humbug! 18:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Like.liberation reported by User:Shutterbug (Result: Protected)
. : Time reported: 18:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

This is to report 4RR of Like.liberation on Youth for Human Rights International whereby this user is putting paragraphs into the article which are clearly not related to the article subject (e.g. a reference of 1995 allegedly referring to a group which was established in 2001), close to WP:VANDAL, for sure WP:OR and WP:RS violations. Attempts to get this user to explain why the references are valid result in the exchange of insult, WP:NPA violations and more edit warring but no solution, see Talk page. There are several editors disagreeing with Like.liberation's edits which however does not result in any change of behavior.

Diffs:

6RR in 24hrs


 * 17:27, 19 September 2007
 * 08:56, 19 September 2007
 * 08:22, 19 September 2007
 * 07:29, 19 September 2007

part reverts/changes within 24hrs


 * 09:36, 19 September 2007
 * 09:28, 19 September 2007

8RR in 26hrs


 * 16:19, 18 September 2007
 * 16:16, 18 September 2007

The same violation was noted earlier


 * 08:57, 6 September 2007

Shutterbug 18:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * protected for a week. Everyone involved, tempted to block the whole lot. Protection less harmful and user not warned. Spartaz Humbug! 19:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Eurominuteman reported by User:maxschmelling (Result: Indef)
. : Time reported: 18:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:14, 18 September 2007


 * 1st revert: 05:45, 19 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:14, 19 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:59, 19 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 15:43, 19 September 2007
 * 5th revert: 02:12, 20 September 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 14:50, 19 September 2007

This has been going on for over a month. Eurominuteman has been repeatedly warned for 3RR, copyvio, editwarring, threats. Eurominuteman has been blocked and unblocked, the page has been protected. A lot of editors are wasting a lot of time trying to maintain this page. maxsch 18:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Eurominuteman appears to be the same user who was previously warned and blocked under the IP User talk:172.174.178.166. Dreadstar †  20:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there a problem with this report? If so, please let me know so I can correct any issues.  Dreadstar  †  06:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked indefinitely as a single-purpose account meant to cause disruption. --  tariq abjotu  06:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Mpublius reported by User:Famspear (Result: 48 hours)
. : Time reported: 21:18, 19 September 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:

Editor Mpublius continues to edit war in this article, removing sourced material under various pretexts. There is a new section on the article talk page on Mpublius behavior, created 19 Sept. 2007. Yours, Famspear 21:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 48 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

User:WatchingYouLikeAHawk reported by User:Seicer (Result: WatchingYouLikeAHawk 31hours. Seicer 24 Hours )
. : Time reported: 00:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:01, 14 September 2007


 * 1st revert: 00:19, 19 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 01:00, 19 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 01:07, 19 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 01:21, 19 September 2007
 * 5th revert: 21:18, 19 September 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: 21:47, 19 September 2007

The user has edit warred by attempting to remove two valid citations based on his assumption that the Slate is an op-ed piece and a Republican-bashing publication, but ignoring the fact that it was reported in the Charlotte Observer, a large-format newspaper. I reverted because the user was corrupting the citation template, rendering the page un-viewable in its proper format, and another editor agreed. The user has been Wikistalking my account, reported at AIV.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 00:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Just as a reminder, the user was notified of the WP:3RR violation but has removed the warning.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 01:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 24 hours for Seicer (inludes a revert as an ip) and 31 hours for WatchingYouLikeAHawk to include something for the uncivil labelling edit summaries. Spartaz Humbug! 04:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

User:koavf reported by User:A_Jalil (Result: 72 hours)
. : Time reported: 07:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * First revert 19:15, 19 September 2007
 * Second revert 19:33, 19 September 2007

And on many other articles he waits for the the 24h period to revert again like for ex. Occupied territories:
 * Previous version reverted to 05:02, 3 September 2007


 * First revert 02:54, 19 September 2007
 * Second revert 04:05, 20 September 2007

User:koavf is on a 1RR parole for a year. He tries to evade the 1RR parole by reverting every couple of days, sometimes a few minutes over the 24h period from his last revert. This added to other disruptive behaviour for which he was blocked but still continues on it (un-discussed massive page moving, renaming, ...). Lately he increased the intensity of reverting and seems to have ignored the ArbCom decision of 1 year parole altogether--A Jalil 07:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 72 hours for violating his ArbCom-implemented 1RR parole. Nishkid64 (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Mais oui! reported by User:Taric25 (Result:48 hours)
. : Time reported: 15:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:55, 26 August 2007


 * 1st revert: 14:15, 19 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 08:51, 20 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 08:55, 20 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 09:15, 20 September 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: 09:04, 20 September 2007

I explained on this user's talk page that User en-sc was replaced with User en-gb-sct per ISO 3166-2:GB ("sc" is not an ISO or BS code), and the associated categories were spedily deleted per WP:CSD. The user reverted my edit, and I explained that the categories no longer existed, and I have replaced userboxes on users' talkpages before. For example, when WikiProject Deaf overhauled User ASL (ASL is a common acronym for American Sign Language, but not an ISO code) to User ase (ase is the ISO code for American Sign Language), I was responsible for editing over 60 userpages, thus emptying the old categories, and then requesting their deletetion. The entire process without incident.

Category:User en-sc has a total of three speakers. I overhauled every category, template and userpage to reflect the change from en-sc to en-gb-sct. I also posted the userbox to Userboxes/Non-ISO Languages. User en-sc was not previously posted there. The new categories then showed correctly as subcategories in Category:User en, and their levels (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & N.) now also showed as subcategories as well (Level 0 is never categorized). Before, the only level that displayed as a subcategory was "N" for native speakers.

After I warned the user not to violate the 3RR, on my talk page, the user stated, "What arrogance. How dare you presume that you have some god given right to go about vandalising the hard work of other Users? ISO 3166-2:GB is a geographical/administrative coding system. It has absolutely zero to do with languages." However, ISO 3166-2 is the basis of nearly all the geographical dialects shown on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Non-ISO Languages, such as User en-us-ca (Californian English), just as en-gb-sct for Scottish English. After I notified the user, the user violated the 3RR anyway claiming "I created this category for use by myself and fellow members of WikiProject Scotland and Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians noticeboard; this User came and unilaterally destroyed the entire set" in the edit summary of the user's 4th revert within a 24–hour period. Taric25 15:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Clear violation. 48 hour block for Mais oui! due to previous edit-warring blocks, and aggressive talk page edits. Meanwhile Taric25 has three reverts on the same template and should take a step away from this dispute himself and let someone else assess Mais oui!'s edit. Sam Blacketer 16:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Meretz reported by User:DLand (Result:24 hours )
. : Time reported: 18:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:33 September 19, 2007


 * 1st revert: 01:13 September 20, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 13:00 September 20, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 13:23 September 20, 2007
 * 4th revert: 13:47 September 20, 2007
 * Warning: 13:01 September 20, 2007

It should be noted that this is a BLP issue, and needs to be rectified immediately. DLand TALK 18:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 24 hours. --Haemo 19:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

User:68.242.152.17 reported by User:callmebc (Result: 1 hour for callmebc)
. : Time reported: 19:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 17:08
 * 2nd revert: 17:18
 * 3rd revert: 18:04
 * 4th revert: 18:33

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: 18:44

Because of Dan Rather's recent lawsuit against CBS/Viacom over his treatment in regards to the Killian memos controvery, I thought to revisit the Killian documents wiki and do some housekeeping and updating. An anonymous user with an IP address of 68.242.152.17 kept reverting my changes and refused to discuss them on the Talk page. Callmebc 19:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * CallmeBC has been engaged in a serious of reverts to keep his POV changes to the introduction. My edits did not change the additional information regarding Dan Rather's lawsuit but only the changes to the introduction that had long been agreed upon.  Please review the edits, CallmeBC's claim above is overly broad as all his changes are not being reverted. 68.242.152.17 19:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently 68.242.152.17 has become 74.77.208.52 to avoid 3RR punishment. Maybe semi-protection would be useful... -BC aka Callmebc 21:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that the two users are the same - or at least no more than that you and User:Gscshoyru are the same (and no, I'm not claiming this). However, since you have reverted yet again, despite my warning below and Gscshoyru's warning on your talk page, I have blocked you for one hour. --Stephan Schulz 21:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here (Google map) is some evidence. WhoIs   and Google Map show that these 2 IP addresses are from separate locations, but only about a 6 min drive from each other.  Seems unlikely they would be separate users. R. Baley 22:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Your links fail to work (they may need some kind of registration). If I use standard UNIX whois, I get the addresses of two different ISPs, RoadRunner and Sprint PCS, who happen to have their headquarters in the same area of Virginia. As far as I know, they both offer their services US-wide, so this tells us nothing about the geographic location of the IP addresses. Unless you have found out more, this is not conclusive at all. --Stephan Schulz 05:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The 3RR warning has been issued after the last reported revert, and, as far as I can untangle, 68.242.152.17 did not continue reverting after the warning. Callmebc, you, on the other hand have indeed violated WP:3RR. 68.242.152.17, content issues are not an excuse. Debate the issue on the talk page, or, if nothing else helps, use dispute resolution. I won't block either of you now, but consider this your last warning. --Stephan Schulz 19:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

User:LactoseTI reported by User:Melonbarmonster (Result: warning)
. : Time reported: 01:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:38, 19 September 2007


 * 1st revert: 22:33, 19 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:42, 20 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:25, 21 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:30, 21 September 2007


 * comment: The 2, 3 and 4th reverts violate the 3RR. And in addition to the above reported 3rr violation, LactoseTI has shadowed my edits to a different article he's never edited before and instigated another revert war:

.


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:17, 18 September 2007


 * 1st revert: 21:41, 20 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:22, 21 September 2007


 * I don't think a block would be all that helpful here; looking at the talk page and the history, this is an ongoing content dispute, and LactoseTI has at least tried to discuss his edits. I'll give him a formal warning for edit-warring, but I think that the other parties in this dispute (though they haven't yet violated 3RR) also need to stop reverting. I recommend some form of dispute resolution. WaltonOne 16:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Sviatoslav86 reported by User:Psychonaut (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 02:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: Unknown when the reference he continues to delete was first added; first removal is on 16:06, 20 September 2007


 * 1st revert: 16:06, 20 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:12, 20 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:32, 20 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:41, 20 September 2007
 * 5th revert: 19:26, 20 September 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:49, 20 September 2007

User appears to be repeatedly removing information from this article, over the period of a week, despite being warned on the article's talk page about consensus and WP:3RR. I am not involved in this dispute; I just happened to notice it. —Psychonaut 02:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * More reverts today, which is definitely becoming disruptive. I am giving him a 24 hours block as he is a relatively new user, and was active on talk in trying to justify his edits. Sam Blacketer 15:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:72.195.179.48 reported by User:Yngvarr (Result: No action (for now!) )
. : Time reported: 16:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

I posted this originally to WP:AIV, and was told to come here, as it's 3RR/EW. This is the text of my AIV:

Don't know what to do with this user, and posting here is best last resort I could consider. Their edits have been disruptive, disputed, and reverted, but the edit insists on adding the same material, over and over. I've attempted to open communication with this editor, with no success. The primary article the user targets is List of characters in Camp Lazlo, which has been on full-protection for quite some time now; now the editor is adding the same stuff to the talk page, as well as at least one other page.

Yngvarr (t) (c) 16:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if he's confused, or what, but this is basically disruption at this point. Since they seem to have stopped, and never violated the 3RR I'll leave it for now.  However, if you see this behavior again, drop me a line and I'll take some action.  --Haemo 00:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:hAl reported by User:Johndrinkwater (Result:No violation )
. : Time reported: 19:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:13


 * 1st revert: 12:16
 * 2nd revert: 18:50
 * 3rd revert: 19:38


 *  is not a new user 

This article is very problematic; encumbent editors refuse edits that could improve the article, numerous facts are used without citation, editors have been able to make leading information acceptable because no one can challenge it. This editor reverted additions to the article, as well as adding biased (because it lacks authoritive backing) information back into the article that was removed. johndrinkwater 19:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * no violation. #3 is a different edit and only two other reverts shown. Suggest reporting party read WP:3RR before making any more reports. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 21:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I filed this report because I believe his actions are such that he never falls foul. I have read the guidelines, the fact the different reverts are from different sections doesn’t matter according to 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. - I wanted to put this complaint down because he is likely to revert my other changes tomorrow so he doesn’t fit into the more than 3 rule - feedback on that would be useful, do I take it somewhere else? -- johndrinkwater 00:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Imperium Europeum reported by User:Abtract (Result: User warned)
. : Time reported: 01:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 19.23
 * 2nd revert: 19.55
 * 3rd revert: 22.52
 * 4th revert: 23.46

Although I suggested use of talk page, User:Imperium Europeum has reverted the same edit 5 times in 29 hours (three of mine and two of User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick. He claims to have discussed it on talk page but I cannot see it. He seems more interested in force than reason. Abtract 01:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The user has now been warned per 3RR not to let this happen again. The user is relatively new, and probably does not know about WP:3RR policy. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Treaty of Trianon (Result:No violation)
Dpotop keeps removing referenced material from the Treaty of Trianon article. He hasn't yet broken the 3RR, but I guess a warning would help us avoid an unnecessary edit war. He said in the edit summary he would explain those deletions, but I haven't seen any explanation. Squash Racket 09:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This user (Squash Racket) does not know wikipedia policies:
 * Here, he posted a 3RR warning without the format, and without 3 reverts.
 * On Treaty of Trianon, he is infringing on WP:OR, WP:POV by promoting some text on Hungary that is supported only by sources on France, the UK. He is also infringing on WP:RS, by using as sole source of another paragraph a sort of web blog. I have explained the problems with his text here
 * When I edited out the problematic parts, he called me a vandal and instantly reverted everything. At last news, he wants to report me for vandalism. In his post here, he raises the specter of an edit war, which is a straw man at this point.
 * This sort of behavior from a user that does not know the policies is highly disturbing. Assuming good faith from a newcomer, I gave him a vandalism warning, but he seems to not take it into account. I will report him shortly on the vandalism list ( I will give hime one day to think it over ). Dpotop 09:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The paragraph speaks about colonisation in general, not Hungary and it is well referenced. (no policies harmed). You may provide better sources, but simply deleting whole referenced paragraphs IS vandalism. Squash Racket 09:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You may not know, but text on colonisation in general does not talk about Hungarian resentment, and is generally written in the Colonisation article. Wikipedia is not your soapbox. Dpotop 09:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No removal of referenced material without concensus. The article is too important, you should wait for others' opinions too before making so big changes. Make your point on the talk page and wait, otherwise the changes will be considered vandalism. Wikipedia is not your soapbox. Squash Racket 09:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No. That text is obvious soapboxing, it is unsourced. Or I should say that it is sourced in a deceptive way, because it uses sources on France and Britain to support your statements on Hungary. Dpotop 09:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A third party showed up and concensus is reached, so 3RR is not broken by any side. Squash Racket 10:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:85.74.151.103 reported by User:El_Greco (Result:24 hour block )
. : Time reported: 22:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:33 Sept 21, 2007


 * 1st revert: 16:26 Sept 21, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:22 Sept 21, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:32 Sept 21, 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:43 Sept 21, 2007
 * 5th revert: 21:51 Sept 21, 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: 21:45

85.74.151.103 continues to revert changed made through a discussion on the talk page about limiting the number of images on the Athens article. The user continues to ignore that, and has done so before:85.74.252.219 back on Aug 31, 2007 He has also started on Thessaloniki See: Before Sept 21 After Sept 21 El Greco (talk · contribs) 22:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Hoopsworldscout reported by User:Metros (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 02:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:36 19 September 2007


 * 1st revert: 5:10 21 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:10 21 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:40 21 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 02:34 22 September 2007
 * 5th revert: 02:41 22 September 2007

Note: 4th and 5th reverts were by which is undoubtedly the same person or a meatpuppet (the WHOIS resolves to North Carolina where the subject who also is Hoopsworldscout lives).

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: 22:11 21 September 2007

Hoopsworldscout keeps adding information to the article that is not properly sourced. It was removed several times by User:Downwards and me. After I warned the user about 3RR, the IP came and reverted. These are the only edits of the IP user. Hoopsworldscout states that he is the subject of the article so WP:AUTO and WP:COI problems exist. Metros 02:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user and the IP for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Sarahmeyers reported by User:Strothra (Result: page protected)
. : Time reported: 03:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 27 August 2007


 * 1st revert: 19:37, 21 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:05, 21 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:19, 21 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:39, 21 September 2007 (Partial Revert)


 * 3RR: and.

Editor is likely using her IP to edit the article and violate 3RR on this article as well as Andrew Baron. Checkuser request pending here. Strothra 03:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The administrator has fully protected the page until September 26, 2007. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:YousefSalah reported by User:Taharqa (Result:No violation)
. : Time Reported - 06:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 23:53, 21 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:56, 21 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 04:33, 22 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 05:56, 22 September 2007
 * 5th revert: 05:58, 22 September 2007
 * 6th revert: 06:10, 22 September 2007

^^^All reverts are the same, except the first one.. User is being extremely irrational and is motivated by establishing his pov. Unfortunately, in the process this user consciously violates 3rr, even after I warned him/her on their talk page.

They obviously are aware of the rule, because due to spite, the user turns right around and bombards my talk page with the same unwarranted warning.

They are unwilling to discuss or compromise, and above all, as indicated, have clearly violated wiki policy, initiating edit wars after they were already reverted by more than one user (including me) and clearly warned.Taharqa 06:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Article semi-protected while I work out what is going on. Sam Blacketer 09:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I see only three reverts by (04:33, 05:56, 06:10), so I'm calling this as no violation. As he is a new user he is entitled to some consideration and I have given him guidance on discussing. Taharqa also has three reverts. Sam Blacketer 10:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Bsharvy reported by User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken (Result: Both editors blocked for 48 hours )
. : Time Reported 08:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

While not all with in 24 hours this editer is clearly trying to be disruptive, he has extensively edit warred on the page Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the point that he was blocked and the page protected. He is now trying to do the same thing on the Hiroshima page. All reverts were without discussion, after the last one he attempted to leave a comment on the talk page w/o signing in (IP trace is to Korea, where he currently edits from). A look at the page history for here shows his previous pattern on the related page, edit warring with half a dozen editers until the page was locked. This user has been blocked before for 3RR and edit warring...I'm hoping a block can keep him from disrupting yet another page. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 08:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is just retaliatory. He is warring because I complained about harrassment . (Note the discussion of his reverts to the page in question here.) The harrassment was itself retaliatory, because I had filed a checkuser request: . He's trying to "game" the system, win a war, etc. The first item in the list above was not a revert but my original edit which he reverted. (And, it was slightly more than 48 hours ago.) Since that edit he has made three reverts. I have reverted twice, and made an edit which added a little more specificity (it didn't satisfy him). The objection to the text I edited was discussed: and now there is an RFC. Oddly, in the RFC he has objected to the version he keeps reverting to. That's good, because the text he keeps reverting to is objectively bad: the sources have nothing to do with what we say in the article. Edit: Please also note that the section I changed in the Hiroshima article was originally written by User:Gtadoc, who is in the checkuser request (Allgoodnames and Gtadoc were sockpuppets; Gtadoc has not edited for a month). In the SSP, the admin told them to stop jointly editing articles, due to the appearance of meatpuppetry..Bsharvy 09:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Bsharvy 09:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are his reverts:


 * 21:51, 20 September 2007
 * 18:54, 21 September 2007
 * 08:31, 22 September 2007


 * In addition, he has vandalized my Talk page three times in 26 hours:, ,.

Bsharvy 09:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * He also attempts to mislead here: "A look at the page history for here shows his previous pattern on the related page, edit warring with half a dozen editers until the page was locked. " The page was locked because I requested page protection . I would really like this harrassment to stop. I don't want to edit war with him. I want to write the best encyclopedia. He is changing the section titles on my Talk page, calling what I name the section on my own Talk page "vandalism," and insisting on edits that are utterly unsupported by the sources. Bsharvy 09:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As usual, a lot of writing but nothing actually said...that must be an art. You want to write a page that you "own" and that fits your worldview while ignoring everyone else, I think that can be applied to both pages you edit; in any event its necessary to head off your disruptive behavior on yet another page before you get it locked as well. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 14:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Both of you need to take some time off Wikipedia and reconsider your participation in this project. Editwarring is never an option, as it accomplishes nothing, besides loosing one's editing privileges. Enjoy the break. Both blocked for 48 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR reported by user:Giovanni Giove (Result: no action)
. : Time reported: 10:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

A short explanation of the incident.

I've tried different agreement, but DIREKTOR has always reverted them to his own POV, that is controversial and debated in other articles. I've tried to show my POV in the talk page, but it was useless. DIREKTOR has been recently reported in this talk page, but it was not blocked because his reverts were considered "borderline case". Giovanni Giove 10:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The user has not yet violated WP:3RR because there are not yet four reverts within 24 hours (the first diff you pointed out was not a revert). Nishkid64 (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Anoshirawan reported by user:Raoulduke47 (Result: 72hrs)
. : Time reported: 15:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

In his misguided campaign to banish the word "Afghan" from wikipedia, Anoshirawan has been edit warring on this article, alternately "Afghan" with "Afghanistani" and "Pashtun".
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 7th revert:

. : Time reported: 15:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

He has also been edit warring on this article, this time replacing "Afghan" with "Iranian-born" and "Afghanistani".
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:
 * 12th revert:
 * 13th revert:

He has made no effort to find a compromise on the talk page. He is fully aware of the 3RR rule, having already been blocked twice (, for violating it. Raoulduke47 15:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

He's just made another revert on Valy:. Raoulduke47 18:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Although many of these reverts are outside of the 24 hr window, it is still editwarring, with very little discussions in talk. Blocked for 72 hours. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Okedem reported by user:Tegwarrior (Result: 24 hours for both)
Relevant diffs are:

1. 01:08, 22 September 2007

2. 01:19, 22 September 2007

3.a. 09:11, 22 September 2007

3.b. 09:19, 22 September 2007 (this one I don't count}

4. 14:58, 22 September 2007

5. 15:14, 22 September 2007

I have left a warning at okedem's talk page, and I am hopeful that no formal action will be needed. While okedem has made five reverts, I think it would be reasonable to cut him some slack if he undoes his last revert, and to ignore that he would still be in technical violation. (I'm not sure how he would undo some of his earlier reverts at this point.)

Tegwarrior 15:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is a featured article candidate and Tegwarrior was editing against consensus. But technically Okedem did not break 3RR I think, so you should decide what to do here. These are most definitely not 'five reverts' by definition. Also check the talk page of Israel please. Squash Racket 15:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (I think that Squash Racket meant to say that technically Okedem did break 3RR.) Tegwarrior 15:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (Thanks for the clarification, Squash Racket. Now I think that Squash Racket does not understand the 3RR provisions.) Tegwarrior 16:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Since my warning at his talk page, okedem has edited the talk page of the article, but he has declined to undo any of his reversions. Could someone please block him? Tegwarrior 16:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the multiple reverts, as 3RR slipped my mind (there's no such rule in the Hebrew Wikipedia, where I'm more active than here). There's some background to these actions - Tegwarrior has suddenly started editing the article, changing a stable version, and restoring his highly disputed version after being reverted. My actions were to restore the article to its previous version, which enjoys a wide consensus (following many months of discussion) and is now being tweaked for FA status. Tegwarrior's edits were disruptive, and did not have any support on the talk page.

As Squash Racket has stated he will revert Tegwarrior's changes if I self revert, I see no point in doing so, as the end result will remain the stable version. I ask that Tegwarrior refrain from further edits to the stable version, and engage in discussion on the talk page. His claim: "i think my version is an improvement. please let people at least SEE it" is not productive, and not in line with editing practices. okedem 16:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Tegwarrior has REALLY broken 3RR since (see Israel page history), besides his disruptive editing, so it's a bit strange that he wants others get blocked. Squash Racket 17:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * CLEARLY Squash Racket does not understand 3RR. Tegwarrior 17:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You need to really cool-off, Tegwarrior. It takes two to tango and you have been engaged in this edit war yourself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have blocked both users for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Daviddson reported by User:Snowolfd4 (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 19:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:49, September 21, 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:05, September 21, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 13:08, September 21, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 09:42, September 22, 2007
 * 4th revert: 10:58, September 22, 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: 21:17, September 21, 2007

New user account, first edits are to level sock puppet allegations to discredit users at a ongoing AFD debate. No attempt to file a WP:SSP case, despite be directed there.  snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 19:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:68.54.56.198 reported by User:Masem (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 22:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:42, 22 September 2007


 * 1st revert: 16:40, 22 September 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:19, 22 September 2007
 * 3rd revert: 22:01, 22 September 2007
 * 4th revert: 22:20, 22 September 2007
 * 5th revert: 22:37, 22 September 2007
 * 6th revert: 22:53, 22 September 2007
 * 7th revert: 23:00, 22 September 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: 22:14, 22 September 2007

User's only action (per IP) is adding a number of questionable external links to the First-Person Shooter page; one link (the first one he adds) is a personal site he runs admitted from the talk page (see current version of talk page. User has been informed that EL's have criteria to be met, that his posting his own site is a WP:COI and that WP is not a linkfarm, but is accusing those reverting his edits to disrupting the article. Masem 22:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:M0RD00R reported by User:Piotrus (Result: No block)
. : Time reported: 07:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:02, September 21, 2007


 * 1st revert: 01:38, September 23, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 02:24, September 23, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 02:59, September 23, 2007
 * 4th revert: 03:21, September 23, 2007

Tag warring (restoring).Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So called 4th revert is not a revert at all, I've left previous version in tact, and added aditional tag (new tag never applied to this article before) to complement existing one. Cheers. M0RD00R 07:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * After three reverts of tag A you switch to tag B. And lo, your opponents can't remove your tags because they would be breaking 3RR but you can add one of many POV or such tags until you get tired, just switching to a different one every three reverts... no, it doesn't work that way. But with your self-revert I am satisfied that you have stopped the tag war, so there is no need for further action on that report.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyway I've reverted myself to previous version although it is unclear to me that my previous edit counts as revert. Looking forward to someone explaining this so I would know in future. M0RD00R 07:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You did self-revert, so it's clear that you intend to stop revert warring and there's no need to block. At the same time, just switching to a different tag is something I'd see as gaming, and I imagine many would&mdash;if you hadn't self-reverted, chances are you would've been blocked. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)