Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive58

User:DonaldDuck reported by User:Biophys (Result: Page protected)
. : Time reported: 02:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 16:17, 9 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:50, 9 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 01:39, 10 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 02:02, 10 October 2007
 * 5th revert 02:53, 10 October 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 16:55, 9 October 2007

Deletion of sourced material and insertion of OR by User:DonaldDuck who also operates under IP address 217.117.80.2 (see also ). I tried to explain him WP policies but it did not help Biophys 02:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. He blamed me of RR warring:  although I tried to extend/improve article in spite of his efforts to remove sourced views.Biophys 02:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Biophys have broken 3 revert rule first

1 2 3 4. Im' trying to improve the article and reorganise it into proper sections, while Biophys is in edit war. Biophys keeps inserting in the article material totally irrelevant to the topic of Putinism, such as some quotes on the Soviet security services history, etc DonaldDuck 03:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Not at all. As one can easily see, only "1" and "4" in these diffs are reverts, as I indicated in the edit summaries. "2" and "3" versions are completely different - even with different subheadings in the article.Biophys 04:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My diffs, which your reported as reverts are also substantially different. Nemtsov's definition of Putinism is added, subsections, paragraph about usage of "Putinism" as a pejorative political term.DonaldDuck 04:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Left and right parts in all four diffs provided by me are identical.Biophys 05:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, in "2" and "3" you have just combined your reverts with some other minor edits to avoid formal breaking of 3RR rule. And doctored my diffs by skipping intermediate revisions.DonaldDuck 05:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * DonalDuck is completely out of control. He just made another RR violation in the same article: 02:53, 10 October 2007 Biophys 05:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, don't skip all my [other edits], providing referenced sources in support of my version of the article structure.DonaldDuck 05:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * One more disguised revert by Biophys diffDonaldDuck 06:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I reverted myself back. Does it help?Biophys 15:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really. I'm not entirely sure which of you have violated 3RR here, and I can't really be bothered to work it out. Page protected. Stifle (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

User:GHcool reported by User:Pedro Gonnet (Result: Stale)
. : Time reported: 08:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:20, 9 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 17:34, 7 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:51, 7 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:25, 7 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:40, 7 October 2007
 * 5th revert: 20:46, 7 October 2007
 * 6th revert: 21:11, 7 October 2007
 * 7th revert: 05:38, 8 October 2007
 * 8th revert: 18:06, 8 October 2007


 * This user has not been warned for this incident, but he is an experienced and regular Wikipedia editor and knows WP:3RR, and therefore does not qualify as a "New user".

These edits involve the addition by User:GHcool of sourced material to the article Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. This material keeps getting deleted and User:GHcool keeps on inserting it. The material, although sourced, does not fulfil WP:RS and has been discussed -- and shot down -- many times before in the article talk pages. This, however, is not a content dispute, but a WP:3RR issue. Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 08:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3RR blocks are for preventing sterile edit wars, not for punishment. As such, reporting reverts from two or three days ago generally won't draw any action as there is nothing left to prevent. Also, the "previous version reverted to" needs to be timestamped before the reverts, otherwise it doesn't really make sense. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Whig reported by User:Skinwalker (Result: Blocked 12 hours)
. : Time reported: 12:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:02, 9 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 18:05, 9 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:37, 9 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:23, 9 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:30, 9 October 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 13:32, 7 October 2007

This user is insisting on adding a POV tag to the article without enumerating his specific concerns on the talk page. Requests for his reasons have led to filibustering and borderline personal attacks. On previous days he has gamed 3RR by reverting thrice and then waiting 24 hours (see TimVickers' report from 7 October 2007 above). Whig is being extremely disruptive and I would appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could look into the situation. Thanks, Skinwalker 12:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The user has been blocked for 12 hours.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Cobra982 reported by User:Neon_white (Result: Page protected)
. : Time reported: 15:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 15:23, 9 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:55, 9 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 11:20, 10 October 2007

Adds the same paragraph of unsourced, poorly written WP:AWW material. Does not discuss the text or respond to comments on talk page. --Neon white 14:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I only see 3 reverts, and only 2 of them are of the same material.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See the history. All three are reverts. Nishkid64 (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the point Wikidudeman was making was that there needs to be four reverts before there is an actionable violation. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have fully protected the page due to edit warring. Nishkid64 (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

User:RucasHost reported by User:ConfuciusOrnis (Result: Protected)
. : Time reported: 16:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:12, 10 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 05:37, 10 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 05:48, 10 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:31, 10 October 2007 ( there are a large number of interveneing edits here, but this is just a reinsertion of the same material, rephrased to be even less NPOV)
 * 4th revert: 16:34, 10 October 2007 (I'm not sure what snalwibma did there, either way, rucashost reverted to the blp violating version, rather than discussing the matter. )
 * 5th revert 16:46, 10 October 2007
 * 6th revert 16:48, 10 October 2007
 * 7th revert 16:50, 10 October 2007
 * 8th revert 16:53, 10 October 2007
 * 9th revert 17:00, 10 October 2007
 * 10th revert 17:05, 10 October 2007
 * 11th revert 17:08, 10 October 2007
 * 12th revert 17:08, 10 October 2007
 * The user has been warned about 3RR on multiple occasions.

This is a WP:BLP to which RucasHost is trying to add poorly sourced defamatory content, he has violated 4RR once before on this page, resulting in page protection.17:15, 6 October 2007 Between these two incidents, at least five different editors have reverted him, and none have supported him. Consensus on the talk page is clear. Please just block the edit warrior this time, so we can get on with improving the article.  – ornis ⚙ 16:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I support ConfuciusOrnis here. RucasHost's edits are clear breaches of 3RR and BLP. Please stop him if you can! Snalwibma 17:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article has been protected. Frankly, the level of revert-warring on that article was embarrassing. I can't believe you had the audacity to come here and ask for someone to "stop him" when you were just as bad. --  tariq abjotu  17:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? One edit warrior against talk page consensus, and five other regular editors... I think you should take that comment back and apologise frankly.  – ornis ⚙ 17:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm strongly inclined to agree with CO here. 5 editors reverting one editor doesn't make them just as bad. It makes the one editor engage in 3RR 4 times over. JoshuaZ 18:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As am I. Five editors trying to protect consensus are just as bad as one editor hell-bent on ignoring consensus? Right. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  19:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (to all) Uh... am I the only person here who passed Thread Etiquette 101? Unless otherwise noted, an indentation in from a previous comment is presumed to mean a response to that comment. Unsurprisingly, Confucius did not indent his comment properly (I know you were talking to me). I did that and even quoted the person to whom I was responding. Geez. I don't care what is or is not consensus here; Snalwibma made seven reverts in just over half an hour (and two of those edits came within a minute of each other). There's no excuse for that. If someone is being disruptive on an article, you can request protection or make a 3RR report (the latter of which ConfuciusOrnis did). You don't just continuing reverting into oblivion. Sorry, folks, I'm not submitting to any ridiculous demand for an apology or retraction. WP:3RR does not exempt people who are "protect[ing] consensus"; anybody can just say that. The best (and perhaps only?) protection for those who are truly protecting consensus is the support from that consensus pool. At one point, that was the case without question; RucasHost could easily be blocked for a 3RR violation whereas the rest of the editors could not under any interpretation. But in the forty minutes or so prior to the protection, the article became the site of a dueling match between RuneHost and Snalwibma. That was embarrassing and I couldn't care less whether you disagree with me on that. Next time, before you formulate your sarcastic criticisms, you should actually read what is said (and to whom, dammit). --  tariq abjotu  20:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Doh! You almost had a good point. Rucas was engaging in more tha edit-warring, he was engaging in vandalism (yes, that would be what one person repeately reinserting his POV edits against consensus would be called).  No 3RRR vio for rving vandalism.  Sorry, you were so close, and yet, well...  BTW, Rucas was blocked for 12RR. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He was not engaging in vandalism. Vandalism specifically notes that "stubbornness" is not vandalism. --  tariq abjotu  21:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Stubborness does not explain 12RR -- by the time you get to the point where you've been told repeatedly that you are violating consensus, anything after about 4RR becomes vandalism. Nonetheless, what Ornis notes below is also a valid reason for rv'ing Rucas' edits, while offering no defence for Rucas' actions. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  17:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wp:blp makes for interesting reading. I already made a note of this in my original report, but since you seem to have missed that, I will point out again, that rucashost's edits were not only disruptive, not only clearly against consensus, but they were a violation of BLP. As such, per the policy, they not only may be, they must be removed aggressively, and 3RR simply does not apply to that removal. In fact, even without a 3RR violation, BLP violation is grounds for blocking. Since this is going to be archived I'll repost on your talk page.  – ornis ⚙ 21:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not miss that at all. The question of whether this is a BLP case can go either way; the blocking admin apparently decided this was not really a BLP case (hence the protection instead of a block). I am inclined to agree with his assessment; the statement is not "unsourced" or "poorly sourced". --  tariq abjotu  21:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So why do you suppose he reverted rucas' change then. In amy case, your interpretation of policy is sadly at odds with the consensus of those who actually spend time editing the article.  – ornis <font color="#C11B17" size="2pt">⚙ 21:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not commented on the idea of whether the controversial piece should be in the article (and I don't intend to). I have only commented on the use of WP:BLP as a reason to support that it not be, since BLP relates to whether 3RR can simply be ignored. --  tariq abjotu  22:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Stew_jones reported by User:Robwingfield (Result: 6 hours)
. : Time reported: 19:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:18, 9 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 16:54, 9 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:22, 9 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:02, 9 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:05, 10 October 2007
 * 5th revert: 18:24, 10 October 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: 18:00, 10 October 2007

The user has a history of formatting articles to his own manual of style. I have attempted to persuade him to adhere to the correct MoS, but he gets abusive and reverts. On this occasion, I gained support from other users to avoid breaking 3RR myself. I would hope that any block given here would go some way to persuading the user to treat WP as a community project, and adhere to the correct styles... robwingfield «T•C» 19:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * First offence, 6 hours. Stifle (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Anyeverybody reported by User:Misou (Result: 6 hours)
. : Time reported: 05:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 11 Oct 4:02
 * 2nd revert: 11 Oct 4:36
 * 3rd revert: 11 Oct 4:57
 * 4th revert: 11 Oct 5:10

WP:POINT. Lots of attempt to get reason into him, by 4-5 different WPians. This user is growing disruptive.

He is reverting the same thing 2-3 times per day since 8 Oct 2007, today, 11 Oct it was 4RR. Before this started he had some arguments on the article, see talk page.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Misou 05:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to admit I find it humorous that you'd warn and report on the same edit. It'd be like an armed sentry shooting an intruder while at the same time saying, "Stop or I'll shoot". Anynobody 05:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 11 Oct 4:02 Was an addition of cited material, not a revert.
 * 2nd revert: 11 Oct 4:36 Was me replacing the material which was removed, and adding another source + more citations to current sources.
 * Moreover the 4-5 other Wikipedians Misou mentions are a bit overstated. The neutral editors involved Foobaz, FOo, and GoodDamon actually seem to support the addition. Not counting CoS POV pushers, anti-CoS POV pushers, or myself, only Wikipediatrix doesn't support it. Anynobody 05:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 6 hours. I'll note that I'm highly unimpressed with the "discussion" that's been going on, and that applies to both sides here. Please tone down the flaming. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Misou reported by User:Anynobody (Result: 12 hours )
. : Time reported: 05:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: Any version which does not have a section called Personality.

*1st revert: 04:45, 10 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 04:51, 11 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 05:05, 11 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 05:11, 11 October 2007

A new section was started by me, and supported by others, using first one source then two others with several citations. The sources depict a spoiled jerk, at least those we've found so far. Though WP:RS are being searched for that are more positive, Misou (and others) have chosen to revert the new section rather than improving it despite invitations to do so. I understand that this 4th revert is just outside the 24 hour timeframe, however this appears to be a case of gaming the system in order to remove cited material. Quoting WP:3RR, ''.[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'm hoping for a warning, and not a block, since WP:3RR can be difficult to understand, it would be more constructive if someone not involved could explain that sourced material should not be removed, it should instead be supplemented with sources of differing views if they can be found. Anynobody 05:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, looks like we've finally tried the dispute resolution method, as an RfC has been initiated for the article. Can we just stick with this and avoid the messy subject of blocks altogether? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 12 hours. JoshuaZ 15:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Halibutt reported by User:M.K (Result: Old violation, no reason to block)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 14:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 2007-10-09T06:52:08 (among other restored and OR claim it is to be noted that in some modern Lithuanian works her name is Lithuanized as Pranauskaite as in;)
 * 2nd revert: 2007-10-09T08:44:48 (among other restored and OR claim it is to be noted that in some modern Lithuanian works her name is Lithuanized as Pranauskaite as in;)
 * 3rd revert: 2007-10-09T09:43:57 (restored it is to be noted that in some modern Lithuanian works her name is Lithuanized as Praniauskaitė; as in:)
 * 4th revert: 2007-10-09T11:09:13 (it is to be noted that in some modern Lithuanian works her name is Lithuanized as Praniauskaitė; as in: reverted link to Samogitian noble family as well.)

User:Halibutt was blocked for 3RR violation several times already, so contributor is familiar with policy. Currently he conducted edit warring on the same article for several days with completely unacceptable edit summaries (please not he also accused established editor of vandalism as well). And 3RR policy states: ''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''. M.K. 14:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. I brought this case again as it originally was not solved and particular contributor seem to start wage reverts again . M.K. 15:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: User seized editing the article 24 hours ago. Uninvolved editor should simply warn him to stop revert warring. No point to block him to stop the war as war have already ended as the user stopped editing. A stern warning to stay away from an article for, say, another 24 hours and that he may be blocked if he resumes edit warring would have been sufficient IMO. Users with a long record of contributions tend to be more aggravated with blocks and in general, blocks should be avoided if things can be accomplished with other means. --Irpen 16:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Nishkid, thanks you for unblocking the user. This incident is a fresh illustration that the poor maintenance of the board makes it virtually useless. :( . --Irpen 17:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Sceptre reported by User:Grande13 (Result: Page protected)
. : Time reported: 14:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: October 11 2007
 * 2nd revert: 2:10 October 11 2007
 * 3rd revert: 11:42 October 11 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:26 October 11 2007

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: Unneeded; user already filed a 3RR report against me (see above)

User insists on adding doing things the way they perceive is correct, which is under discussion.Grande13 14:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Three reverts, not four. #1 was an accidental revert to the wrong diff. Also improperly formatted report. Will (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, you're not even using reliable sources in your edits, so you don't have any case other to grind an axe.  WP:V is non-negotionable.  Will (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

ok, fine, even ignoring one of those is still a 3RR violation.Grande13 19:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * An editor must not perform more than three reverts. Will (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * copyright database is a reliable source, as well as there have been numerous reverts in the past few days on your part. Many more than 3.  Grande13 19:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm pot. You're rather black for a kettle. Will (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Page protected. Don't edit war. --Haemo 19:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:TDC (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 19:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:15, February 7, 2007


 * 1st revert: 06:02, October 11, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 11:08, October 11, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:34, October 11, 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:38, October 11, 2007

User has a long history of edit warring on this and several other articles, including sanctions on the very article from Arbcom. Contimues to remove the key adjective “allegations” from the introduction and in various other parts of the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There are only three reverts here; it is stretching things too far to call the first edit a revert to a version back in February. The user's Arbitration Committee-imposed probation has expired. I will be cautioning him to cool down but he has not violated the three revert rule. Sam Blacketer 20:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The above evaluation of the situation by Sam Blacketer is incorrect. There are only two reverts here; the editor has already moved on to other sections of the article pending discussions on the reverts.  The user does not, and never did, have an Arbitration Committee-imposed probation. Sam Blacketer has cautioned an editor that doesn't violate WP:3RR, and isn't continuing to revert.  Just setting the record straight before this report is archived. Xenophrenic 22:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Grande13 reported by User:Sceptre (Result:Page protected)
. : Time reported: 20:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:40 11 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 17:27 11 October 2007 (while an IP, user contribs confirm a strong link to Grande)
 * 2nd revert: 20:25 11 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:48 11 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:57 11 October 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: Unneeded - see above.

Reverting immediately after release of 3RR block on same article. Will (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

the last one isnt a revert. So i do not have more than 3. Grande13 20:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

ha, and i just noticed the first one isn't me. If you look over the history of the page there are other members, some with usernames, and some with IP that have reverted your edits as well. I dont have access to a computer from 8am to 2pm central time anyways. Nice try though. Grande13 20:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:DUCK applies (and if you are at school 8am to 2am, I see no reason why you can't use a computer at lunchtime). Will (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * who said I was at school? I work at for Board of Trade and our computers dont have access to the internet for legal reasons. So 2 of those still arent valid. I like how you keep making assumptions though.  Grande13 20:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Still, there's plenty of reasons how you can get on the internet. Mobile phones? Internet cafes? Will (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess if you really go out of your way it can be done...but then anyone else can do that as well. There is no way it can or should be assumed that was me. Heck, it could have even been you doing that action attempting to get me 3RR. Grande13 20:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not that pathetic. Will (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * either im I. Im just saying it could have easily been you or anyone else compared to me.  And im saying its even more unlikely it was me as i was stuck at a desk all day.  Grande13 20:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Stale report; see above for the same revert war as seen from the other side. Sam Blacketer 12:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

unnamed user from 83.42.211.143reported by User:harrypotter (Result: page protected)
. : Time reported: 21:00 11 October
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Precarity&oldid=163698106 00:38, 11 October 2007]


 * 1st revert: 00:38, 11 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 07:53, 11 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 09:59, 11 October 2007

This IP Address is in Barcelona, as is 88.6.171.168. Bearing in mind that that the user at this address also has only made changes on the precarity and related pages, I regard it as extremely likely that the same fingers are behind the keyboard.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 04:31, 5 October 2007

There has been a certain disagreement about this page going on for a while. Despite refrenced sourcesas to Catholic origins of the term, material has been repeteatedly removed. Those removing the material appear to have little other engagement with wikipedia. Perhaps page protection which prevents un-logged in people from making edits might help here?Harrypotter 20:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have semi-protected the page. It seems this user is under a dynamic IP, and a block would not be that helpful. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Isarig reported by User:RolandR (Result:Stale)
. : Time reported: 20:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 15:47, 11 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:19, 11 October 2007

NB This user is on mentorship, with a strict 1RR rule, as a result of a discussion on the former Community Sanctions Noticeboard. He has twice added the same spam link -- on one occasion, accepting that it is spam, and defending his action RolandR 20:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This claim is false, as is evidenced by the lack of a "previous version reverted to" link. The second "revert" is nothing of the sort, and does not introduce the same link - it is a complete rewrite of the section, adding new information and basing it on 2 new, mainstream sources, thus addressing whatever issues existed with the original text. RolndR has been extensively edit warring on this article (and blocked for it), and is now trying to wikilawyer his way into winning a content dispute. Isarig 23:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If anyone is trying to wikilawyer, it is Isarig, who claims that twice reverting my removal of a spam link is "a complete rewrite". Isarig, who is no longer allowed to edit Middle East articles, appears to be stalking me to other articles in order to provoke edit wars there.RolandR 23:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * False claim here. Those two edits are nowhere near the same. Advise submitter to rethink his submission. Kyaa the Catlord 00:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I twice removed a spam link; Isarig twice replaced it. The 3RR rule states quite clearly "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time". RolandR 00:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You twice removed a link to TechCrunch, which you claim is a spam link, but I did not replace it twice. Rather, the 2nd time, I rewrote the whole paragraph, focusing it on the controversy rather than the product features, and used 3 mainstream sources, Forbes and PC World, for it. Please stop trying to gain the upper hand in your personal crusade against jajah by resorting to technicalities and wikilawyering of the worst kind. Isarig 00:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time". RolandR 01:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Is the community sanction noticeboard enforceable? Stifle (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This report is now stale but I think that users suspected of reverting in violation of mentorship, probation, parole, or revert limitation imposed on them specifically should not be reported here; try the Administrators' Noticeboard instead. Sam Blacketer 12:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't think this is the right place for that. Stifle (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

86.148.176.95 reported by Canada Jack (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 20:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:29, 11 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 19:23, 11 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:14, 11 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:17, 11 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:29, 11 October 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 October 2007

This person has been inserting a line into a biography about Carl Lewis from various IP addresses since about October 7th. Since the insertion (drug allegations) was covered later in the article and the issue, once reported, was not followed up, it was my judgement and this was agreed upon by at least on other member that it did not warrant mention in the intro. I invited this person to discuss the rationale for this change as this had been the consensus in the article to that point. To this time, these requests have been ignored. A check on the person's contributions on the latest IP reveals he or she seems bent on inserting the Lewis drug allegations where warranted - on Ben Johnson's page, on the 1988 Olympic final page, etc.

Today, seeing that we had reverted to the original intro, he or she re-inserted the same text yet again, and has re-inserted despite my warning on the talk page that I will move to block or otherwise make this cease, and my final warning on my last revert that this was the final warning and I will act to block. Within three minutes, the person made the change and his still not supplied a rationale for their edits nor engaged me or anyone else I am aware of in discussion.Canada Jack 20:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll endorse this. This same IP has been visiting various sprinting athletes pages adding poorly sourced or unsourced information regarding 'tarnished' images due to drug use. I've warned the user RE:3RR and reverted changes as per WP:BLP.--Yankees76 22:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The user was blocked by for vandalism. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Paki.tv reported by User:Prester John (Result: no action taken)
. : Time reported: 04:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 16:39 Oct 11
 * 2nd revert: 20:02 Oct 11
 * 3rd revert: 20:36 Oct 11
 * 4th revert: 20:52 Oct 11


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 3RR warning

User:Paki.tv is having a busy afternoon POV pushing on multiple articles with the intent of disparaging Australians. Notice the first revert. He totally reverses the meaning of the paragraph without adding any citation. After discussion on the talkpage he continues this for the another two reverts. After being warned, (and his subsequent acknowledgement), he reverts for the fourth time with his misrepresentation of a reference. He seems to be arguing that a speech by the Prime Minister complaining about the "chattering classes" is evidence of the claim he is making. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 04:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not a comment on the validity of the edits, nor am I suggesting it is not edit warring, but it seems to me that the first diff provided above by Prester John was not a revert but the initial change. Prester John and paki.tv have then reverted each other 3 times each. I.e., both seem to be sitting on 3RR with neither technically making a 4th revert. Up to the admins - i agree it is edit warring even if not a technical 3RR violation by either - my apologies to all if I am wrong. --Merbabu 04:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The speech in question demonstrates the ongoing problem that Australia has with its history wars - and I use it to demonstrate the tainted reputation of Australias and its relationship to immigration debates. I have discussed these changes at every step. Prester John on the other hand is reverting to unreferenced assertions and even asking for references for well known and established facts eg Invasion Day and the First Fleet and it is he who is deleting without discussion. Paki.tv —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The user has not yet violated WP:3RR because there are not yet four reverts within 24 hours nor is there any severely disruptive behavior. If edit warring continues, I will either block any 3RR violators or protect the page. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the revert wars have just resumed, despite the warning from 'Nishkid64' (above). It's not 3RR, but the same editors reverting each others' content are causing problems around Wikipedia. I fear that these edit warriors will cause the page to be locked, like they have just done on the Pacific Solution article (now locked), which disadvantages all editors because these 2 indulge in revert wars. Please also consider the other report further down this page: Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR, which makes it 3 articles these editors are waring on. It's becoming very disruptive. Regards, -- Lester  04:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:A Link to the Past reported by User:Sesshomaru (Result:1 week)
. : Time reported: 05:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:01, 12 October 2007 (I'm not sure what this is asking but I hope I did it right)


 * 1st revert: 02:40, 11 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15:03, 11 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:04, 11 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 04:54, 12 October 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 3RR warning

User has been blocked repeatedly for doing things like these in the past. He refuses to stop warring and leaves almost incivil comments in his edit summaries. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Clear case and one week block in line with previous escalating blocks. Removing warnings not to edit war on the grounds that the warnings constitute vandalism is not acceptable. Sam Blacketer 08:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:69.143.232.238 reported by User:ForeignerFromTheEast (Result:48 hours)
. : Time reported: 06:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:51, 10 October 2007
 * 1st revert: 05:49, 11 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 06:05, 11 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:07, 11 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 05:14, 12 October 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 23:21, 11 October 2007

The anon user has been repeatedly inserting various redirects/red links which do not link to the article in question (Samuil of Bulgaria). Has continued to do the same on other articles. ForeignerFromTheEast 06:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Was warned and continued reverting; insulting and vaguely nationalistic edit summaries; the content of the revert being over whether to change a direct link into a link to a redirected page. I have blocked 69.143.232.238 for 48 hours. Sam Blacketer 10:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:HumayunMirzajr reported by User:Ragib (Result: no action taken)
. : Time reported: 08:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:33, 7 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:43, 11 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 02:27, 12 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 02:31, 12 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 02:32, 12 October 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.
 * The user has been present since February 2007, so this is not a new user.

The user keeps removing referenced information from the article Mir Jafar, without any explanation. User has been requested to refrain from doing this. User continues to remove the referenced information despite warnings. Ragib 08:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have fully protected the page. HumayunMirzajr did not make any reverts after your warning (he reverted 17 seconds after your warning), so I'll assume that was the first time he heard about 3RR. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have unprotected the page. It seems the two users are now in discussion. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Geoeg reported by User:dicklyon (Result: Both blocked for 6 hours)
. : Time reported: 17:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 21:08, 10 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 07:12, 9:16, 11 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:54, 11 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:13, 11 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:49, 11 October 2007
 * 5th revert: 08:26, 12 October 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:42, 11 October 2007
 * Oops, I just noticed that my warning was respect to his reverts on the other article, least-squares spectral analysis; the editing history there is somewhat more complex, but still amounts to him asserting WP:OWNership and pushing the POV that one person should get more credit than others, per his COI. He has more than 5 UNDOs of my edits in 24 hours, including this one and this one after the warning, even as I attempted various ways to build on his latest but move toward a more neutral presentation. Dicklyon 18:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

These tag reverts are the tip of an iceberg. New WP:SPA with severe WP:COI, ignoring all guidelines such as WP:NOTE and WP:NPOV, engaging in WP:PA, etc. I've also reported on WP:ANI#Geoeg, but at least he should be blocked for 3RR; if you have to block me, too, that's fine. Dicklyon 17:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, at least you're honest. 6 hours each as you've both violated the 3RR. Stifle (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Jester7777 reported by Opinoso - Result: Protected
Jester7777, once again, reverted over 3 times. I already denunced him for 4 times revertion in 4 October 2007, but he was not blocked, neither an administrator talked to him. Today, he did the same vandalism in the article Nelly Furtado.

Opinoso 18:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1st revert: 00:24, 12 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:32, 12 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:37 12 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:57, 12 October 2007
 * Page protected by User:Yamla. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't he blocked and not even receved anything at his talk page? This is the second time he does this kind of vandalism.Opinoso 21:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because blocking for 3RR violations is to prevent sterile edit wars, not for punishment. The edit war is prevented by the protection, so there is no reason to block. I will warn Jester7777 about 3RR; there's nothing stopping you from doing so either. Stifle (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:TDC (Result:Under investigation)
. : Time reported: 19:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: Complicated, see below


 * 1st revert: 11:08, October 11, 2007 Removal of allegations and allegedly that was added in prior version.
 * 2nd revert: 14:34, October 11, 2007

Although, this might be a bit difficult to follow, Xenophrenic has managed to remove, in one way or another, every contribution made to the article over the past 48 hours, and in the process reverted in whole or part, the contributions of other editors. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3rd revert: 18:34, October 11, 2007 Reverted “Most media reviews have regarded the film highly, as a "powerful" and "emotional" record of the era.” this edit, back to previous text
 * 4th revert: 13:27, October 12, 2007 removal of “When the event began, Lane returned to participate in the media event, acting as its "general council” added in this edit
 * Please see similar request 11 entries above this one. The diffs above do not show a violation of WP:3RR.  As advised by Sam Blacketer on this same issue, "It is perfectly good editing practice to ask politely what they meant and to revert if you do not receive a reply," which is what I did.  TDC is misrepresenting the situation, edit warring, misrepresenting his edits in Edit Summaries, and now appears to be attempting to get blocks issued instead of collaborating on article improvement. Xenophrenic 20:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Since I made the report yesterday, you have made several more edits, and yes, according to the links posted above, you have violated 3RR, but someone elese will make that final determination. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Postdoc reported by User:wbfergus (Result: blocked 24 hours )
. : Time reported: 20:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:20, October 12, 2007 (I think I'm reporting this correctly)


 * 1st revert: 11:41, October 12, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:48, October 12, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 13:04, October 12, 2007
 * 4th revert: 13:20, October 12, 2007

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:23, October 12, 2007

A short explanation of the incident. Postdoc seems to have a grudge against HanzoHatorri for some reason, at least that's what i get from his edit comment. The edit he is reverting doesn't even appear to be from Hanzo, but I think John Smith's. wbfergus undefinedTalk 20:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

===Users: Xxxaintlovegrand, Xxxaintlovegrandxxx, HDS, A7X 6661 18V, 70.101.166.119, reported by IP4240207xx 21:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC) (Result: indef block for sockpuppetry)=== .
 * Three-revert rule and Edit War violations over birth year on:


 * Time reported: 21:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Time reported: 21:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Time reported: 21:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Time reported: 21:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

James Stephen Hart action = history
 * 1) (cur) (last)  21:29, 12 October 2007 A7X 6661 18V (Talk | contribs) (1,967 bytes) (undo)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 21:20, 12 October 2007 Xxxaintlovegrand (Talk | contribs) (1,967 bytes) (Undid revision 164089463 by HDS (talk)) (undo)
 * 3) (cur) (last) 17:38, 12 October 2007 HDS (Talk | contribs) (1,967 bytes) (Undid revision 163961819 by Xxxaintlovegrand (talk)) (undo)
 * 4) (cur) (last) 02:45, 12 October 2007 Xxxaintlovegrand (Talk | contribs) (1,967 bytes) (undo)
 * 5) (cur) (last) 01:26, 12 October 2007 70.101.166.119 (Talk) (1,967 bytes) (undo)
 * 6) (cur) (last) 22:27, 10 October 2007 Xxxaintlovegrand (Talk | contribs) (1,967 bytes) (undo)
 * 7) (cur) (last) 01:36, 5 October 2007 Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Talk | contribs) m (1,968 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Xxxaintlovegrand. using TW) (undo)
 * 8) (cur) (last) 01:33, 5 October 2007 Xxxaintlovegrand (Talk | contribs) (1,968 bytes) (undo)
 * 9) (cur) (last) 01:33, 4 October 2007 HDS (Talk | contribs) (1,968 bytes) (Undid revision 162134078 by Xxxaintlovegrand (talk)) (undo)
 * 10) (cur) (last) 00:13, 4 October 2007 Xxxaintlovegrand (Talk | contribs) (1,968 bytes) (undo)
 * 11) (cur) (last) 16:38, 3 October 2007 Lacaid (Talk | contribs) (1,968 bytes) (Removing vandalism) (undo)
 * 12) (cur) (last) 23:12, 2 October 2007 Xxxaintlovegrand (Talk | contribs) (1,968 bytes) (undo)

Please lock article until BIRTH YEAR can be resolved.


 * Xxxaintlovegrand blocked 1 week for vandalism and 3RR. This appears to be a vandal-only account.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  21:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition, there seems to be some SOCKPUPPETRY going on:


 * Ah...didn't realize the socks were out...both will now get indef'ed.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  21:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah...didn't realize the socks were out...both will now get indef'ed.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  21:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah...didn't realize the socks were out...both will now get indef'ed.  AK Radecki <sup style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh  21:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Cosc reported by User:DAJF (Result: 48 hours)
. : Time reported: 23:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:36, 13 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 02:07, 13 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 02:25, 13 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 04:34, 13 October 2007

The user stopped at 3 edits on this occasion, and therefore has not technically broken the 3 revert rule, but this is exactly the same edit/reversion pattern which has been continuing since September and for which the user received a 24-hour block on 8 October. The same edit against consensus was subsequently made twice on 10 October and once on 11 October. DAJF 23:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3RR isn't a right, and this guy was blocked on Oct 7th. 48hrs for gaming as well as potential vio of copyright. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 00:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Jedi Master MIK reported by User:Arrow740 (Result: Both blocked 12h)
. : Time reported: 01:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

In this diff: 10:10, 29 July 2007, I added the sourced "Rubin explains that the name of Ibn 'Abbas must have been part of the original isnad, and that his name was removed so that the incident could be deprived of its sahih isnad and discredited. " He removed it four times:


 * 1st revert: 18:06, 11 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:47, 12 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:57, 12 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:35, 13 October 2007
 * 5th revert: 00:45, 13 October 2007

I included the first revert for the whole history. Note how patently disruptive this editing is. He is removing sourced, highly reliable material simply because he doesn't like it, and has made up an excuse. Other, more experienced users User:Itaqallah and User:Aminz who share his POV have not quibbled with this material. With his fifth revert, trying not to violate the letter of 3RR, he again removed the material he doesn't like, this time shoving down to an inappropriate part of the article. The whole time his edit summaries have not said that he is removing the discussion of the isnad or why. He was recently blocked 48 hours for a 3RR vio. If he is not somehow made to desist from this I will have to start moving the context he has separated the quote from to where he has put the quote and the article will become completely disjointed. Arrow740 01:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Both participants in this edit war are blocked for 12 h. Sandstein 15:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Paki.tv reported by User:Prester John (Result: 24h - Blocked)
. : Time reported: 02:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:41 Oct12

All diffs are the same;


 * 1st revert: 18:41 Oct12
 * 2nd revert: 19:04 Oct 12
 * 3rd revert: 19:11 Oct 12
 * 4th revert: 19:20 Oct 12


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 3RR warning

User:Paki.tv continues to insert contentious material using extraordinary levels of synthesis. This time he forgoes references and using the talkpage altogether. Note his attempt to ram through his change within 40 minutes. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 02:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not evident that paki.tv breached 3RR. Please explain if I am wrong, but from what I can see, his "1st revert" listed above is merely adding new material, after which Prester John removed 3 times in response to paki.tv's 3 reverts of Presters Removal. But, this is only 3 reverts by each of the two parties. This is exactly the same scenario as yesterday where PJ has reported paki.tv. here. If this is a block for edit warring, then the block should apply to both as they both have now three reverts. --Merbabu 07:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:Merbabu (above) that this is not a 3RR violation, though it is an edit war. The first edit from User:Paki.tv was not a revert of another editors' content, and should not have been included in the diffs. At the time of the complaint by User:Prester John, both editors were engaged in an edit war, and both had accumulated an equal 3 reverts. I don't understand why one edit warrior, User:Paki.tv was blocked, while the other edit warrior (and complainant) User:Prester John was not blocked for the same offense. Also, consider the block history of both parties, as 'Paki.tv' hasn't previously offended, while 'Prester John' is a seasoned edit warrior. Prester John has since been waring on Pacific solution article, resulting in that article being blocked for all editors. If a complainant asks for another editor to be blocked for an offense he is himself committing, shouldn't the complainant be treated equally and also be blocked?-- Lester  03:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Prester John's previous ANi report may also be of interest: Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive299. Regards,  Lester  04:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Harry Mudd reported by User:Diego (Result:48 hours)
. : Time reported: 16:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:24, 12 October 2007

16:24, 12 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 17:44, 12 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:25, 13 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 13:38, 13 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 15:27, 13 October 2007


 * User is not new and was warned on the talk page that he has no support for his edits (neither from other editors nor from Wikipedia policies and guidelines). (see Talk:James Randi)
 * The edit summaries reverting his edits make it clear that they are not appropriate (see History
 * User:Harry Mudd's edit summaries also clearly indicate that he does not care that he is editing against the consensus on the talk page.
 * This user claims (in his edit summaries) to be removing a "link", but is actually deleting a non-contentious statement and the reference supporting that statement. This has been pointed out to him on the talk page and he has responded. User:Harry Mudd has not actually challenged the factual accuracy of the statement he is removing, he is admittedly trying to prove a WP:POINT (see Talk:James Randi. Again, this is not a content dispute. It is simply disruptive editing to prove a point. He has been uncivil, engaged in personal attacks, and refused to acknowledge the viewpoint of several other editors. If he makes any more edits before this is acted upon, please lock article at 16:24, 12 October 2007. Thank you. — <font face="Verdana"> DIEGO talk 16:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked 48 hours by Maxim. Sam Blacketer 21:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Geoeg reported by User:dicklyon (Result:48 hours)
. : Time reported: 22:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:26, 12 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 19:49, 12 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 05:34, 13 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 05:36, 13 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 10:18, 13 October 2007
 * 5th revert: 10:18, 14:19, 13 October 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 13:01, 13 October 2007

We were both blocked 6 hours for this yesterday; this time I stopped short of violation, and warned him to do the same. But he kept on. As an editor with clear COI as documented on Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard, he should not be removing COI and NOTE tags. Dicklyon 22:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Coming straight off a block and reverting is outstandingly bad conduct. 48 hours. Dicklyon is not to be blocked for his moderation; I would caution him not to readd the tags, as other editors can make that call. Sam Blacketer 22:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Ned Scott reported by User:86.29.39.5 (Result:24 hours for anon )
. : Time reported: 23:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:46, 13 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 22:57, 13 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:13, 13 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:26, 13 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 23:31, 13 October 2007

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

Ned keeps removing my good faith comment, branding me as a troll. He's knowingly broken the 3RR rule, something he's very familiar with. 86.29.39.5 23:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You've been trolling on AN/I and baiting Scott. Please reconsider this, and feel free to return tomorrow to constructive editing. <font face="Arial"><font color="#FF7133">Maxim (talk) (contributions)  23:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Derek.cashman reported by User:Neutralhomer (Result: No block)
. : Time reported: 00:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:17, 8 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 02:55, 13 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:56, 13 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:58, 13 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:54, 13 October 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: 03:30, 13 October 2007 - This 3RR warning was for Richmond, Virginia, but the user should have gotten the message either way.

The user continues to remove fields (not being used) in City Infoboxes, demanding they be removed, removing them to the point of vandalism, violating WP:AGF, WP:ABUSE, among others. <font color="#0000C8">NeutralHomer T:C 00:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The first revert is a stretch. Bots aren't actually people; I don't believe a human editing the mechanical changes by a bot ought to be considered reverting. --  tariq abjotu  02:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Princefigs reported by User:Kesac (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 03:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:04, 13 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 21:17, 13 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:23, 13 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:47, 13 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 02:52, 14 October 2007
 * 5th revert: 03:24, 14 October 2007 (Warning issued after this revert)
 * 6th revert: 03:29, 14 October 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: 03:26, 14 October 2007

Note the personal attacks on the 4th and 5th reverts as well. Kesac 03:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Clear case. Although a new user (perhaps sock investigation required?), his confrontational attitude and personal attacks make it necessary to block. I chose 24 hours duration; hopefully he will learn. Sam Blacketer 11:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Will Beback reported by User:Alecmconroy (Result:No violation, article protected)
Linking to external harassment. : Time reported: 04:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:16, 14 October 2007


 * BOLD edit edit:00:16, 14 October 2007
 * rv1 00:40, 14 October 2007
 * rv2 01:38, 14 October 2007
 * rv3 03:03, 14 October 2007
 * rv4 03:20, 14 October 2007


 * User's been around for quite some time, but I warned anyway.

Linking to external harassment is a policy proposal write (mostly) by Privatemusings and BenB4. The proposed policy, if adopted, would discourage, but not forbid, links to external harassment.

Will Beback, a proponent of an all-out ban on such links, has repeatedly edit warred over PM & BenB4's policy proposal, in ways that fundamental alters its central tenet (links are discouraged, but not explicitly disallowed). In doing so, he has broken 3RR. Not to mention the general incivility of substantially altering other users' proposals without consensus.

No interest in vengeance, or retributive justice-- just want him to stop this behavior before it gets worse. Alecmconroy 04:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Alecmconroy has mistated my policy position, and has ignored my offer to straighten this out between us. As for the supposed reverts, only one of them was an actual revert - and none of them were reverts to the "version reverted to". The page is already protected, there is no point in a block anyway. Lastly, it should be noted that is a sockpuppet, and it isn't clear to whom the account actually belongs, so claims of violating consensus are invalid. The proposal does not belong to Alecmconroy, PM, or BenB4.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Until you self-revert, we have a behavior problem that needs addressing. --Alecmconroy 05:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I might add-- I've politely pointed out to you that you are in violation of the 3RR, and asked you to self-revert. Now, you claim your edits aren't reverts, because you changed the wording slightly with each revert.  If I'm wrong, then I guess I owe you an apology.  But if I'm right, and reverts are ANY attempt to undo other editors actions, not just "revert to word-for-word previous versions"--  then you're either woefully misinformed about a core policy, or willfully deceiving us about it.  If either turns out to be the case, you're really not fit to hold the admin mop. --Alecmconroy 05:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Since they were minor wording changes that barely affected the meaning, I don't see how you can assert that the purpose of the edits was to undo the actions of other editors. Wikipedia is all about revising each other's contributions. If I may say, I think you started the reverting. We should work this out on the talk page rather than on the proposal page. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you feel that way, feel free to self-revert. I'm not trying to cause trouble, but we really need to be clear on this point that it's only appropriate to hammer away, reinserting BOLD edits, when you have consensus.  You clearly know that your changes are disputed.  Self-revert, and I will gladly take it as a sign that you recognize the need to discuss and develop a consensus before repeatedly reinserting your own changes.
 * Until you understand that, there's no point in talking to you about the policy itself. You know, from the talk page, that multiple editors disagree with your edits.  If you're willing to edit war against them all, why waste time talking about the policy more when the opinions of others don't affect your editing. --Alecmconroy 05:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is protected, so I can't relf-revert. I do know from the talk pages that at least a couple of editors have said the text is something "everyone can agree on". As for edit warring, I think it was another editort who started that. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I thought you, as an admin, could self-revert on a protected page.  Either asking another admin to make the edit on your behalf, or requesting unprotection with a promise to self-revert as soon as protection is lifted would work.  It not about trying to crucify anyone, it's just about bringing you to a general understanding that what you've done here isn't appropriate, that you shouldn't have done it, that you'll fix it, and that you won't do it in the future.   If you can say those four things, then we really don't need anything else.  If you can't, well..  then we better address that now, before the problem gets any worse    --Alecmconroy 06:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm on Alecmconroy's side in the "BADSITES wars", and Will has been a persistent opponent, but I regrettably have to disagree with Alec on this; as far as I'm aware, 3RR applies to reverting to the same version more than three times, and none of the diffs above are anywhere near identical. Thus, it's an edit battle, with varying versions being proposed which might not meet the approval of other editors, but no 3RR violation has taken place. *Dan T.* 04:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We'll see once the experts look at it, but I think you're wrong there-- WP:3RR says "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." and "An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted."  --Alecmconroy 05:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There has been no violation of the three revert rule. Will Beback has been proposing a succession of different attempts at wording, and explaining his changes; to hold this a violation of a rule would actively frustrate attempts to get a consensus version. Sam Blacketer 11:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User:76.112.23.57 reported by User:MelicansMatkin (Result:Warned)
. : Time reported: 05:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 4:21, 14 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 4:49, 14 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 4:50, 14 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 4:55, 14 October 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

This anonymous IP is consistently reverting information and replacing it with incorrect dates. I have explained several times to the IP on their talk page, and the article's talk page but they continue to revert. MelicansMatkin 05:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * User:MelicansMatkin has made more than three reverts, too. PeaceNT 05:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To remove what they are doing. I have provided references, and yet they continue to remove those references and change the information. MelicansMatkin 05:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing is, you kept on reverting more than three times before adding references to justify the edits. I also think this warning is a rather harsh. The edits were made in good faith, not in an attempt to harm the article deliberately. PeaceNT 06:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Yahel Guhan reported by User:Mostargue (Result: Yahel Guhan warned. Mostargue blocked as ssp)
. : Time reported: 05:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 03:31, 14 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 03:31, 14 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 04:58, 14 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 05:00, 14 October 2007

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

Has reverted, in violation of WP:OWN, four times despite no consensus or discussion on talk page. He has also accused me of being a sockpuppet of a banned user, despite checkuser evidence to the contrary, and even before the checkuser results were in. Please I ask that someone tell Mr. Guhan to stop hurting me like this. He is very incivil. I have no idea how to approach him because he seems very experienced and I feel overwhelmed. Thank you. Mostargue 05:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, edit one is not a revert, but rather the original edit, so techincally I did not revert four times, but rather three. Second, the only reason you are even editing that page is because you are wikistalking and reverting me. Your edits do appear to be those of Kirbytime, and the result of the checkuser was inconclusive, meaning there still is a good chance you are a sock; there just isn't enough evidence to prove it for sure.  Yahel   Guhan  05:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

evidence.--Mostargue 05:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, you are stalking me (obviously paying attention to my contributions, as you are pointing to an edit to my own userspace as evidence).  Yahel  Guhan  05:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm an editor who has contributed to both Template:African American topics sidebar and Template:Judaism. Over the past week, Mostargue has appeared out of nowhere and reverted Yahel Guhan's edits to those templates. Mostargue has never edited those templates before, nor (to the best of my knowledge) has she/he edited any of the hundreds of Judaism- or African-American-related articles on my Watchlist. What I have seen this week seems to support Yahel Guhan's assertion that Mostargue is Wiki-stalking him. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Reporting party appears to be a sockpuppet and has been blocked indef. Yahel Guhan appears to have breached the 3RR but was constructively discussing changes on the talk page. A warning suffices. Spartaz Humbug! 12:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Stateofart reported by User:KNM (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 06:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:53, October 12, 2007


 * 1st revert: 07:44, October 13, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:50, October 13, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:56, October 14, 2007
 * 4th revert: 01:11, October 14, 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: 09:59, August 29, 2007

The user has been revert warring on this article, against multiple editors. In an other revert warring episode, he was given 3RR warning, and so he was well aware of the rule. Yet he has made 5 reverts in last 25 hours, and certainly violated 3RR in last 24 hours. KNM Talk 06:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This is case of hypocricy of KNM and his friends of removing sourced information and reverting without even looking at sources. Despite request at his talk page and constant appeals thorugh edit summaries and presenting a SOURCE which he choosed to ignore and delete, , , sourced information along with others whom he hired for saving himself from 3RR , 

Earlier too despite many explainations and repeated requests by me to see source, , , 

KNM, , 

and his friends, , , 

chose not to click and read the source and read what they call as 'POV' was endorsed by national newspaper,Times Of India. Note that this source is here from past few weeks and still KNM/others are ignoring and reverting deliberately. Also note that kannada script in Rahul Dravid is unwarrented since he is not a kannadiga. That means Aishwarya Rai should also have Marathi script. Above all KNM and others guard the pages together and leave no option for an individual to break some wikipedia rules. KNM and others should be punished for their deliberate ignoring of sources and starting a edit war. (Stateofart 07:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC))
 * 24 hours. Please don't bring your content dispute here. Spartaz Humbug! 13:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Rewinn reported by User:38.98.181.23 (Result: no violation)
. : Time reported: 16:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: (RE:"This is MANDATORY." I was unclear as to what this part of the form was asking me for, soI put the last NPOV version before his first rv.)


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

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

This is a pattern keeping with the Edit Warring detailed on the Incident Board.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive309#Rewinn:_Mallicious_Behavior 98.206.145.219 16:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No violation. To violate the three-revert rule one must make more than three reverts in a 24-hour period. Stifle (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User:76.216.96.17 reported by User:Pudeo (Result: Protected)
. : Time reported: 21:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:00, 9 October 200 (with minor modifications to the list)


 * 1st revert: 00:48, 14 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 02:11, 14 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 02:45, 14 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:30, 14 October 2007

This user keeps edit warring the article, although the list has been deleted at Articles for deletion/Contributions to the War on Terrorism. He keeps recreating the article, although several users have prevented it by reverting. It was told to him on the talk page also, and he for sure has been acknowledged that it isn't accepted as I told him to go WP:UNDELETE, and after that he tried to put undelete-template on the article. Don't start with the ridiculous bureucracy that I did not warn him on HIS talk page prior to the violation. As you see, he keeps doing it and won't stop. Now, please let me use my time improving Wikipedia instead of battling with editwarring IPs. Thank you. Pudeo⺮ 21:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I will list List of allies in the war on terror on WP:PT, which is more effective than blocking this IP. Sandstein 21:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that'll do it I guess. He just blanked his talk page of the warning I added. Let's see if he starts new lists of the subject. --Pudeo⺮ 22:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User:79.120.55.7 reported by User:Hgilbert (Result: new info.)
. : Time reported: 00:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: Oct 14 2007 17:54


 * 1st revert: 10:02, 14 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:53, 14 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:49, 14 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:05, 14 October 2007
 * 5th revert: 18:22, 14 October 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: 18:01, 14 October 2007

A new user is trying to include unpublished material ("Karma for Dummies") and has been repeatedly advised that this does not meet verifiability standards. Hgilbert 00:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for forty-eight hours. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman bum and angel 00:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously the same user with a range of IP addresses beginning with 79.120.55 (and ending .10, .7, .5) has continued the revert war. Hgilbert 15:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also blocked, for one week. Registered users are still able to edit, as a user claimed that it belonged to a corporate VPN.  I believe they meant a corporate proxy.  &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman bum and angel 15:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keeps going; same IP ending in .4 and .14 is now reverting...Is it practicable to block the whole range? Hgilbert 19:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * New user User:Efialt is now reverting in the same way, evidently the same person. Hgilbert 20:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I added the 3rr warning to User:Efialt's page . --Rocksanddirt 21:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record: rv'd after warning. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 21:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Hnsampat reported by User:PatialaPeg (Result: No violation 31 hours for PatialaPeg )
. : Time reported: 03:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:33, 13 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 20:56, 14 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:47, 14 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 02:51, 15 October 2007

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 02:51, 15 October 2007

A short explanation of the incident. PatialaPeg 03:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The biography of Bhagat Singh Sandhu, a revolutionary of India of 1920s, the full name has been removed by user Hnsampat for unknown reason. There are thousand of references to his full name "Bhagat Singh Sandhu" although he is generally known just as "Bhagat Singh", as the article is appropriately named.
 * No violation - I also see that the discussion has moved on to the talk page. Spartaz Humbug! 06:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Mcelite reported by User:Sesshomaru (Result: 48 Hours )
. : Time reported: 07:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 06:57, 15 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 18:20, 13 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 02:23, 14 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 05:21, 15 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 06:31, 15 October 2007
 * 5th revert: 06:52, 15 October 2007
 * 6th revert: 06:57, 15 October 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: 06:35, 15 October 2007

This disruptive editor (which I'm thinking might be a sockpuppet of someone) has been reverting constantly for the past few days instead of discussing the matter on the talk page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Breathtaking disregard for other editors and site standards. Usually its 24 hours for the first offence but I have gone in at 48 hours. Please let me know if there is any further disruption as we need to keep this one on a short leash. Spartaz Humbug! 07:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Josquius reported by User:CaptainNemo420 (Result:Page protected)
. : Time reported: 12:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:33, 15 October 2007)

Revision as of 14:20, 13 October 2007 Revision as of 10:56, 15 October 2007
 * 1st revert: Revision as of 16:45, 11 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 08:39, 12 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 16:28, 12 October 2007
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 12:19, 13 October 2007
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th 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: 08:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Acknowledged - Josquius 11:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite repeated requests to stop vandalizing the page, the user has not stopped. When requested to provide a source for his POV, he has constantly refrained from doing so. Despite requests to compromise on the word, he still refuses to do so. Despite requests to look at previous discussion where this issue has been settled by regular editors, the user refuses to take that into account CaptainNemo420 12:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see a clear violation here. However, reporter, CaptainNemo420 is a new account with surprisingly good grasp of WP policies. Also, as per WP:EXTREMIST, WP style guide suggests that the term Freedom fighter is to be avoided so it's unlikely I would 3RR someone just for removing that term. I have protected the page to give parties a chance to cool off. Ronnotel 12:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just coming here to report that guy. I strongly suspect that this CaptainNemo420 may well be  DemolitionMan aka. JVallant.<Br>I have previously tried to get that page protected against him but it was in vain. If my suspicions as to who he is are correct then he has broken the 3RR.

What he says above should really be aimed at himself. 'Despite repeated requests to stop vandalizing the page, the user has not stopped': he just spouts off rhetoric about me presumably being brainwashed by some strange imaginary cabal seeking the return of the British empire. 'When requested to provide a source for his POV, he has constantly refrained from doing so. Despite requests to compromise on the word, he still refuses to do so' - he is pretending to compromise by offering another word that means the same thing. There is no compromise possible, this is not my POV against his, this is NPOV vs. his. If bargaining was required then I would have started my edits with far right anti-asian nonsense which of course would not be productive at all. 'Despite requests to look at previous discussion where this issue has been settled by regular editors, the user refuses to take that into account' taken into account and brought to his attention. --Josquius 13:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3: 12:45, 15 October 2007
 * 2: 11:33, 15 October 2007
 * 1 (not logged in anywhere): 08:16, 15 October 2007
 * I think there's reasonable grounds for an interested user to file a report at WP:SSP against User:CaptainNemo420. Ronnotel 13:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That is freaking absurd. I wouldn't be surprised if Josquis himself setup an account called User:CaptainNemo420 to argue with himself. He certainly seems capable enough to frame me unnecessarily. Either way, I am sure you can trace the IP addresses if required. I am sure, both of these will belong to Josquis. I don't ever recollecting complaining against anyone so far. I don't know about Josquis' sockpuppet, but I certainly have provided proof of the term "freedom fighter" being used by the Indian govt - heck there are movies made in India calling them "freedom fighters", and that is what the school text-books say. Neither Josquis nor his sockpuppet have provided any evidence to the contrary. DemolitionMan 14:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps User:CaptainNemo420 can explain how (s)he became so familiar with WP policy to be able to file a report here after 3 edits? Ronnotel 14:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I never bothered to create an account before, but have been using Wikipedia for a while. It's retarded to assume that everyone who uses wiki actually creates an account. It's even more retarded on the part of Josquis to assume that more than one person can't disagree with him. Why wasn't he banned for a period of 24 or 48 hours? Also, is there a rule which states that a newly registered user can't invoke the 3RR?

CaptainNemo420 06:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Stsfi reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 13:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:01, October 15, 2007


 * 1st revert: 03:08, October 15, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 03:23, October 15, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 03:52, October 15, 2007
 * 4th revert: 05:48, October 15, 2007

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 05:00, October 15, 2007

This new editor has shown up trying to repeatedly insert information about an unproduced project they are associated with into Wikipedia. While they have not been warned directly about 3RR, they are aware of it, as they threatened to report another long-time editor for violating 3RR in retaliation for the unsourced information's continued removal *before* violating 3RR themselves. This user has also made legal threats against another user and Wikipedia for daring to remove his content. MikeWazowski 13:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * User blocked twenty-four hours for three-revert rule violation and forty-eight hours for legal threats. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman bum and angel 15:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have upgraded the block to indef per WP:NLT. Once the original block expires the block can be lifted upon the withdrawal of the legal threat. Spartaz Humbug! 22:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Pilotbob reported by User:Strothra (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 17:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:15, 14 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 12:29, 15 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:32, 15 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:34, 15 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 12:39, 15 October 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:38, 15 October 2007

Continuous edit warring to insert unencyclopedic information. Strothra 17:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's one edit and three reverts, not four reverts. The editor is new, and the edit summary on the last edit indicates that he does not intend to continue reverting. Therefore no violation and no block. I will leave a talk page message to encourage discussion and not reverting. Sam Blacketer 18:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just for clarity's sake, that is 4 reversions on October 15 back to the October 14 edit which included the contested statement. While certainly a textbook 3rr vio, I can see not blocking due to the edit comment and the fact that 3rr blocks are not intended as a punitive measure. --Strothra 01:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Adam.J.W.C. reported by User:Alan Liefting (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 01:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:04, 14 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 21:40, 15 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:11, 16 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:34, 16 October 2007

I have removed what I consider to be inapprop categories and User:Adam.J.W.C. is reverting with very little discussion. This editor appears to be rather too protective of certain articles. -- Alan Liefting talk 01:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This seems more like regular editing going on. Please assume good faith and work together and reach consensus. Ronnotel 01:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Panelequal3 reported by User:LactoseTI (Result:Blocked 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 06:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 06:49, October 15, 2007


 * 1st revert: 07:58, October 15, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 11:33, October 15, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 05:06, October 16, 2007
 * 4th revert: 05:15, October 16, 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 18:37, October 15, 2007

Inserted "East Sea" and subsequently reverted against four independent editors to attempt to keep this change, all within a 24 hour period. — LactoseTI T 06:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. i already discussed yesterday why this artcle must changed.
 * also, user LactoseT did not answer his talk page.
 * he did not mutual agreement of the page. Panelequal3 07:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 2. Check the Naming conventions (Korean).
 * According to Wikipedia naming convention,


 * Per the vote that took place from 18 July 2005 to 8 August 2005 here, this is the new naming convention for the body of water that separates Japan and Korea:


 * For all international articles use: Sea of Japan
 * For all Japan articles use: Sea of Japan
 * For all Japan/Korea and South Korea articles use: Sea of Japan (East Sea)
 * For all Japan/North Korea articles use: Sea of Japan (East Sea of Korea)
 * For all Korea and South Korea articles use: Sea of Japan (East Sea)
 * For all North Korea articles use: Sea of Japan (East Sea of Korea)


 * Per the conditions of the vote, use (East Sea) only once at the first mention.
 * so, use as "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" is right. it is not 3rr violation. just obey wikipedia naming convetion.WP:NC
 * also, i did not changed every sea of japan/east sea article. i only changed sea of japan article. Panelequal3 07:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * New Information: I was just about to report this user for exactly this breach. In addition to those mentioned above, the user has continued despie warnings:


 * 5th revert: 07:13, October 16, 2007
 * 6th revert: 07:39, October 16, 2007
 * 7th revert: 08:29, October 16, 2007


 * Clearly something needs to be done to prevent these disruptive edits. B1atv 08:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Endorse 3RR warning. This edit war is continuing.  The article Sea of Japan is an international article.  Even it were bound by the MoS for Japan/Korea articles, only the first instance of the name would need to be appended (East Sea); not every mention in the article. Neier 08:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 8th revert: 08:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support block, and would block him myself if i would not be involved in the article. -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * i revert only volation of WP:NV. 1(me):4(japanese + admin) fight. this is unfair. you must see who is the more Neutral POV edit. Sea of Japan/East Sea(same use) is more Neutral POV edit.  Panelequal3 09:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please check Three-revert rule. And yes, i also read WP:NV. Please abstain from reverts. -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 9th revert: 19:42, October 16, 2007 (JST)

'''I have blocked the user for 24 hours after hist 9th revert within 24 hours. While I am sure that this is justified, I am involved in the article, and hence would invite another admin to check if (s)he agrees with this block.''' -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Confirmed.  Citi Cat  <sup style="color:#000000;"> ♫ 13:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanks -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Neier reported by User:Panelequal3 (Result: No Violation)
. : Time reported: 06:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:39, 16 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 08:26, 16 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 08:33, 16 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 08:46, 16 October 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

He reverted as "Sea of Japan" and subsequently reverted against four independent editors to attempt to keep this change, all within a 24 hour period. he did not convetion this in article's discussion page. also, he did not obey WP:NC and Naming conventions (Korean) according to Naming conventions (Korean), this sea is not only for japan but also, north korea and south korea's. also, this sea name disputed with japan and north korea and sout korea. "Sea of Japan/East Sea"(same use) is right. Panelequal3 09:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're going to accuse people of sockpuppetry and 3RR reversions, you may want to lay off the copy/paste keys. subsequently reverted against four independent editors, mathematically impossible, as there were only three reverts by me; and, patently false, as you are the only one (against four or five others) trying to push your PoV edits.  As I wrote on the talk page, and in your own 3RR warning above, the article Sea of Japan is an international article.  The Korea naming convention page is very clear on how to deal with that article in this situation.  Your changes to add (East Sea) after each instance of Sea of Japan go against all of the naming conventions you have cited; as, they all say to only add the parenthetic ONCE. Neier 09:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * four independent editor? who know? They are socket puppet? this is NOT point. don't out of topic. 1. you have been violation of 3rr rule. 2. i revert only WP:NV violation article. 3. i did not edit other page's sea of japan name. i only edited in sea of japan page. 4. also, i discussed yesterady in article's discussion page for convetion.Panelequal3 09:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to go on debating this issue with you, because this is probably the wrong place. BUT - nobody has accused you of editing the Sea of Japan's name in any other article.  What people are complaining about is you changing it in every occurrence of the name in THIS article.  As you have been repeatedly told - naming clarifications go at the top only.  It does not need to be repeated in every mention of the name further down the article as doing so makes the article unreadable.  B1atv 09:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * don't out of topic. internationally, Sea of Japan/East Sea use is right.(already metioned in discussion page) 2. According to WP:NV, same use is right, too. who is the more Neutral POV edit?Panelequal3 10:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No 3RR violation, since only 3 reverts are claimed, and only 4 reverts are a violation of policy. read up on WP:3RR. -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, totally biased by Pro.japanese admin.No 3RR violation? you did read WP:3RR? Panelequal3 10:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, Chris 73, you edited many of japanese relation article. maybe you are japanese. i understand why do you upset to me. so, i give up by japanese admin? whoa........ i can not fair edit by japanese admin. i remeber you. Panelequal3 10:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * stop! personal harrasment you japanese guys. you continually harassment if try to NPOV edit. this is Not japkipedia. Panelequal3 10:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You accuse people of bias, you accuse people of sockpuppetry, you claim 3RR violaitions where there is none, you completely ignore other editors comments, etc. Have you ever considered that you may have to change here? As mentioned above, 24 hour block for you for a 9RR violation to think it over. -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User:121.222.189.102 reported by User:Jvhertum (Result: No Violation)
. : Time reported: 10:11, 16 October 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:

Continuously adding back trivial information about which song is popular at their high school right now. Also added this to my talk page. Jvhertum 10:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This first revert was a couple of days before the others, so there is no 3RR violation. You are doubtlessly correct in removing the trivial information, and I'll keep an eye on the page, and will leave a note about civility. I would also recommend, however, that you try to be somewhat more neutral when you leave a talk page warning for a first violation, as "stern" warnings like the one you left might inflame the situation.  Citi Cat  <sup style="color:#000000;"> ♫ 13:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This first revert was a couple of days before the others, so there is no 3RR violation. I think you mean the 4th was 2 days after the others. The first three were in about a 20-hour period, hence the valid 3RR warning that I (not Jvhertum) wrote on the user's talk page. I also suggested Jvhertum file a 3RR report if the edit war continued, but I see now that the 4th revert would've also had to occur within 24 hours (of the 3rd? or of the 1st?). In any case, I apologize for the misdirection.
 * If there is a template for someone's first 3RR warning that isn't too stern, please let me know. I didn't think it was too stern to "insist" rather than "ask" that they discontinue the edit war. —mjb 19:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct about first-second versus third-fourth, but in any event, it's not a violation according to the letter of the law. While obviously an editor is required to stop violating a rule, saying "I'm . . . insisting that you stop" can often provoke the reaction "no one is going to force me to do anything" and cause further disruptive behavior. The regular template is . I don't know of any others, but it seems pretty suited to the task. Cheers,  Citi Cat  <sup style="color:#000000;"> ♫  22:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I bookmarked that template for future reference. —mjb 03:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:193.203.82.194 reported by User:Ronz (Result: Page Protected - Full)
. : Time reported: 16:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:35, 11 October 2007
 * 1st revert: 10:52, 16 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:32, 16 October 2007

Editor continues his ongoing edit war in Cydonia Mensae. He's been blocked once for this behavior already. Please advise if you don't feel a block is due for this repeat behavior. Thanks. Ronz 16:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have placed the article on full protection for 17 days. nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 17:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Multiple users reported by User:HG (Result: Page protected, 24h for Jaakobou)
. Time reported: 18:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

Since I am commenting on the involved 2 users' content dispute, I would prefer another party to examine and handle the edit warring at 1929 Hebron massacre. I am not expressing an opinion about which version should be kept. Preferably, both parties can be treated on an equivalent basis, either based on 3RR or otherwise.

This might be the initial revert in the latest flare up: diff1 Here is the most recent diff

Thanks very much. Pls reply to my Talk if you need more info. HG | Talk 18:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Page protected for now. Investigating violation of 3rr at the moment. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 20:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Jaakobou violated 3RR (4 reverts within 24 hours), rest are unrelated per confirmation by a checkuser. For that I've blocked Jaakobou for 24 hours. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 21:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User: 90.242.17.230 and User: 71.139.1.73 reported by User:Astruc (Result: 12 hours to both IP)
. and User: 71.139.1.73: Time reported: 20:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:

These two are in a revert war about whether a quote from the Atlantic Monthly belongs in the first paragraph. They went back and forth several times today (a glance at the History page will suffice to show). Here are a handful of the reverts:


 * 1st revert: 16 October 17:01
 * 2nd revert: 16 October 17:06
 * 3rd revert: 16 October 17:19
 * 4th revert: 16 October 17:25
 * 5th revert: 16 October 17:27
 * 6th revert: 16 October 17:32
 * 7rd revert: 16 October 17:35
 * 8th revert: 16 October 18:38

90.242.17.230 was warned about the 3RR rule by, ironically, user 71.139.1.73. So they both know about it.

I recommend this article for protection till tempers simmer down.Astruc 20:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 12 hours each. If revert-war keeps going, I will page-protect it. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 20:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User:222.124.193.125 reported by User:Chaldean (Result: )
. : Time reported: 21:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:16, 16 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 21:18, 16 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:13, 16 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:10, 16 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:07, 16 October 2007
 * 5th revert 20:36, 16 October 2007
 * 6th revert 16:25, 16 October 2007
 * 7th revert 04:03, 16 October 2007

He is listing countries like Afganistan as a Arab country, which is of course not true. I am trying to source Israel's and Iran's Arab population, and this guy keeps reverted everything to the way he thinks its right. Perhabs a semi-protection would be good with this. He is removing references and sources and summarize his edits as "REMOVING VANDELISM" - isn't that a big Wiki offence? Chaldean 21:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are the one vandelizing all the countries with populations and deleting all of my edits in that article. Why did you deleted everything I made in the article too? Here you reverted another user, then me 222.124.193.125 21:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your edits are false. Afghanistan is NOT an Arab country. Neither is the European Union. Somalia people form their own ethnic group - see Somali people. You are brining no sources to the table. Chaldean 21:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * All of these countries have arab populations regardless of number. You kept putting the word "majority" to exclude a lot of countries, but that wasn't there before. 222.124.193.125 21:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Good friend100 reported by User:Komdori (Result:1 week)
. : Time reported: 21:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1RR parole violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:51, 10 October 2007 (and several similar versions afterwards and immediately before)


 * 1st revert: 02:59, 16 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:04, 16 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:16, 16 October 2007
 * 4th revert: (self reverted to attempt to avoid admin action)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Currently unblocked from his indef block, on 1RR parole per agreement to conditions so he could participate in an open arbitration case.

Continued reverting/with incivil summaries, but eventually reverted himself after to try to stop short of admin action.


 * I undid my last revert because I remembered my restriction, and I even said that I was going to undo my own revert. Also, my reverts weren't complete reverts, nor were they blatant, bad faithed edits to disrupt the article. Komdori, can you assume good faith, instead of repeatedly trying to get me banned? I didn't make the reverts in ill faith, and its clear that those edits were an attempt to make the article better (the opening paragraph and the edits after it).


 * And Komdori is right, when he comments that I wanted to avoid admin action, and that is true. I don't want to get in trouble again so I undid my edit and began to focus on another part of the article.


 * To the administrator, I'll just repeat again that those edits were not ill-faithed and that I remembered not to edit war and I undid my edit. I'm sorry for the disturbance and I'll stay away from this article (and its related articles) for a while. It seems as if the argument heats up everytime I decide to go through there. Good friend100 21:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You blatantly did the same revert repeatedly, were incivil, and continued to the point you likely would be blocked even if you were not on 1RR parole. When you realized a report was filing, you undid your last edit, but had already reverted much more than necessary to violate the 1RR parole.  It wasn't even a question of time since you reverted twice in < 15 minutes.  Being on 1RR parole, you should clearly be aware of the importance of discussion of controversial edits. --Cheers, Komdori 21:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm, how was I uncivil? I tried to explain my reverts and they weren't blatant full reverts. I only reverted some parts of it. Then I suggested another version of the opening paragraph, that you reverted as well. After that, I got scared about edit warring so I undid my edit. You keep implying that I undid my edit simply to look "good". Thats not true, I undid it because I didn't want to cause trouble. And I didn't know that a report was going to be filed at the time of my revert on myself.

After that, I went to another part of the article. Its different this time, Komdori. Those edits were not blatant edits, nor were they done specifically to edit war, and almost all my reverts were more than just "reverts" but changes to the article in a different way so that you could agree to it. Again, please assume good faith.

You edit warred too, instead of opening a new thread on the talk page, and its clear that you are taking this to a personal level because you watch all my moves and immediately file a report once I do something even a little bit wrong, simply because I'm on parole. Please assume good faith. Its been a while since that unblock and I have not been going around disrupting things since that time. Good friend100 21:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your first two reverts above are clearly identical. The third posted includes the same category deletion combined with an intro change.  Hiding the category removal in another edit isn't fooling anyone.  Undoing your fourth revert because you were "scared" of administration action is hardly cooperative editing.  --Cheers, Komdori 21:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your diffs include me reverting "history of china". I did not continue edit warring with that link in my next edits and my self revert because I didn't want to cause trouble.


 * Komdori, if you still feel that I was reverting with bad faith, I'm sorry. I guess its the different view you have from me and thats probably why we clash in every single article we both work on. Good friend100 22:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

How is undoing my own revert not cooperating? Please don't make things up. I saw my mistake so I undid it. And I did cooperate because I stopped reverting that. Instead I started to edit another part of the article. You keep talking as if I did all this with bad faith. I did not! I undid my edit and stopped arguing about that link. I think that is cooperating. There weren't anymore revert wars about the link after that, right? Good friend100 22:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I see another mistake with your report. This diff was not a personal attack (although I did wonder that you would take it like that after I edited it). I called the empty section a "thorn" (as in a negative aspect in the article) because it was up there forever so I removed it. That edit had nothing to do with my reverts on the link, nor was it done with bad faith. Good friend100 22:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to debate with you here. Feel free to have the last word.  In any case, undoing your fourth revert (not once attempting to discuss) is hardly in keeping with the requirement for staying on 1RR parole.  --Cheers, Komdori 22:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm really wondering if it is community ban time, or perhaps time to ask the ArbCom to have a look at this guy. 1 week for now, pending any changes for community or ArbCom reasons. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Turemetalfan reported by User:E_tac (Result:No vio)
. : reported on: 07:45, 17 October 2007
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 20:44, 16 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:28, 16 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:33, 16 October 2007


 * But there need to be more than three reverts for a violation. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Til Eulenspiegel reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result:Warned Til Eulenspiegel)
. : Time reported: 17:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 06:28, 17 October 2007
 * 2nd revert:07:11, 17 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 10:35, 17 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 10:42, 17 October 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: 10:40, 17 October 2007
 * Wrong, the "first revert" is not a revert at all, it is my first edit ever to that article. And the "fourth revert" was in response to a valid request for a cite, note it includes the same information backed up with a cite. Til Eulenspiegel 17:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The 3RR warning seems to have been placed nearly simultaneously with the 4th revert so I'll let user off with a warning this time. Til Eulenspiegel, you are still engaging in edit warring. If you continue, you will be blocked. Please talk with other editors to reach consensus. Ronnotel 18:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

User:VartanM reported by User:Whitealp (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 21:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

VartanM only had two edits on Turkey in total today. How can this be a 3RR violation? Please read WP:3RR more carefully. Ronnotel 21:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * User:VartanM under revert parole 1 rv per week, please see;Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2. Regards Must . <sup style="color:blue;">T <sup style="color:blue;"> C  18:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm - when I search for "VartanM" in that case, I don't see his name appear anywhere under Remedies. Can you be more specific why you think this user is under revert parole? Thanks. Ronnotel 18:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No I'm not!! And Whitealp is a sock of a banned user. 3RR doesn't apply to violations of WP:BAN VartanM 18:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * To VartanM; User:Whitealp blocked at 20:59, October 18, 2007 by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. How you know that user is sock, how you check user IP's.Till to that time, you haveno any right to revert his edits.You can not use admin rights.
 * To Ronnotel, here is the name of Vartan in Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2, here the results of arbitration Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 and Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2/Proposed_decision and some smilar cases
 * To Ronnotel, here is the name of Vartan in Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2, here the results of arbitration Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 and Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2/Proposed_decision and some smilar cases

Regards Must . <sup style="color:blue;">T <sup style="color:blue;"> C 19:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Komdori reported by User:Yearwaves3 (Result: no violation)
. : Time reported: 21:24, 17 October 2007
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 18:54, 16 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:06, 17 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:16, 17 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:18, 17 October 2007

blank talk page.
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:39, 17 October 2007
 * he engaged serious edit war. he edit withour fact. avoid discussion and continually revert without "fact". also, did not prove by trustworthy source.
 * continually blank discussion and warning in his talk page. Yearwaves3 21:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There are only two reverts above. The third change is a compromise version (not even undoing your edit), the fourth is me tweaking my own edit.  Editing my own talk page to remove uncivil edits like this and this and this is clearly okay (not to mention summaries like this, and with racist uncivil comments like this).  As for an edit war, you've reverted four times in little over 24 hours gaming the system and hoping no one will notice; in fact, your edits are essentially all reverts--the vast majority to edits. --Cheers, Komdori 22:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three reverts to three different versions is not a 3RR violation, and editors are allowed to remove warnings and content from their own user talk page without penalty. All parties seem to have stopped the brushup on the article for now.  Krakatoa  Katie  04:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User: Filmman1 reported by User:Griot (Result:Indef block - SPA)

 * Three-revert rule violation on by :


 * Previous version reverted to:

This user has reverted more than four times in 24 hours:
 * 1st revert: October 17, 12:53
 * 2nd revert: October 17, 13:27
 * 3rd revert: October 17, 13:52
 * 4th revert: October 17, 14:43

This user has been warned about 3RR on his/her Talk page.

Note as well that Filmman1 tried to delete this 3RR report.

This person is one of several sockpuppets who objects to the term “Mexican-American” war for this article and keeps reverting to “Mexican War.” Griot 21:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * User: Filmman1 is obvious sock and WP:SPA, indef block Ronnotel 02:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:ChrisO reported by User:Argyriou (Result: resolved - no 4th revert)
. : Time reported: 22:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:47, 15 October 2007.


 * 1st revert: 13:52, 17 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15:17, 17 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:25, 17 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 15:48, 17 October 2007 by meatpuppet User:Maxim

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:32, 17 October 2007

User:Loonymonkey removed a paragraph which had been tagged cn for a while. I found the references, which had been removed for insufficient reasons, and restored the text, with the missing references. User:ChrisO reverted. I then looked up additional sources, and checked the references. I restored the paragraph with additional sources, and a justification for the existence of the YouTube reference. ChrisO reverted blindly, including removing the new references without any justification. I restored the edit, as the reversion was vandalistic rather than reasoned. ChrisO reverted again, falsely claiming that no reliable sources have been found for it since then. I restored the properly cited material, and left warnings on ChrisO's talk page. ChrisO then posted on WP:ANI without notifying me, and Maxim reverted to the Loonymonkey version. Argyriou (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Um... Youtube is not a Reliable source. And please read the page about meatpuppets carefully. I'm an admin myself, and I'm not affiliated with ChrisO in any way. In fact I blocked him (in error, I believe now) a few days ago. <font face="Arial"><font color="#FF7133">Maxim (talk) (contributions)  22:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that I added the full explanation after Maxim made his comment above.
 * Maxim - without your explanation and your later edit, your reversion certainly looked like meatpuppetry. Since your second edit, I appreciate that you have actually read the edits in question, unlike ChrisO, though I disagree with your characterization that a newsclip of a Fox News broadcast showing zombie's work is not a reliable source to prove that Fox News made a broadcast showing zombie's work. It is arguably in violation of WP:EL, as the clip overall is not copyright by the uploader (zombie), but a) the clip contains a siginificant amount of work of the uploader's, and thus may be a derivative work of zombie's, and b) the clip has been up for over a year, and political opponents of zombie's have, according to comments at zombie's youtube page, notified other copyright holders and had YouTube take down some videos on zombie's page for copyright reasons. It is hard to believe that the FoxNews clip would have remained on YouTube without Fox News' permission.
 * However, since I no longer believe that your edit was meatpuppetry, I think that makes this report moot, unless ChrisO makes any reversions to zombietime in the next 23 hours. Argyriou (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Removing a copyright violation is not something to which 3RR applies. -- ChrisO 00:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Argyriou reported by User:ChrisO (Result:24 Hours)
. : Time reported: 23:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:21, 6 May 2007

Argyriou has repeatedly reverted to a version of the article that includes links to a copyright-violating video hosted on YouTube. I have removed this per WP:EL and warned him against linking to copyvios; his report above appears to be a malicious attempt to disrupt my performance of administrative tasks. He was warned in this edit not to restore the copyvio but did so anyway, and subsequently broke 3RR when he reverted another administrator, Maxim, who had intervened to remove the same copyvio link.


 * 1st revert: 22:34, 17 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:23, 17 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:31, 17 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 23:50, 17 October 2007


 * Note that Maxim's next edit left the bulk of my version intact, and only removed the disputed YouTube link. [[User:Argyriou|Argyriou] (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Argyriou received a 3RR block in May so should clearly be aware of the rule. Even if Maxim agreed with your changes, that does not mitigate four reversions. Please try to discuss disputes rather than edit warring. Blocked 24 hours.  Citi Cat  <sup style="color:#000000;"> ♫ 03:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:66.215.112.253 reported by User:Famspear (Result:no violation )
. : Time reported: 01:20, 18 October 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:

Anonymous user repeatedly posting tax protester rhetoric. Yours, Famspear 01:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Some of the material repeatedly inserted by this user appears to be the same as that inserted by another brand new user today, "Enforcer254." The material, which may be subject to copyright, apparently originally came from a web site called "losthorizons.com" that has been designated in Federal court as being part of a tax evasion scheme by an ex-con who is currently having Federal tax problems, having recently lost a tax court case. (I have more details if you need them.) Yours, Famspear 01:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Correction: The account for user Enforcer254 was first used back in August. My mistake. Famspear 02:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: It appears that my report is incorrect. This does not appear to be a violation of the 3RR rule. First revert at 13:21 on 16 October, and 4th revert at 23:13 on 17 October. More than 24 hours apart. My apologies. Famspear 11:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Tankred reported by User:Hobartimus (Result: 24 h)
. : Time reported: 01:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:04, 14 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 19:32, October 16 2007 marked as Rv. in edit summary
 * 2nd revert: 22:24, October 16, 2007 marked as Rv. in edit summary
 * 3rd revert: 22:48, October 16, 2007 marked as Rv. in edit summary
 * 4th revert: 23:08, October 16, 2007 marked as Rv. in edit summary

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: This is an experienced user eminently familiar with the 3RR rule, as evidenced by his block log.

A short explanation of the incident. This is a disruptive editor with a long history of POV edit warring accross multiple articles, who was already once blocked for 3RR violation but continues his disruptive style of communication and edit warring. He often uses aggressive/harassing type edit summaries and deceptively marks major edits and reverts as minor (3 out of his 4 reverts in the current report were marked as minor). This user knows perfectly well what he is doing he made four reverts in a few hours and even explicitly marked them as reverts himself. If no action is taken he will likely continue his disruptive ways indefinitely. Hobartimus 01:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not make the same revert as can be seen from the diffs. I reverted two different users with different edits. It just happened to be on the same page. I also encouraged Hobartimus to use the article's talk page instead of resorting to an edit war. Tankred 04:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As to the personal attacks in this report, Hobartimus's peculiar style of editing (controversial POV changes made without or before any discussion on a talk page) has provoked several content disputes between him and other users (including me). I would like to encourage Hobartimus to use standard procedures of dispute resolution instead of calling me names on this page. Anyone can look at my contributions and form their own opinion. As to marking reverts as minor edits, I do not consider reverting to a previous, consensual version a major edit because I do not add or change anything. If this is wrong, I will be happy to report reverts as major edits. Tankred 04:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please review the WP:3RR policy instead of making personal attacks as you did above as retaliation against me for reporting you (this habit of retaliation of yours is why I was reluctant to make this report in the first place). This policy clearly states under what is a revert, "A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors". I do not understand how it is possible to debate that you made 4 reverts, when you yourself marked them explicitly as reverts in the edit summary. Also about minor edits and reverting, per WP:Minor "Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances.", unless reverting obvious vandalism, reverts should not be marked as minor. Hobartimus 04:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Again: I reverted a deletion by an IP at Slovakia. Later, I reverted three times your unrelated edit on the same page. I am not aware the 3RR rule prohibits reverting unrelated edits on the same page. Until now, I believed it prohibits reverting the same edit. By the way, I would not make any of these reverts if you used the talk page. But this is obviously another story. Tankred 04:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I protest against misinterpretation of my block log! I was blocked by accident, after reverting a banned user who vandalized a page more than a dozen times that day. He had to be stopped before the page got finally protected. After being blocked by accident, I was immediately unblocked because all my acts were perfectly in line with Wikipedia's policies. It is allowed to revert vandalism by a banned user even more than three times a day. If this a reason for calling me "a disruptive editor with a long history of POV edit warring accross multiple articles, who was already once blocked for 3RR violation but continues his disruptive style of communication and edit warring" thank you very much. Tankred 04:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is required for the report to show that the user is familiar with the 3RR which can be shown thourgh warnings or blocks. One administrator did think you violated 3RR, hence the block, another thought you did nothing wrong and unblocked (this can be clearly seen from the log which I linked), but I did see you edit war accross like 6-7 articles at a time. Hobartimus 04:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh indeed you have seen me in edit wars after your mass deletions and POV edits. As far as I know, you have been involved in edit wars against many other editors (Svetovid, Markussep, MarkBA, PANONIAN... I can easily find other names if you wish), not just against me. Are all these editors "disruptive users"? If you do not want other people reverting you, start to use talk pages. Tankred 04:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue is not edit warring. The issue is you revert warring past 3RR and threatening even more reverts ("Until a consensus is reached here, the article will be reverted to its previous version" ) Hobartimus 05:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Tankred, you are doing this at the very same time you are accusing me with diverting the discussion and attacking another editor in my defense? Stunning. Unbelievable. Squash Racket 05:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me have my say to this report. As I can see from the style, it may be an attempt to block an uncomfortable opponent after reverting two completely unrelated edits, who unfortunately used revert four times. And false accusations do not add on one's prestige either (long-time POV pusher/disruptive user) when had only one block and even that only for reverting someone, who turned out to be a sock of banned user. As such, I think that Tankred should not be blocked just someone doesn't like him AND without good reason, which this clearly isn't.MarkBA t/c/@ 05:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You were not so sensitive when Tankred got me blocked for breaking the same rule, even though I was a relatively new user. Remember? Squash Racket 05:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a very specific noticeboard, not a forum, so I would ask any administrator, to remove all edits/opinions that have nothing to do with the actual 3RR violation(this includes off-topic edits made by Tankred and me if any). Hobartimus 07:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 h. WP:3RR clearly states: "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. " (my emphasis). Sandstein 08:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:V-Dash reported by User:Dlong (Result:72 hours)
. : Time reported: 01:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Note: On some of the reverts, only one "action-adventure" was changed.
 * Previous version reverted to: 09:10, October 5, 2007


 * 1st revert: 10:50, October 16, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:34, October 17, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:12, October 17, 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:47, October 17, 2007

V-Dash was previously blocked for violation of 3RR for repeatedly changing the genre listed of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass to RPG (or Action-RPG, depending on his mood). He has now resumed this edit warring. He has refused to discuss the changes on the talk page, just like last time. Dlong 01:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked 72 hours for persistent WP:3RR violations. Ronnotel 00:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:^demon reported by User:Koavf (Result: Self-blocked and unblocked)
. : Time reported: 02:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:45, October 14, 2007


 * 1st revert: 12:42, October 17, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:47, October 17, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:04, October 17, 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:20, October 17, 2007

This user is one part in a large and lame edit war over this page. It's been discussed, reverted, and now MfD'ed. Someone should do something about this (not necessarily ban/blocking, but something.) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The user has blocked himself for violating WP:3RR and was unblocked by another admin. I feel an additional block would not be useful under the circumstances unless the editwarring recommences. Sandstein 05:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:217.68.80.50 reported by User:Cheeser1 (Result: blocked for one week, article semi-protected)
. : Time reported: 10:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:15, 16 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 06:38, 17 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 08:09, 17 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 10:27, 17 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 13:52, 17 October 2007
 * 5th revert: 02:49, 18 October 2007
 * 6th revert: 04:31, 18 October 2007
 * 7th revert: 05:11, 18 October 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 09:36, 11 October 2007

Since the posting of this report:
 * 8th revert: 23:39, 18 October 2007
 * 9th revert: 00:04, 19 October 2007
 * 10th revert: 00:07, 19 October 2007
 * 11th revert: 00:08, 19 October 2007

Several users have been disruptively editing this article - mostly removing content. This user has been doing it for days (example: Oct 11) Efforts have been made to discuss, but users are ignoring it. User:Jesuislafete initially preformed the revert here, in this round of edit-warring, and this anon IP picked up where he left off (other anons have also been reverting repeatedly). I suspect it may be him (he was also warned). Note that this anon IP has been warned repeatedly and blocked (at least) once for vandalism/3RR. Cheeser1 10:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: Please note that several users have been reverting these violations of 3RR, and some have themselves gone over the 3-revert limit. However, they are reverting what is presumably vandalism and doing their best to undo the disruptive editing that's going on. --Cheeser1 05:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I see nothing but vandalism from that IP: blocked for one week.  (If someone can confirm this isn't a shared IP, at least to a significant extent, I'd happily extend that for longer.)  Page semi-protected for two, since other IPs were also involved.  Alai 05:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

User:NangOnamos and User:Khanhamzakhan reported by User:Gscshoyru (Result:24 hours for both, page protected)
. and : Time reported: 12:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: and

NangOnamos:


 * 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:

Khanhamzakhan:


 * 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:

I came across this conflict accidentally recently,, when on RC patrol. I've been attempting to mediate it. Obviously, I'm not doing such a good job, since they still seem to be edit warring. I also get the feeling that the ip that reverted NangOnamos, user:71.190.229.46 is also Khanhamzakhan. When I have a bit more free time, I'm gonna look and see what's properly sourced and what isn't, but these two need to be blocked for a bit to cool off after their 3RR violation. Gscshoyru 12:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Page protected, both users blocked 24 hours. Please don't engage in edit warring. Ronnotel 03:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Epf reported by User:Ramdrake (Result: no action )
. : Time reported: 14:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:43, 18 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 08:54, 18 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 09:02, 18 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 09:32, 18 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 10:14, 18 October 2007
 * 5th revert: 10:32, 18 October 2007
 * 6th revert: 17:54, 18 October 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: 10:26, 18 October 2007

User is continuously reverting to his preferred version of the article, on the basis that the other version has errors. Pure and simple revert-warring over a content dispute, and this is not the first time this user has been blocked for violating 3RR either. Ramdrake 14:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Ramdrake himself has ignored and not reported the 3RR violation of another user (, broke the 3RR with edit here: ) and has constantly re-verted to that biased version of the article with no consideration for the very justified reasons behind my edits of a much more neutral and supported version (including before I violated the 3RR). It has been a very long time since (only one other time) I have been blocked for 3RR editing, and have been a very significant, positive contributor to Wikipedia. The current version of the article is not necessarily my 'preferred version' and the other version had errors, falsely entered references which did not support POV statements entered by the other user, and contained quotes/information from sources not entered accurately as they were found. Epf 15:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Radstrike/User:141.151.203.43 reported by User:EEMeltonIV (Result:Warned)
. /: Time reported: 15:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:23


 * 1st revert: 0923 yesterday
 * 2nd revert: 0951 yesterday
 * 3rd revert: 1025 yesterday
 * 4th revert: 1052 today


 * Warning: 1008 yesterday

User continues to add uncited material to this list-of. Does not grasp WP:WAF or WP:FICT despite multiple links on talk page; edit summaries include such explanation as as "Fictional objects need no real world notabilty". 141.151.203.43 IP address is the same as the registered user as indicated by this comment left by IP with registered account replacing anon sig. See my talk page and Radstrike's talk page for more. I realize this isn't a technical violation of 3RR, but the editor's inability or unwillingness to familiarize himself with policy and guidelines, and to petulantly add this stuff he likes, is a "spiritual" violation, I suppose. --EEMeltonIV 15:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * technically not a violation since fourth edit not within 24 hour window. User has been warned. Ronnotel 00:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Panda reported by User:Vision_Thing (Result:Stale)
. : Time reported: 19:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:09, 17 October 2007


 * 1st revert:18:11, 17 October 2007 - reverts removal of "About the name" section


 * 2nd revert:18:32, 17 October 2007 - reverts removal of "About the name" section


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:15, 18 October 2007


 * 3rd revert:17:32, 18 October 2007 - reverts to text it is not a Nobel Prize


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:39, 18 October 2007


 * 4th revert:17:55, 18 October 2007 - reverts to text misleadingly


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:48, 18 October 2007


 * 5th revert:18:10, 18 October 2007 – reverts to text The nickname "Nobel Prize in Economics"...

This is part of ongoing dispute about content of the article Nobel Prize in Economics. -- Vision Thing --


 * If you look at the diffs and the page history, you'll notice that I was editing the content, not reverting. This is obviously a bad faith claim made by an editor who has been removing reliable sources that I've added to the Nobel Prize and Nobel Prize in Economics articles to push his POV.  The current wave stems from me finding the statement "The Prize in Economics is not a Nobel Prize" from the Nobel Foundation, which contradicts his POV and those who share that POV.  They have been removing or misrepresenting this reference and others that support this claim and the claim that there any many names for the prize from the article, despite several editors saying otherwise (see Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics.  Some examples:       I wonder if this can really be called a content dispute since the content comes from the most reliable source about the article, the Nobel Foundation -- there are just some editors who still don't want to believe it and would prefer to have it removed.  This isn't the first time that VT has made a bad faith complaint about an editor with differing opinions -- take a look at WP:AN/I and WP:CHECKUSER. –panda 20:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The report is stale and the edit war appears to be over. Sam Blacketer 14:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Natasha Kaplinsky
Excuse my lack of diffs, but this is basically just a note on action already taken. There's on-going addition of a not-properly-justified category, most recently four times in four hours today, with removal by several different users (myself included). There's very similar activity at Sharon Osbourne, btw. Since the repeated additions seem to be by the same person, who edits from a rapidly-changing and presumably-shared IP, I don't see much point in attempting to block, so instead I've semi-protected the page for a week, as this is starting to get quite disruptive. (Whether this is vandalism per se gets well into windows-into-souls territory, so I won't get into arguing that either way.) Please review. Alai 19:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:75.2.216.91 reported by User:Maelwys (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 21:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:55, 18 October 2007


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

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

User continues to push his unsourced original research onto this article. Also onto the ER article, and several other related ones. See his contribs for a full list. Maelwys 21:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * blocked for 24 hours by User:Moonriddengirl. Ronnotel 23:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Princefigs reported by User:Someguy0830 (Result:1 week)
. : Time reported: 22:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous 3RR block for same reason:
 * Previous version reverted to: 21:54, October 13, 2007 — A short note, while his exact wording changes slightly, the substance of what he's restoring has remained the same, and he was already rebuffed on the talk page.


 * Reverts:
 * 1) 14:52, October 18, 2007
 * 2) 14:57, October 18, 2007
 * 3) 14:59, October 18, 2007
 * 4) 15:02, October 18, 2007
 * 5) 15:10, October 18, 2007
 * 6) 15:14, October 18, 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:00, October 18, 2007

As noted above, this user was already blocked for 34 hours for the exact same edit warring, and as can be seen in his edit summaries he has not learned his lesson. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked 1 week for persistent violation of WP:3RR. Ronnotel 23:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:MorganReynolds reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: username hardblocked )
. : Time reported: 23:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:39, October 18, 2007

All revisions re-add the link to the external links. Most also re-add it to the body of the article.


 * 1st revert: 21:53
 * 2nd revert: 22:08
 * 3rd revert: 22:23
 * 4th revert: 23:03
 * Page blanking at 23:15
 * (after the initial report)
 * 5th revert: 23:20
 * 6th revert: 23:39 (I (Arthur Rubin) have already reverted 3 times today, so I'm not going to comment further).
 * 7th revert: 23:46

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:15, and a clearer one at 23:08

The WP:SPA seems to be insisting on inserting a blog critical of the subject into the article, or having nothing there at all. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The username is an obvious breach of our username policy and given the disruption, I have hard blocked the id. Spartaz Humbug! 23:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I was about to suggest that very thing, and on the basis of it indeed being an SPA, so "good kill". Alai 00:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Keizuko reported by User:Lear 21 (Result: page protected)
. : Time reported: 00:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 19:18, 16 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:25, 17 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:44, 17 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 15:55, 18 October 2007
 * 5th revert: 20:53, 18 October 2007

User:Keizuko has reinserted a disputed part of content several times. The user has been reverted by more than one editor and has not approached discussion pages. The user has been warned on violating 3RR concerning the same issue 8 months ago and is aware of the violation this time. Lear 21 00:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Edit warring warrants a page protection. Please engage each other in useful discussions to move forward. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a technical 3RR violation per se, as is clear from the diff timestamps, of which the first doesn't look like a revert at all: your "version reverted to" link is dated the 18th.  One notes that Lear 21's also reverted four times in the same time period.  To jossi's injunction that you discuss this, I can only add "hopefully without further expanding my knowledge of German terms of abuse".  Alai 00:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Timeshifter reported by User:Tewfik (Result: no action)
. : Time reported: 01:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to (complex reverts approximating this version): 16:35, 9 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 16:11, 18 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:56, 18 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:06, 19 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:13, 19 October 2007 (immediately restores the previously multiply reverted "documentary" section after three other reverts to the infobox)


 * Already twice blocked for 3RR violations.

Over the past days the editor has tried to a) include a list of documentaries and b) modify the infobox. After three reverts in the infobox, the editor seems to think that they are entitled to restore the disputed documentary section as a fourth edit within the same 24 hour period.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 01:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This doesn't look like "complex" reversion at all: it looks like three clear-cut such (to a version that was in place unedited for most of the past week, incidentally), and one entirely unrelated edit, which is only a "revert" if one reframes the dispute to be a composite of the two issues, and back-dates about ten days, per the 9th Octover link above. I'd recommend joining the talk page discussion, which, while seemingly less than productive at present, is at least taking place between the two main reverters.  The reporter, OTOH, seems to have contributed some of the reverts, and none of the discussion.  I also note another user has offered to mediate, and I wish him well with that... Alai 04:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * With due respect, I don't see why A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time doesn't apply here. I used the October 9 version because in the interim the editor in question reverted one or the other sections since then, not because that is the last time there was a revert of the material.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 08:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * An examination of the article's history shows no 3RR violation - it's close, but not quite there. Work it out as Alai suggests. Krakatoa  Katie  04:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Timpennington reported by User:Athaenara (Result: blocked for 24h)
. ; 3rd* revert by : Time reported: 06:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Previous version reverted to: 14:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1st revert: 13:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2nd revert: 14:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3rd* revert: 14:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4th revert: 16:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 23:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5th revert: 03:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Timpennington and 69.61.197.195 have edited no other articles. Note, however, that Timpennington attempted a content fork for the same content. — Athaenara ✉ 06:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems very clear-cut, especially given the explicit warnings. Blocked.  Alai 06:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Fast work! I see that 69.61.197.195 (used for one of the reverts) isn't blocked, so I guess we should keep an eye on that one as well.  — Athaenara  ✉  06:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's the same person, editing from that same IP address when using the account, the autoblock should get 'em. Alai 07:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Anubis3‎ reported by User:NYScholar (Result: page protected )
[This result does not solve the problem; the violations of WP:3RR have not been addressed: The user (User:Anubis3) should have been at the very least warned and/or blocked for such violations as well as for violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. The page protection leaves an image with a dubious license on the page. An administrator needs to delete the image while review of its legality is ongoing; until the legal issues pertaining to copyright and trademark of what appears to be non-free content and fair-use violations are resolved, this "result" is not sufficient; the image needs to be removed until its use is clearly resolved. (See the comments by an administrator on a comparable problem listed two items below this report; there the reporter of a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines/policies is "commended" for doing so.) It [This image] is also not placed in an appropriate article; it is a photograph of a 1933 Nobel Peace Prize but it has been placed in the infobox for Nobel Prizes (the legality of its license and its non-free content dispute would still pertain if it were in any other article as well, however). As a currently-trademarked image, it does not belong in the infobox for Nobel Prize; see Manual of style (trademarks). Images of the design of the medal are also copyrighted in nobelprize.org; see also its "terms of service" linked notices and copyright and trademark registration notices. See links throughout below. (Updated.) --NYScholar 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)] [links added. --NYScholar 20:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)]
 * [The image has now been removed by an administrator. Thank you. --NYScholar 20:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)]

[Concerns Nobel Prize; image in the infobox created by Anubis3 whose licensing and violations of fair use criteria in Wikipedia are called into question by User:Panda and User:NYScholar; multiple reverting of deletion of the image, templates relating to it, and related material about it in more than one page in Wikipedia.] —Preceding comment was added at 07:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)   [Updated: --NYScholar 08:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)] [The user in question (Anubis3) is engaging in an WP:Edit warring over this image (her/his photograph which is not properly licensed), and has used page protection as a tool in edit warring over it. --NYScholar 19:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)]
 * 1st revert 165341000 (Revision as of 00:17, October 18, 2007) (Comment:includes one of many false statements in the editing summary; violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF)
 * 2nd revert 165344603 (Revision as of 00:47, October 18, 2007) (Comment:includes another false statement in the editing history; violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF)
 * 3rd revert 165455603 (Revision as of 00:47, October 18, 2007) (Comment:further false statements in editing summary; there was no time for the review to take place; the user deleted the template with the requirement for the corresponding template to be placed on the image; doubly reverting both here and in the image page and claiming deception where none existed; these were my good-faith attempts to question what I regard as a questionable (dubious) image license of copyright and trademark-protected Nobel medal image in the photograph in question]
 * 4th revert 165555017 (Revision as of 23:08, October 18, 2007) (Comment:User deleted my related templates indicating the problem from the image page, claiming that I was being "deceptive" when I was placing the templates in good faith; engaging in related personal attacks (commenting on the contributor instead of content) on Talk:Nobel Prize despite RFC about the image; another user and I have objected to the image in the infobox in Nobel Prize and questioned the validity of the license claimed for it; the user made the parallel revert deleting the template indicating that a request had been made for speedy deletion of the image. (He/she claims that the request for speedy deletion was denied; but gives no evidence of that; s/he simply deleted the non-free content template himself though the non-free content template says not to do so.) At the very least, the image should be deleted while its validity is being reviewed as its "fair use" has been called into question and doubted by at least 2 editors of Wikipedia. This editing summary presents a false claim of "deception" despite obvious good-faith concern on my part explained both on talk page of the image and in Talk:Nobel Prize as well as deleting of the template that I placed on the user's talk page (as required by the templates that s/he moved and/or deleted). I have not touched his/her "licensing"; I have placed templates calling its validity into question.  See the history of the image page for evidence of what is going on there.]
 * 5th revert 165562265 (Revision as of 00:04, October 19, 2007)(updated) [Comment: The reverts all deal with the same edit warring in which Anubis3 has been engaged (see earlier reverts).] [updated: s/he removed warnings from talk page and acts as if they were not placed there; they were. --NYScholar 20:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)] [Comment: Editing summary by that user calls appropriately-placed template and warning re: WP:3RR violations as "vandalism"; violation of WP:AGF. Read the policy in this very noticeboard re: WP:3RR, WP:AN3RR (scroll up), which asks users to post such warnings in talk page of other user.  Not "vandalism" as falsely and misleadingly claimed. --NYScholar 20:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)] [added link. --NYScholar 20:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)]
 * 6th revert 165553756 (Current revision (02:44, October 19, 2007) [Comment: removed the template-message that I added as required by the template that I had added to talk page of image (which s/he also removed multiple times and/or moved so that it was not as evident to others that it was there; these are not good-faith edits on her/his part, in my view; s/he has no right to delete others' warning message about the image and to claim deception in their place in editing summaries; s/he is the only one supporting use of this image contrary to others' complaints about it. The image does not belong in an infobox in Nobel Prize; it is neither useful nor relevant there and not within fair use criteria as defined by Wikipedia for Wikipedia.]
 * There are multiple additional reverts (of the image page and his own talk page), where s/he deleted my comments about this problem from her/his own talk page (more than once) and s/he deleted my reference to her/his violations of WP:3RR as well. Additionally, s/he falsely claims in an editing summary that s/he requested that I not post on her/his talk page; I saw no such request.  She/He simply deleted my comments placed there; I was required by the template on the image page (which s/he deleted) to place that template-generated comment on her/his talk page.  S/He deleted my warning that s/he has violated WP:3RR in his deletions of my comments from his talk page, without acknowledging them and claiming "deception" where none existed (on my part).  S/He requested protection of the page Nobel Prize, leaving her/his image in the infobox despite two editors' (Panda's and mine) complaints about its license being still dubious.) [updated above. --NYScholar 20:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)]

This user has violated WP:AGF and WP:NPA in response to justifiable questions about the validity of the image; s/he has reverted deletions of the image despite those questions. S/He has claimed that my questioning it and comments on his talk page are "vandalism" when they are no such thing, and s/he knows that. S/He escalated into personal comments on the contributor instead of focusing on the actual problems of the violations of copyright and trademark and fair use criteria in her/his posting of this image in Wikipedia in Nobel Prize.

Because s/he attempted to protect the page with the disputed image in place, the image is still in the infobox in Nobel Prize; while the review of the validity of its licensing and the lack of a detailed fair-use of the Nobel medal image in the photograph are ongoing, the image should not be in Wikipedia. It violates the copyright and trademark of the image of the medal by the Nobel Foundation. --NYScholar 07:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Clearly, I shouldn't even respond to this false accusation as this is a perpetuation of an earlier conflict of opinion with this user. Firstly, these edits cited above are two different pages. Secondly, three of these edits are not even reverts but normal edits. Furthermore, user NYScholar has made just as many edits/reverts in the process. This is a very weak case of 3RR violation and review will show that it is, in fact, nowhere even close to a violation.
 * I have already requested and got the pages (in question) protected in order to end this conflict of opinion and edit warring. Furthermore, the issue with this image (contested by only this user) is currently being discussed under Fair use review. So, there shouldn't be a problem in the future. For the time being, I think its best to move on from this issue to make valuable edits elsewhere. aNubiSIII  ( T /  C ) 16:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As the user acknowledges elsewhere ([in the talk page of the image, relating to] fair use violation report page; [linked there]), the use of this image of the medal in Wikipedia violates the notice on the Nobel Foundation's website re: restricting use of images and photographs of the "design" of the medal: Please see the other discussions. Thank you.  (I have altered references to "he" and "him" and "his" to gender neutral references--singular grammatical terms. There is one user not several who has uploaded the image of the medal in the personal photograph to Wikipedia without permission from the Nobel Foundation.)  Copyright law is clear: doubting that one can acquire such permission is not a rationale for the license or claims of fair use.  If one requests permission in writing, and if it is denied, then one cannot use the content denied by the proprietary organization (in this case the Nobel Foundation).  I'll return to post the link to the other discussion pertaining to the report re: violation of fair use criteria of Wikipedia.  (Otherwise, I will be logged out of Wikipedia doing non-Wikipedia-related work.)  --NYScholar 19:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC) [updated: --NYScholar 20:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)]
 * See Fair use Review of Image DSCNO732.JPG; some of the comments being posted there are speculations by people who are clearly not familiar with or have not even consulted Wikipedia's own fair use policy: see WP:Copyvio where there are links to them. The reverts are all related to the same edit warring that the user who created the image is engaged in; her/his concern appears to be having the photograph in Nobel Prize (a personal matter) not the best interest of the article or Wikipedia.  The photograph is not directly related to the content and does not belong in the infobox of Nobel Prize.  It is not a useful addition to the infobox and does not improve the article.  It is not worth the potential danger to Wikipedia of copyright and trademark violation of the proprietary organization.  The licensing of the image is inaccurate and misleading.  I stand by my report of violations of WP:3RR.  One needs to read the policy more carefully to see how reverting in the service of edit warrring is not in keeping with it. --NYScholar 19:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Page protection does not indicate any support of the position of the above user: read the notice in page protection templates. S/he simply used the tactic to protect her/his own version of the page while edit warring over her/his photograph.  The photograph's license is dubious and in violation of fair use criteria in Wikipedia; no detailed fair-use rationale is being supplied; such a rationale is needed for each use of the image in Wikipedia.  The page was not "protected in order to end this conflict of opinion"; it was protected because an edit war over the image was occurring (see the editing history of Nobel Prize already indicated above in the numbered reverts.  Thank you.  --NYScholar 19:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

User:B_Nambiar reported by User:Tulu_war (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 12:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 19 October 2007


 * 2nd revert: 19 October 2007


 * 3rd revert: 19 October 2007


 * 4th revert: 19 October 2007

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19 October 2007

User:B_Nambiar has ween vandalising the Ezhava article for last one week. The editor User:B_Nambiar has been warned by mutiple editors not removing content and not reverting the revisions identified as vandalism. Tulu war 12:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Tulu war 12:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This is exaggerated and Tulu war is hypocritical as my edits are proven to be of a factual basis, and also to remove a POV comparison as the Ezhava article is full of peacock terms and POV which users such as Tulu war vehemently maintain. My attempts at negotiation to make Tulu war understand how I support my edits have been unanswered and the 3RR rule was broken before me by user Tulu war who reverted my factual edits and removal of a POV comparison which I reverted back in the interests of objective information. It is important to understand before judgment that Ezhava users seem to have a group inferiority complex and only appreciate selective edits that cherry pick or further add peacock terms to the poor article to show the community in subjective light.B Nambiar 12:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24 hours by User:Merope Ronnotel 00:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Avlan reported by User:Meanlevel (Result: No violation, Meanlevel indef blocked )
. : Time reported: 12:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd 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: - please note this is not a diff as it is the first message left for this user.

User is continuing to remove an image from the Christopher Paul Neil article, claiming that it has been incorrectly added. Whether that is actually true or not, said user is engaged in an edit war against several users. Meanlevel 12:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not in an edit war at all, I just have a problem with the picture of an innocent man (which other people claim is released by interpol, but i can't find it anywhere on their site) being posted again and again on the article of a child molester. Avlan 12:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have informed this user that if they have an issue they should take this to WP:ANI to have it resolved, NOT to continue defying Wikipedia policy. Meanlevel 12:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There are sensitive BLP issues here, and it's already being dealt with on AN/I. <small style="border:#090 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">east <big style="color:#090">. 718  at 13:27, 10/19/2007
 * I apologize for my violation of the 3RR rule, I am relatively new and didn't know of it (I know, not a valid excuse). I choose to remove it multiple times because of the possible harm that could have been done to an innocent person being linked to a child molester. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avlan (talk • contribs) 13:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You did not violate the three revert rule; you only made three reverts on that page; MORE than three is generally required to violate it. Since you were removing a poorly sourced image of a man who was being labeled a pedophile on Wikipedia without any evidence, you should be commended in this respect.  --Haemo 18:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Michaelbusch reported by User:Harry Mudd (Result:No violation, warning to reporter)
. : Time reported: 17:25, 19 October 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:

This is about the James Randi page. It concerns a a simple statement that Randi's staff have on occasion falsified the logs in the challenge application. This is supported by appropriate cites.

This statement has been deleted four times. Three times by User:Shot Info. The fourth by user Michaelbusch  AFTER  I had warned that this would  violate 3RR.

If I understand correctly, this is "gaming the system." Michaelbusch did not make all four reverts himself, but he made the fourth one, ignoring the statement that such reverts would be reported.

I see now that the line has been re-inserted by User:Hardyplants, and reverted again, for a fifth time by User: Diego. Diego has made numerous reverts in the last few days, as well as acting in a generally aggressive and disruptive manner.

I therefore wish to report both Michaelbush AND Diego for violation of 3RR.

Harry Mudd 17:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Harry Mudd, please read Wikipedia policies before you accuse people of violating them. I have made only one edit to this article in the past 24 hours and that edit was made on the basis of WP:BLP (It was a contentious statement from a non-reliable source). Anyone is free to read the talk page comments at Talk:James Randi and see that I have never been aggressive or engaged in personal attacks. On the other hand User:Harry Mudd (who has been blocked twice for edit warring on Randi-related articles), has called me "vain", "a hypocrite", and "a liar", and assumed bad faith from the beginning by classifying me as a "Randi supporter" who "does not care about the truth" or Wikipedia policies. — <font face="Verdana"> DIEGO talk 17:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, your points in order.
 * 1) Diego chose to make a 5th revert to an article that had been reverted 4 times already. As I understand it, that makes him responsible for a fifth revert. Claiming to have no responsibility for the first four is "gaming the system"
 * 2) This is after several days where he has repeatedly reverted edits that he doesn't like.
 * 3) He claims that it's a contentious statement from an unreliable source. But no more or less so than any other web page out there. He wants to keep links to other web pages that are equally contentious and equally unreliable.
 * 4) I'll just post your most recent comment, let people judge for themselves if you've been aggressive or not "I think it's time for you to go, you are too disruptive. ... You refuse to listen to reason and I don't have time for your crap." And note that he has been putting out dozens of comments in a similar tone for several days.
 * 5) see point 2 for why Diego is a hypocrite. I certainly did not assume bad faith. Not until Diego kept making the accusation, which made it clear how good his faith was.  As for the statement that Diego "does not care about the truth" that is a direct quore from the man himself. He stated directly that he does not care about the truth. And he certainly only applies Wiki policies when it suits him to do so.
 * Harry Mudd 18:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Harry Mudd, you are the only one who has violated WP:3RR on James Randi. You have also violated Assume good faith, and WP:CONSENSUS.  Three editors independently removing something you've added to an article is not gaming the system.  It is an indication that you are not entirely justified in adding it.


 * Admins: please trash this request as the nonsense it is. I would recommend giving User:Harry Mudd a 24-hour block for his first 3RR offense, as seen in the history of James Randi ([]), and breaches of Etiquette. Michaelbusch 21:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Harry Mudd, I stand by my statement that it is time for you to go. You insist on editing against consensus and being extremely uncivil to editors who challenge you. I think a longer block and topic ban on articles related to the paranormal would be in order. Please stop being disruptive. — <font face="Verdana"> DIEGO talk 21:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The statement which Harry Mudd has attempted to add does, in my opinion, violate WP:BLP. It is, in effect, an accusation of professional sharp practice by someone unnamed at the James Randi Educational Foundation, and it is sourced to a blog maintained by a group who are actively hostile. Given the small size of the foundation it is an accusation directed at a small group of people and although it does not identify which, it is better to be cautious when making any such accusation. As a BLP violation, removing this claim is not covered by the three revert rule. Adding it repeatedly is covered. I will warn Harry Mudd not to readd this claim. Sam Blacketer 22:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

User:RedSpruce reported by User:TMLutas (Result:3 hours)
. : Time reported: 17:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:44, 18 October 2007


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 10:44, 18 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 18:17, 18 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 23:44, 18 October 2007
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 02:11, 19 October 2007

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

Since RedSpruce's user page already has the records of several 3RR blocks on it, I didn't think the new user warning was needed. I did however make allowance that it might have been an error and let him have a chance to revert his own last revert and avoid this notice. What I wrote on the Bentley talk page is included below:

A note: WP:3RR If you have broken 3RR by mistake and now realize it, or if another user has left you a note on your talk page that points out that you broke 3RR, then you should revert your change back to the "other version", even though you may not like the previous version. In general, this should be enough to prevent you from being blocked, although there are no guarantees. If you seem to be the only person who feels that the article should be the way that you have made it, perhaps it is better the way everyone else thinks it should be.

Look at the recent timestamps and the reverts. Leave the text be and let's work it out in talk or this goes to the admins. I'm assuming a good faith mistake at this point. Please don't disturb my assumption. TMLutas 08:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I only came here to report after RedSpruce commented on the Elizabeth Bentley talk page and did not revert. So far as I can tell from his talk page, he should know better by now. I'll even let the assumptions of bad faith regarding me and the incivility slide I just am tired of him edit warring.

The substance of the page problem is over how much context to put in regarding personal accusations regarding Bentley's credibility. The three models available are:
 * 1. Bentley's accusers are labeled as spies, perjurers, etc based on the best state of our knowledge today, impeaching their smears of Bentley as appropriate so Bentley's later vindication by Venona and other external evidence is clear without taking up a lot of space on the article.
 * 2. Bentley's accusers have their guilt explained on Bentley's page, impeaching their credibility and we get some sentences on White's guilt, Remington's guilt, etc.
 * 3. Bentley's accusers have their accusations on Bentley's page but the later, external evidence isn't presented next to the accusation. The accusations have enhanced credibility here over other alternatives.

RedSpruce is emphatic on the page adopting option 3. For me, option 1 or 2 would do nicely, anything that makes clear that a debunked accusation is not to be taken as truth. TMLutas 17:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * RedSpruce has violated the three revert rule and his user page shows that he has skirted it before; I have come to the conclusion that a block is necessary. However one of the edits he was reverting was to my eye very questionable (this is an example) in its insistence on labelling those who denied Elizabeth Bentley's accusations as "the spy". RedSpruce was participating in the talk page in detail in largely constructive discussion with others. Those mitigating factors, coupled with his clean block log so far, lead to a short block of three hours. Sam Blacketer 23:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Multiple users reported by User:HG (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 18:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

It appears that User:Zeq violated has done 2 reverts and, in tandem User:Tiamut and User:Roland combined for 3 reverts.

Initial edit on Oct 18: Zeq, restoring "trend & quote" text (which had been reverted on Oct 15) correct diff correct diff Oct 19th 3:23 a.m.
 * 1st revert: Roland 10/18 11:25 am
 * 2nd revert: Zeq restore corrected diff
 * 3rd revert: Roland revert
 * 4th revert: Zeq restore w/minor revision
 * 5th revert: Tiamut revert (mixed w/other revisions) correct diff

These experienced users do not require warnings about edit warring or 3RR. Please review block logs to see whether said users are already warned or restricted regarding reverts, thanks!

The disputed text had already been reverted some on Oct 15th. As noted above, some reverts of disputed text were made w/minor revisions or other changes, but the basic edit warring is clearcut. HG | Talk 18:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I was carefull not to violate 3RR. Should anyone let me know (on my talk page) I would immidetly self revert - but this was not needed since I did not reverted. Please allow me to review this report to see if indeed I by misatke violated 3RR - this was not my intention for sure. right now I am not editing the section in which the dispute arose. Zeq 18:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * update: According to my reading no single editor has violated 3RR. The rule is about "an editor" - for each there is it's own count. No one revertyed 4 times in 24 hours . The one that came close is User:RolandR with 3 reverts but no violation. Zeq 18:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * update(2) this report does not provide diffs - so it is hard to understand what was counted as reverts. At least in my case I have addressed concens by RolandR and re-edited the section not reverted it. Zeq 18:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I provided the competing revisions but not the diffs. The diffs can be clicked from the revisions, but I can try to redo. This is quite time-consuming for me. HG | Talk 19:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you should try to provide diffs that show that two revisions are identical. In the case of user:RolandR there are 3 such diffs. In my case there is 0. I had made a legitimate edit [responding to concerns [[RolandR]] raised in his edit summary of the revert. (Roalnad indeed made 3 reverts but not 4)


 * HG Rebuttal. The 3RR rule and edit warring are not governed solely by technical aspects of 3RR. From the policy: "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." All three of you know this rule extremely well. Also, it appears that Zeq may be subject to tighter restrictions due to his probation. While I'm not an expert an enforcement, it seems to me that a brief block would impress upon all involved Users that they are not entitled up to 3 reverts every 24 hrs, but rather they should work thru Talk on these contentious pages, even if it means that their desired text stays in the article longer than they'd like. Their statements, above, only reinforce my impression in this regard. Respectfully HG | Talk 18:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Zeq Rebuttal: Can you provide diff s ? what you provided is links to revisions not to diffs and it makes it hard to see what you think is a revert. You can not make any of the 3 editors responsible only for his/her own actions. In my case I have addressed conncerns raised in edit summary and made modifications. I have not entered an edit-war of reverts. In the case of the other editors one made 3 reverts and one made 1 revert. Zeq 19:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. So, besides the revision pages, I've now added the diffs. (I guess one fall-out of edit-warring is how time consuming it gets merely to report it. So it's more disruptive and harder to respond to than folks realize.) HG | Talk 19:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What you provided are the edit diffs not the diffs showing reverts. In my case I have not reverted. The other two editors did reverted here are the diffs showing it, still I don't think any of them violated as well. There was no 3RR violation here.

Here are 3 reverts by two editors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab_citizens_of_Israel&diff=165519017&oldid=165507845

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab_citizens_of_Israel&diff=165589141&oldid=165519017

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab_citizens_of_Israel&diff=165507845&oldid=165433006

Zeq 19:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As observed above, there is no violation of the three revert rule on this article. Sam Blacketer 23:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

User:LuisGomez111 reported by User:LiuSun (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 21:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

User continues to add POV language to this article, changing the word "occupation" to "invasion" despite being reverted by several users. On the talk page he was told that "invasion" failed NPOV yet he continued to revert. LiuSun 21:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No violation here. The version and diffs are confused: the 'first revert' could only be LuisGomez111 reverting himself. In fact he has three reverts, but no more; he was also not warned nor alerted to this report. The talk page shows an active debate on how to characterise the circumstances in which Tibet came into the People's Republic of China. Sam Blacketer 23:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

User:TDC reported by User:TDC (Result: no action)
. : Time reported: 22:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: [http:// http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Ledeen&oldid=164506674]


 * 1st revert: 07:43, October 19, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 13:31, October 19, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:45, October 19, 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:07, October 19, 2007
 * 5th revert: 16:56, October 19, 2007

Strange, someone reporting themselves, but I gotta go for a while, and since someone is going to report me anyways, I figured I might as well get my $.02 in. Simply put, this is a WP:BLP issue, and 3RR does not apply here.

Material from a self published source, consortiumnews.com keeps being introduced into the article by two editors.

Self published sources are not allowed in BLP’s, unless the topic of the BLP is the publisher. After this was brought up, it was argued that the self published source was not criticizing or demeaning the subject of the article, but rather, it was criticizing the author of a book he liked. It was then pointed out that in this instance the material from the self published source did not belong in the article, because it had nothing to do with the topic of the article, making it WP:COATRACK and WP:OR, because it has little or anything to do with the topic and is advancing an argument, Michael Ledeen was wrong about so and so.

If I am wrong, then block me, if not please inform the other of this. Toodles. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * TDC is claiming variously, BLP, OR, SYNTH, in his subject text but the nature of the edits don't really support BLP issues, there's no sense that this is derogatory for example, and the others claimed policies don't support being 3RR anyway, and the edits don't even mention the living person, they talk about comments and clarifications on circumstances facts surrounding the views that Michael Ledeen has held. The OR claim is risible in my opinion, the edited text does not exceed the reference in any way.WolfKeeper 22:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure (without digging further) whether the added material is reliably sourced (I need to check the policies, it's a bit of a gray area), but in any case that's a content dispute issue, TDC is clearly editing tendentiously and is 3RR. He frequently tries to use policies to support his non NPOV edits, and this seems to me to be what is happening here; but that's for you to decide.WolfKeeper 22:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The purpose of a 3RR block is to stop an edit war. TDC did stop after he reported himself. As blocks are preventative instead of punitive, a block to stop something that's not happening is pretty pointless. Straighten up and play nice with each other's toys or you'll get thwacked with my sarong, and not in a way you'll enjoy. Krakatoa  Katie  03:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Freethinkersusan reported by User:ConfuciusOrnis (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 00:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:32, 19 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 19:43, 19 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:44, 19 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:58, 19 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:14, 20 October 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: 20:48, 19 October 2007

Adding the claim that Dawkins supports eugenics, based on a primary source that doesn't support the claim. <font face="arial black" color="#737CA1"> – ornis <font color="#C11B17" size="2pt">⚙ 00:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24 hours for WP:3RR Ronnotel 00:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Geoeg reported by User:dicklyon (Result:48 hours )
. : Time reported: 04:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:47, 18 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 19:24, 18 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 03:02, 19 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:47, 19 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:43, 19 October 2007
 * 5th revert: 19:05, 19 October 2007

Geoeg has been 3RR blocked twice in the last week; no additional warning was given.

Three of us have been tagging the article to indicate Geoeg's WP:COI while his user conduct RFC and COI noticeboard items are pending. Besides reverting the tag, he continues with other reverts, personal attacks, etc. Dicklyon 04:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 48 hours. It's a tag, for cryin' out loud. Somebody, please, bend a little? Krakatoa  Katie  05:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the third time in a week that article has been listed here, I'm protecting it. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Rkowalke reported by User:TallMagic (Result: blocked for 24h)
. : Time reported: 16:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:47, 19 October 2007


 * 0th revert: 00:47, 19 October 2007
 * 1st revert: 23:40, 19 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:49, 20 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 02:41, 20 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 13:14, 20 October 2007
 * 5th revert: 13:58, 20 October 2007
 * 6th revert: 17:06, 20 October 2007
 * 7th revert: 17:10, 20 October 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: 01:32, 19 September 2007


 * Those aren't all distinct reverts: some of those are essentially compound reverts, done by using "undo" multiple times.  With a misleading and uncivil summary each time, mind you.  Given the latter especially, the talk-page blanking, and generally aggressive appaoch this users seems to be taken, blocked for 24h.  Alai 20:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:ILike2BeAnonymous reported by User:Alansohn (Result:no block)
. : Time reported: 04:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 02:36, 20 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:39, 20 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:38, 20 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 23:16, 20 October 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:

After a failed attempt to delete the article via AfD, User:ILike2BeAnonymous has been removing sourced content, directly relevant to the article. This 3RR violation is just the tip of the iceberg of the issues he is creating here. Alansohn 04:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This edit war has been going on for days and should have stopped a while ago. The reporter here is just as guilty of edit warring as the reported, so I'm not willing to block only one of them. I've watchlisted the article and am prepared to block them if the war continues. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is edit warring here, but from only one individual; multiple editors (including myself) have add sourced content and User:ILike2BeAnonymous removes it with baseless claims. I will be more than happy to refer you to the WP:3RR policy which is abundantly clear that the fourth violation triggers appropriate measures. Your obligation to enforce the policy does not disappear because you have failed to understand the bad faith inherent in User:ILike2BeAnonymous's reverts. 71.187.29.156 13:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Saintjust reported by User:Rockgoals3 (Result: No Violation)
. : Time reported: 04:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 03:27, 21 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 04:38, 21 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 05:02, 21 October 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:

He engaged disruptive edit war, and JPOV edit. User:Saintjust has been removing content withoust source and fact, edit to JPOV. Rockgoals3 09:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No Violation. Spartaz Humbug! 10:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Str1977 reported by User:Bless_sins (Result: No further Action )

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 10:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


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

In each revert the following is bieng removed: "The account says that he later related that after giving his advice, 'My feet had not moved away from the spot before I knew I had been false to God and His Apostle'."

I have also included Str1977's edit summary for each edit. It shows that Str1977 him/herself knew that his/her edit was a revert.


 * 1st revert: 09:52, 20 October 2007 edit summary: (rv with overhaul according to the Watt article, also what-tag Serjeant's view (what does "more optimistic" mean?)
 * 2nd revert: 18:29, 20 October 2007 edit summary: (rv to last NPOV version)
 * 3rd revert: 01:45, 21 October 2007 edit summary: (rv to last NPOV version)
 * 4th revert: 09:45, 21 October 2007 edit summary: (rv POV pushing again, as well as removal of links, undue weight for one argument (opinions on Ibn Ishaq belong in his article))


 * A diff of 3RR warning: Str1977 is not a new user.

The inclusion of the above mentioned clause has been subject to a dispute here: Talk:Banu_Qurayza. Str1977 simply fails to agree with Jedi Master MK or I, both have whom have provided sources demonstrating the statements reliability. This report should be considered nullified if Str1977 completely self-reverts his/her edits.Bless sins 10:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I won't formally deal with as Bess sins and I have recently had a difference of opinion over a block and they may not accept me as an honest judge on this but checking through, I can't quite see how revert 1 is the same as the other 3. Would you mind confirming what part of the edit is the same as the others for the next admin that passes by? Cheers Spartaz Humbug! 11:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In both reverts the following is removed:
 * "The account says that he later related that after giving his advice, 'My feet had not moved away from the spot before I knew I had been false to God and His Apostle'"
 * And User:Spartaz, I do consider you an honest judge, esp. after I've seen that what you did is normal practice around here. I hope I didn't offend you in our recent dealings.Bless sins 11:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not offended at all but we always strive to avoid even the appearance of bias and therefore try not to make decisions concerning editors with whom we have had recent disagreements - its just another of the things we do round here. Concerning the violation - yes I see it now. Thanks for the explanation. I think a block is marginal right now because its a possible oversight in an extensive set of edits and also because I do see some tangential discussion on the talk page. I would be grateful if another admin could review this anyway Spartaz Humbug! 11:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest that a warning is appropriate in this case. Ronnotel 02:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it depends. Did Str1977 know that making more than 3 reverts in 24 hours was a violation of wiki policy.Bless sins 03:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have asked Str9177 the question here.Bless sins 03:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, he knew this but we all make mistakes, don't we? I respect other people's views but my 2 cents here is that a warning is appropriate.--Aminz 03:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe Str1977 knew well about the 3RR, having been blocked, then unblocked a few months back for an edit warring incident. That said, it seems like he hasn't edited the article in a while and blocks are only supposed to prevent disruptive editing, not punish. A page protection could allow the editors to work out their differences without worrying about edit warring. -Andrew c [talk] 04:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know (and knew) about 3RR even though the block a few months ago unjustified and therefore lifted after a short while. And indeed it was an oversight and a mistake. That doesn't make it right and I cannot complain if I am blocked. But indeed I have restrained myself from editing the page even though the edit warring from other editors, most notably the one filing this complaint, has not ceased at all. I see this report as an attempt to silence the opposition regarding this article (and the dragging in of content issues into this report confirms this) and to push through the changes envisioned. A warning I cannot accept as other editors are just as guilty as I am, if not more so. Str1977 (talk) 08:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Bless sins is a polite editor, but his POV-pushing never ends. Every article in which I know him to be involved is perpetually locked or in a state of slow but interminable edit-war. The strategy appears to be to wait until other editors tire of the perpetual struggle, tire of Wikipedia, or are run over by a bus. It's to the point where we can count several editors who have been outlasted by Bless sins for one reason or another, while he continues to push, push, push away. That's not to say he's always wrong, more that the mode of engagement is unacceptable. The talk page is used as a forum not for resolving disputes, but for wearing opponents down through repetitive and unresponsive argument.
 * The interpretation of scripture is in this instance, as in others, unambiguous in its insincerity - all religious and academic sources are united that the sense of this quote is that Abu Lubaba betrayed Muhammad by truthfully divulging his plans to the Banu Qurayza, but the quote is being deployed in such a way to falsely suggest that Abu Lubaba lied to the Banu Qurayza - the very opposite of the truth (insofar as we can know it.)Proabivouac 08:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't wish to label black and white statements like "his POV-pushing never ends..Every article in which I know him to be involved is ...". They are completely irrelevant and inappropriate here. You are free to open an RfC on him if you would like. --Aminz 09:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have the time to open an RfC, which don't work anyhow, and as often as not turn into an attack on their filers; else I should have filed one long ago. The issue is not Bless Sins personally, who seems to me generally an honorable man, but his activist agenda, and more to the point, the way Wikipedia procedure facilitates its lawful pursuit. One can't rightly blame activists for availing themselves of our procedures; it's rather up to us to take account of and neutralize this.
 * Anyone who, under any excuse, knowingly adds falsehoods or deliberately misleading presentations of fact to Wikipedia should be blocked well before anyone bothers counting reverts. That the encyclopedia should ever only tell the truth in a non-misleading way should be sacrosanct. That it's not is the miserable failure of this noticeboard and of wiki-procedure in general.Proabivouac 09:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is 3rr report, not a User RfC nor the talk page of Banu Qurayza. Str1977, I only asked you to clarify your position on 3rr, not whether you were right or wrong to remove Abu Lubaba.Bless sins 09:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, BS, you did raise the content issue in your report. I only briefly explained the situation and did not comment on content. Note that I am not bound by what you ask me! Str1977 (talk) 10:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Closing as no further action. There is no support for a block and Str1977 seems to have made a mistake. Spartaz Humbug! 18:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Gscshoyru reported by User:South Philly (Result:Page protected)
. : Time reported: 00:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:07, 20 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 21:16, 20 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:48, 21 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:56, 21 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:32, 21 October 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 03:24, 16 October 2007

Gscshoyru has been driving an on-going edit war in the article over a relatively small topic, Student erotica. This has been going on for a couple of weeks now, and there has been no moves made to compromise.

Gscshoyru is aware of the rules as evidenced by this lovely quote:

"Could you re-revert Student Erotica, though -- I'm at three reverts, and he's reverted again. Gscshoyru 03:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)"

Finally, I would like to Assume Good Faith about not driving an edit war, or trying avoid 3RR. When I warned Gscshoyru about having made four edits after having been warned, this was the response:

"No, it wasn't -- the 4th one is at 21:16, this one is at 21:30... so it wasn't. So your reversion does count. Gscshoyru 21:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)"

South Philly 00:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There's 16 minutes more than 24 hours between the first and fourth... so it isn't actually a 3RR violation. And it isn't that I sat around waiting for the ability to revert, but I saw his revert, which happened after my ability to do so, and I reverted again, making sure I wasn't violating the 3RR. And it's been explained again and again by several editors, including an admin, that the section is not notable enough for inclusion in the article, and would be much better on its own in another article -- see Talk:Erotica. Gscshoyru 01:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Four edits in 24 hours and 16 minutes is WP:GAME and something I'm happy to block for. However, I also see tendentious editing by User:South Philly as well as what may be the use of at least one sock. I'm going to protect the page. Please try to sort this out amicably on the talk page. Ronnotel 02:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

User:203.31.11.60 reported by User:Axlq (Result:Warned)
. : Time reported: 04:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:41 20 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 10/21 22:48 (plus two more adjustment edits by the same editor immediately following)
 * 2nd revert: 10/22 01:19
 * 3rd revert: 10/22 01:51
 * 4th revert: 10/22 03:25
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 10/22 01:59
 * 5th revert: 10/22 03:56

Anon user continues to re-add external link in spite of consensus not to include it, and in spite of warning. Worse, the link is being re-added with an editorial note about "unscrupulous" editors removing it. The "Previous version reverted to" is uncertain because some legitimate edits have occurred during the reversion war, but the edit history is fairly clear as to what's going on. Axlq 04:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: the page has been semi-protected. The user hasn't edited any other page, so now I believe the disruptive editing threat has been neutralized (what I'm saying is that a block is no longer necessary). That said, I'll leave closing of this to another sysop because I am semi-involved.-Andrew c [talk] 04:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree; the user was warned, is no longer able to edit the page, and hasn't disrupted other pages, so I'm closing the report. The Abortion page is watched and if this link starts getting readded then swift action can be taken against the spammer. Sam Blacketer 09:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Samil20 reported by User:Spellcast (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 04:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 15:45, October 21, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:48, October 21, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:46, October 21, 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:10, October 22, 2007

I haven't made a 3RR report before, so here it is. The issue revolves around adding Nas' upcoming album, Nigger (album), to the discography section despite it being verified to come out by Nas himself. Spellcast 04:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Clear cut case, and the user has also been reverting on Nas discography on which he was previously blocked for a three revert rule violation. I'm making this 24 hours. Incidentally West Coast Ryda would have been better not to use vandalism templates when warning Samil20, who was not vandalising. Sam Blacketer 09:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

User:68.97.53.120 reported by User:BQZip01 (Result:Semi-protected)
. : Time reported: 07:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version request reversion 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.
 * Multiple Diffs of 3RR warning:

IP user does not engage in any discussion whatsoever despite repeated attempts for dialogue and seems content to revert, revert, revert, etc... — BQZip01 — talk 07:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The IP does not seem to have four reverts in a 24-hour period. I've semiprotected the page for a week which should see him off for a while. Sam Blacketer 10:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoops! Yes you are right, there is no 3RR violation here, but thanks for the semi-protect though. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

User:MONGO reported by User:SchmuckyTheCat (Result: no action)
. : Time reported: 08:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: October 16, 2007


 * Oct 17, 2007, three reverts:, ,
 * Oct 19, three reverts:, ,
 * Oct 20, one revert outside the 24 hours of the three on the 19th:
 * Oct 22, three reverts:, ,

3RR is not an entitlement. MONGO is clearly gaming this policy page by reverting up to but never more than 3RR in one period. It was requested to report him. "Then please report him to WP:AN/3RR. Please avoid metadiscussions on the talkpage Alex Bakharev 07:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)" SchmuckyTheCat 08:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * please take note of edit summaries, lack of participation on talk page, and content of participation on that talk page. Milto LOL pia 08:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This defective report (no 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th reverts, no previous version) is the latest in a seemingly unending series of actions to the effect of harassing MONGO.Proabivouac 08:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * These trollish red herrings are becoming such eyesores. Milto LOL pia 08:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Instead of four reverts, I've put up four days worth of them. If 3RR is an electric fence to stop edit wars, MONGO is walking up and pissing on it, but never crossing it.  That's gaming, it's disruptive, and it's exactly the kind of edit warring that this report page is for. SchmuckyTheCat


 * No action. I, for one, dislike this board being used for 3rr reports which do not involve an actual 3rr violation. If you wish to complain about edit warring or gaming the rules, please use the Incidents or Administrators' board/s. Thx in advance. El_C 09:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

User:B_Nambiar reported by User:Vvmundakkal (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 11:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 22 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 22 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 22 October 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 October 2007

The User is removing referenced(agreed upon) content from Nair article. Vvmundakkal 11:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the second time the same user has violated 3RR rule but with a different article then. .Vvmundakkal
 * The user started sending personal attacks/abuses and warning against also removing from talk page

Vvmundakkal 11:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * no Violation. Spartaz Humbug! 18:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Vvmundakkal reported by User:Vivin (Result: One week)
. : Time reported: 17:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: October 22nd, 00:26


 * 1st revert: 1:51 Oct 22 (This is from an IP, but it conforms to his other reverts)
 * 2nd revert: 2:55 Oct 22
 * 3rd revert: 4:33 Oct 22
 * 4th revert: 4:54 Oct 22
 * 5th revert: 6:15 Oct 22

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly. Although it's not a warning on HIS page, he has warned another editor, which shows that he is aware of the 3RR. He has also placed a 3RR violation request (although it shows only 3 reverts) on this page, which further shows that he is aware of the rule.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 4:40 Oct 22

This is a spillover from the Ezhava article. The editor wants to engage in "tit-for-tat" behaviour. The Ezhava article mentions that Ezhavas are Dalits. The user takes offense to this and wants to mention that Nairss are Sudras. The Nair article already mentions this, but the editor wants it mentioned at the top of the article. Hence the reverts to his version. vi5in [talk] 17:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A quick look at this user's contribs shows a lot of disruptive behaviour and accusing another user of a 3RR on 3 reverts while having already broken the rule is a clear disruption to this board - as well as quite breathtakingly inappropriate. Also the user has just come back from a 3rr block so all we are left with is deciding how long the next break from editing should be. Given the egregious nature of this behaviour, I have opted for a week as a significant escalation to demonstrate that further disruption and edit warring. will not be tolerated. Spartaz Humbug! 18:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

User:BigGabriel555 reported by User:UnclePaco (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 04:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:28, 23 October 2007

03:24, 21 October 2007

14:03, 21 October 2007
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert: 19:31, 21 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:51, 22 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:32, 22 October 2007
 * 5th revert: 20:07, 22 October 2007


 * Not a new user and given many warning in the past. Chose to blank out his page after warnings were given.  Revision as of 20:07, 22 October 2007 (
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 03:59, 23 October 2007

User has also reverted to personal attacks referring to others as being retards as well as using a few accounts.  . UnclePaco 04:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This ought to go on AN/3RR, rather than here. --Folic_Acid 04:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the future please report there. In the mean time, the account has been temporarily blocked.  I anticipate a return, though.   Keegan talk 04:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, he may have returned already, but as a sock. Shall I add a suspected sock report? --Folic_Acid 04:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's more than obvious, so I've already blocked. I knew I should have blocked account creation the first time.  Ah, anyway this time I did so at least the IP won't be able to disrupt for 24 hours.  I'll keep an eye out.   Keegan talk 04:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Skyring reported by User:Lester (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 05:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 00:38, 23 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:51, 23 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 01:02, 23 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 01:28, 23 October 2007

This is an edit war over date formats. Neither user bothered to discuss the dispute on the article talk page. Opponent, User:Florrie doesn't appear to have been involved in an edit war before. I sent User:Florrie a message to stop edit waring, however I didn't get the message sent before Florrie's 4th edit. User:Skyring, however, is a seasoned edit warrior with previous offenses who knows all about 3RR.  Lester  05:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * While one doesn't have to breach 3RR to be edit warring, I think you need to show us that what you call the "1st revert" was actually a revert, and not, as I suspect, Skyring's initial change, followed by three (and not 4) reverts. That is not technically breaching 3RR. One more would be a breach though. --Merbabu 09:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Lester, how do you even know about that dispute? I can't see that you've ever edited that article or its talk page. It seems that you only know about it because you are stalking both Peter's and Prester's contributions looking for opportunities to report them. I highly recommend you stop doing this. Sarah 11:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I also note that User:Florrie says here that there is no edit dispute and that the matter was resolved here before your warning. Sarah 11:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Lester has gone beyond being merely disruptive in his editing. The fact that he pays close personal attention to those he sees as his enemies is disturbing. I can't even do a spot of wikitidying without this guy peeing over my shoulder. --Pete 18:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No violation – the first revert provided is, in fact, Skyring's initial change, and was not a revert. Hence, three violations have been undertaken, not four, and a WP:3RR violation has not taken place. Nevertheless, I'd like to advise Skyring and Lester that warring with one another does not benefit Wikipedia; if you guys can't work with one another, leave one another alone - I'm willing to block for disruption, if you guys can't work together, or at least have the decency and consideration for others to stay away from each other. Regards, Anthøny   ん  18:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Regiment reported by User:Crownjewel82 (Result: 3 hour disruption block)
. : Time reported: 18:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:49, October 23, 2007


 * 1st revert: 18:38, October 22, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:45, October 22, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:06, October 23, 2007
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 06:55, October 23, 2007

Regiment added La Raza, Chicano nationalism, Mexica Movement to Template:Racism topics. Three users reverted these changes and made requests for documentation which was never provided. CJ 18:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Although there have only been 3 reverts undertaken by, and hence no technical WP:3RR violation, I have enacted a 3 hour block on Regiment, for disruptive editing at . Regiment - please edit Wikipedia with the encyclopedia's interests in mind; if something - or someone - is getting on your nerves, just walk away. Regards, Anthøny   ん  18:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The editors did not specifically ask for sources before the block, just told me I was wrong because they provided propaganda from the side accused of racial supremacy as if it was enough PR spin for anybody to accept as proof they are not racist (would they do this for David Duke?  No, because he's a White pride racist and Brown pride racism doesn't matter to them -- WP:IDONTLIKEIT). They are guilty of propagating it and they only want to hear what they want to hear, from the sources they agree with. Let the double standard racial supremacism continue through disruptive edit reverts. Let them get away with it. While people in the real world have been suffering, you live in an ivory tower and are content to pick and choose whose fate is important. You honestly think that nobody notices. Regiment 16:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Crownjewel has told me straight up what type of source he will accept. The SPLC probably wont classify Mexica as a hate group, but he doesn't want to hear from much more mainstream sources like Lou Dobbs, because he has classified them several times as racist and supremacist. I refuse to bow down to Crownjewel's lack of respect for NPOV, that Jimbo Wales calls "non-negotiable". He and his colleagues are totally against the recognition of another racist hate group and hasn't said why in truth, because Wikipedia's article Mexica Movement already says that the aim of the group is to expel Europeans from the Americas and it is self-evident that the Mexica Movement is represented by the Brown pride people. One race wishing ill towards another and agitating for it. That's racism. Regiment 17:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:84.66.42.62 reported by User:Barryob (Result: blocked 24h)
. : Time reported: 22:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * 1st revert: 21:49, 23 October
 * 2nd revert: 21:58, 23 October
 * 3rd revert: 22:24, 23 October
 * 4th revert: 22:31, 23 October
 * 5th revert: 23:34, 23 October
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:29, 23 October

IP keeps removing the Irish tricolour from the article. <font color="green" face="comic sans ms">Barryob  <font color="blue" face="comic sans ms">Vigeur de dessus  22:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Franklinpatriot1 reported by User:Gscshoyru (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 02:09, 24 October 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:

User is repeatedly adding unsourced and non-notable information about his own school, which is a WP:COI as well as a 3RR violation. Gscshoyru 02:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24 hours for WP:3RR. Ronnotel 02:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Egyegy reported by User:Taharqa (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 05:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 19:27, 23 October 2007

As soon as the page is unprotected, he immediately reverts User:Muntuwandi who added an image to a section that he felt was irrelevant to the image


 * 2nd revert: 20:55, 23 October 2007

He reverts the very first edit that I make as well, calling it pov, concerning my an original research statement about C. Loring Brace and a particular anthropology study.


 * 3rd revert: 21:33, 23 October 2007

I try and compromise by not touching his contribution and simply adding more info to clarify, in which he reverts me again, claiming that a statement made wasn't "libel" in his opinion.


 * 4th revert: 22:08, 23 October 2007

I let it go.. I include some information into the said intro which was reflected from the study, mentioning Sudanese people. He reverts me and distorts what I write by rewriting it.


 * 5th revert: 02:59, 24 October 2007


 * 6th revert: 05:41, 24 October 2007

Finally, I clarify part of the same section by paraphrasing the cited studies, clarifying that certain affinities were noted as being to a "lesser extent", which is important for elaboration. He again, reverts me completely, not allowing me to make any edits at all.

There is a huge problem with this user. I have in the past, reported him for wikistalking and personal attacks and he was also reported at the notice boards for agenda pushing and nationalistic rhetoric. I've tried to discuss issues with the user, but he is very belligerent, so instead of reverting him, I try to compromise and actually didn't revert him once until he clearly violated (and even then, he still reverts. I'm at a loss because he literally has reverted every edit I make, even if it did not impede on or distort his own. He reverted more than one person and is literally trying to control the article. I even warned him in the summary before I reported him, but it obviously didn't matter. Even though he knows very well anyways since he's a resident user and has been through this before, yet for some reason, again, doesn't seem to care.Taharqa 05:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a right to make different edits to the article, these are not "reverts". I discussed all my edits on the talk page. Taharqa on the other hand was warned about repeated editwarring because he simply blindly and blanket reverts to maintain his pov version of any article. We worked for a long time on a draft version until it had consensus, and as soon as the draft as implemented, Tahraqa was back to his editwarring ways on the main article. Egyegy 05:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This is false.. He has literally reverted every edit I've made, along with Muntuwandi and it is plain as day. He's obviously broken policy and thinks that he can get around it with this excuse as if it justifies his edit warring and obsessive behavior. He knows better.. His bringing up unverifiable episodes and past incidents or "warnings" that have nothing to do with his violation is a sign of desperation. His personal attacks are endless as I alluded to and here's a perfect example. But anyways, I think what I've reported is sufficient.Taharqa 06:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Pictogram voting delete.svg|20 px]] No violation – there were not 4+ reverts undertaken on the same article within a 24-hour period, and thus no WP:3RR violation was committed. However, both parties are reminded that their edit warring is disruptive, and that they can be blocked for negatively affecting the article, including when no technical 3-Revert Rule violation has been committed. If you can't edit together, move on - your dispute does not benefit Wikipedia. Please keep a level head, and refrain from reaching for the "undo" button when somebody makes an edit you don't like. Anthøny   ん  16:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Brendan.lloyd reported by User:Prester John (Result: Article protected)
. : Time reported: 08:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:20 Oct 23

All reverts are the same;


 * 1st revert: 00:13 Oct 24
 * 2nd revert: 00:27 Oct 24
 * 3rd revert: 00:40 Oct 24
 * 4th revert: 00:46 Oct 24
 * 5th revert: 00:54 Oct 24
 * 6th revert: 01:00 Oct 24

Serial edit warmonger (see block log) User:Brendan.lloyd now tries for a personal best with 6 reverts in 45 minutes. This time removing images under his policy of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Increasing block lengths (the last one was 72 hours) seem to have no effect on his behaviour. A much longer vacation may be neccessary. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 08:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Those involved in the dispute have already asked the ANi board for advice on this, and the article itself has been protected, stopping all editing from everyone. When the article gets unprotected we'll see what happens. -- Lester  11:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm unhappy the page was locked on Brendan's edit, but I guess that's what happens when i'm the one that decides the reverting cannot continue. I started a thread at AN/I, and that along with community consensus seems to show there is no BLP breach, and simply comes down to if the image is suitable. Well considering the images permissions, and that it contains an image of the person the article refers to as well as two other Labor MPs as well as his son, I think that doesn't even need an answer it's so elementary. Timeshift 13:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You should be very happy that user:Blnguyen stepped in and locked the page, as that has stopped the edit war. In his summary, Blnguyen described it as a "mass edit-warring", and he could have instead issued mass block penalties to all of the parties involved in it, as an alternate way to stop it.-- Lester  14:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I stopped it and that can be seen in edit comments and talk. I even had it on AN/I saying I was no longer reverting before Blnguyen came in and locked it. Timeshift 14:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, Brendan is clearing his talk page including the AN/I and 3RR tags. Timeshift 14:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, what is your point? It's my talkpage, I'm cleaning it up. What's your problem? Didn't you read the top of the AN/I page: "Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic". For the record, you have no right to perform reverts on my talkpage. Please refrain. Meanwhile, as always, Prester presents his one-eyed POV and passes it off as fact. Not surprising is the massive AN/I page unfolding about his own disruptive edits. Interesting that he should report me for violation on an article he has no recent involvement on. A spot of wikistalking eh, Prester John? Is that what your User:Prester John/Evidence subpage is for? --Brendan [ contribs ] 15:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not really your page, Brendan, it belongs to the project and it is provided to facilitate communication with you. Admins can still enforce rules there, but we try to allow people as much freedom as possible on their talk pages, as long as there is no disruption. So, Brendan can remove messages from his talk page if he wants to. They remain in the history as a record, so there really isn't a problem with him removing them from his page. In fact, removing messages confirms that you have received them, so the editor cannot claim later that they never saw the warning. If you guys want to continue arguing er, discussing this, I advise you take it to your own pages. An admin could still step in and block you lot for 3RR and if you guys continue bickering here, you are just increasing the likelihood of that happening. Sarah 15:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The floor is open for all and sundry to make their voice heard at Talk:Kevin Rudd. Timeshift 15:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems all parties have laid their guns down, at least for the night, so I've unprotected the page - I don't like the idea of it being locked down during the campaign, and it seems to have served its purpose. All parties are warned that further edit warring will be met with blocks - and given the intensity of today's spat, I do not think an admin will wait for you to break your 3 revert 'entitlement'. ~ Riana ⁂ 17:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Mike0001 reported by User:Avraham (Result: no violation )
. : Time reported: 14:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:18, October 23, 2007


 * 1st revert: 12:31, October 23, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:38, October 23, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:48, October 23, 2007
 * 4th revert: 06:06, October 24, 2007

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:44, October 23, 2007

User continues to place WP:OR/WP:NPOV claims about historicity of the biblical story of Moses, and is potentially giving WP:NPOV to the claims of Karen Armstrong, someone whose thesis was rejected, left academia without her degree, and now is a "freelance monotheist".

In the last diff, the removal of the term "extra-biblical" is tanatmount to once again, trying to push the POV that the biblical depictions are non-historic as well by placing them back into the discussion in that paragraph. Subtle, but the same POV pushing more blatantly found in the earlier diffs.

Lastly, I believe this may be inappropriate as at the time, I had edited the page once on this issue. -- Avi 14:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This may well be a case of POV pushing but we only consider 3RR violations here and the last one seems sufficiently unrelated to make this a far from clear cut case. I suggest you try another venue if you need admin attention. Spartaz Humbug! 21:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Regiment and User:Crownjewel82 reported by User:spryde (Result: Regiment - 1 week. Crownjewel82 see below)
. : Time reported: 18:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

(See above for User:Regiment as it still continues)


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:49 October 23 2007

Regiment


 * 1st revert: 17:49 October 23
 * 2nd revert: 16:58 October 24
 * 3rd revert: 17:10 October 24
 * 4th revert: 17:21

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: N/A

A short explanation of the incident. Spryde 18:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Both users have been going at it over this template. The inclusion of two links is at issue. I have not warned CJ as his report above seems to indicate he knows what 3RR is. Spryde 18:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: With his fourth reversion, Regiment acknowledged that he was intentionally violating 3RR: RVV again. Source provided and this edit warrior has to stop fighting neutrality. He doesn't want to hear the other side. He even says so on the talk page and wants me to break the 3RR. So, I'. I undid Regiment's last reversion because his addition of three articles in this template as "racist ideologies" and "racist groups" without WP:RS is WP:OR, and I've explained this to him repeatedly. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As I've said before, If I take a penalty for violating 3RR then I'll take it, no complaints. But, I feel that my edits were a good faith application of WP:IAR in that I feel my edits were consistent with WP:V and WP:OR. Also, when I realized I had passed 3 reverts, I stopped making reverts and brought in other users. CJ 20:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with this sentiment. Looking at it now as time has passed, it appears a possible revert war has passed. Seeing as blocks are prevantive, not punitive... Spryde 20:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Regiment has just come off a 3RR block and deliberately broke the 3RR again. Their approach has been exceedingly disruptive, POV pushing, and they have also been abusing the talk page by refusing to discuss preferring rather to attack the motives of other editors. A decent escalation to make it clear that such behaviour will not be tolerated is in order. 1 week


 * Crownjewe182. reverted their 4th revert and have indicated elsewhere that they would not be editing the template until the matter had been sorted out. Additionally, thet were attempting to have a constructive debate on the talk page. Having blocked Regiment I thought long and hard about a block for Crownjewel82 despite the mitigating circumstances and was within a hair's breath of imposing a short block for equalities sake. I would like Crownjewel82 to accept a voluntary moratorium on editing this article for the next week. If they are prepared to accept thia, I will not impose a block. Spartaz Humbug! 22:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I won't pretend I like it. But I'll live with it. CJ 10:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:71.139.21.24 reported by User:Feedler2 (Result:page protected )
. : Time reported: Feedler2 22:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: [http:/en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ralph_Nader&diff=166829799&oldid=166821093]
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:


 * 12th revert, after 3RR warning:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User continues to revert after warnings. Feedler2 22:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that this user created his account, Feedler2, today, and that he has only contributed to the Ralph Nader article and to my Talk page. Further, I have made many edits to this article. The eleven he shows here were not all reverts. There are many original contributions to this article that weren't here before. Further note that this user attempted to delete from this page my explanation of my editing activities. Respectfully, 71.139.21.24 22:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh, Feedler2, you may wish to recheck those reverts again. Also, looking at the recent activity, I suspect you may be 76.87.47.110 looking at the contributions to your "side" of the revert war. Finally, 5 & 6 are the same revert. Spryde 23:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 12th revert, after warning, violates 3RR. Feedler2 23:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Conmatrix reported by User:Spratsareours (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 23:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 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

Conmatrix keeps reverting my edits. Spratsareours 23:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC) You might want to read Simple diff and link guide to learn about adding diffs to a page. Anyway, there are clearly only three reverts.  Citi Cat  <sup style="color:#000000;"> ♫ 03:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleemosynary reported by User:Steven Andrew Miller (Result:Page protected)
. : Time reported: 23:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:51, October 9, 2007


 * 1st revert: 17:20, October 24, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:07, October 24, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:16, October 24, 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:25, October 24, 2007

There has been an update to this story today with the release of several documents, all from the United States Army, including a transcript, and several official memorandums. The documents are cited and linked. Eleemosynary appears to think he owns the article, and reverts anything he does not agree with. He is a partisan cheerlead, so far that in one edit summary he wrote "Boo-yah!" as if he had just 'scored points' for 'his side' &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As below. Ronnotel 02:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:SpeedyC1 reported by User:Aladdin Zane (Result: No action)
|World Wrestling Entertainment roster. : Time reported: 00:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: |13:55, 24 October 2007 SpeedyC1


 * 1st revert: |18:52, 24 October 2007 SpeedyC1
 * 2nd revert: |19:14, 24 October 2007 SpeedyC1
 * 3rd revert: |20:34, 24 October 2007 SpeedyC1
 * 4th revert: |22:49, 24 October 2007 SpeedyC1
 * 5th revert: |23:49, 24 October 2007 SpeedyC1

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

A short explanation of the incident.---User:SpeedyC1 keeps placing on the page that Kristal in currently inactive. The WWE has not released any reports on her status. We have asked that he leave it alone until WWE has made a statement. Several users have changed this back. He has made 5 reverts so far with no sign of stoppingAladdin Zane 00:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC) No action at this time because there was no warning given. I've now placed a warning on the talk page and another revert should result in a block.  Citi Cat  <sup style="color:#000000;"> ♫ 03:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Steven Andrew Miller reported by User:Eleemosynary (Result:Page protected)
. : Time reported: 23:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:41, 24 October 2007

Steven Andrew Miller, in a partisan frenzy, is using an unsubstantiated "memo" published (then later pulled) from the Drudge Report as a means to vandalize the article, and label the article subject a "fraudster" and a "hoax." This is part of a POV campaign he's waged for some time. Posting the link to the memo is fine, but drawing defamatory conclusions from it in the article violates WP:OR, especially since the memo in question has been sourced to no reliable source, according to WP:RS. Steven Andrew Miller's blustery claim that "the U.S. Army is a reliable source" is just windy cheerleading. The page has now been locked. After it's unlocked, Steven Andrew Miller's unsourced claims, POV, OR, and vandalism should be speedily reverted. --Eleemosynary 00:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1st revert: 23:06, 24 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:12, 24 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:17, October 24, 2007
 * 4th revert: 23:23, October 24, 2007
 * 5th revert: 23:27, October 24, 2007

Cleaning up your vandalism, is not 3RR. You should know better. &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Admins: The above comment from Steven Andrew Miller is indicative of his bad faith, disruptive edits on the Scott Thomas Beauchamp page. This, apparently, is an editor trying to "game the system."  When that fails, he resorts to bitterness and sulking.  Ah, well... --Eleemosynary 00:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is edit warring going on here but the page has already been protected by User:AuburnPilot and blocks are preventative not punitive. Please resolve this on the talk page. Ronnotel 02:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Malamockq reported by User:Someguy1221 (Result: no action )
. : Time reported: 03:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:26, 24 October 2007 (each revert was merely the removal of one comment, not intermediate comments)


 * 1st revert: 16:12, 24 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:50, 24 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:13, 24 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:26, 24 October 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: From this, he's clearly aware of the rule.

Mamalockq has been persistently removing an answer to a question he perceives as a joke, while it happens to be a perfectly legitimate, if humorous, answer to the question. He has been doing this over the objections of at least two editors, including myself. Someguy1221 03:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Reference Desk is not a forum for users or anon IP editors to add photos and jokes into answer after answer. Reference Desk doesn't need to return to those good old days when legitimate questions were answered with four or five little inside jokes instead of helpful information. It was an embarrassment to Wikipedia, and Malamockq was well within policy to revert that edit. Krakatoa  Katie  13:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Dooyar reported by User:Wildhartlivie (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 06:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: (02:11, 25 October 2007)


 * 1st revert: 16:54, 24 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:37, 24 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 01:04, 25 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 02:11, 25 October 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: |Revision as of 02:01, 25 October 2007

Editor was the author of this section. It has been questioned regularly since it's addition for POV and arbitrarily setting up up contention between Joplin and others of that era. Good faith attempts have been made to improve the section in question and making it less POV. Dooyar is the author of the section who has reverted our attempts 4 times in a short period of time, after being warned about 3RR violation, he reverted 4th time. He has stated in edit summaries that he will stand his ground & not allow edits of section. Wildhartlivie 06:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * At first I protected the page, but I reconsidered after examining contribution histories of these editors. Dooyar clearly states his unwillingness to compromise not only on this article but on others he has edited. These edit wars must stop. - Krakatoa  Katie  12:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:162.84.187.178 reported by User:Gscshoyru (Result: 31 hours)
. : Time reported: 13:14, 25 October 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:

User (possibly an ip-sock) is repeatedly adding a fancrufty section against consensus -- the user seems to be the lone dissenter against a number of people, see the talk page. Gscshoyru 13:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I blocked the IP for 31 hours (I agree it's a sock of someone, too familiar with our Wiki-ways), and Akradecki semi-protected the page for a month. - Krakatoa Katie  13:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yane Sandanski
. : Time reported: 16:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:36, 27 September 2007
 * 1st revert: 09:20, 25 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15:18, 25 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:01, 25 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:28, 25 October 2007

The user is repeatedly inserting the category Macedonian revolutionaries (ethnic group) on a person who was not an ethnic Macedonian. ForeignerFromTheEast 16:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Dame Gruev
. : Time reported: 16:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:21, 6 October 2007
 * 1st revert: 12:10, 25 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15:17, 25 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:00, 25 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:34, 25 October 2007

Replacing of "Bulgarian revolutionary" with "Macedonian revolutionary" against sources. ForeignerFromTheEast 16:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Nikola Karev
. : Time reported: 16:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 06:42, 19 October 2007
 * 1st revert: 16:34, 25 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:00, 25 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:18, 25 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 13:07, 25 October 2007
 * 5th revert: 20:12, 25 October 2007

Replacing of "Bulgarian revolutionary" with "Macedonian revolutionary" against sources. ForeignerFromTheEast 16:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment No action taken yet, as user had not been warned. A warning has now been issued. TigerShark 21:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)