Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive59

User:JayKeaton reported by User:asams10 (Result: warning)
. : Time reported: 23:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 1641
 * 2nd revert: 1805
 * 3rd revert: 1824
 * 4th revert: 1836

Editor does not like the word "Trademark" and changed it back multiple times. Asams10 23:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * JayKeaton is in violation of 3RR; however, assuming good faith and judging from comments here, he has not received ample warning or does not understand the policy. I have left a notice on his talk page and will monitor the article and the user. Please also note that you are nearly in violation yourself, Asams10, and if you do exceed three reverts, you will be blocked as well. Also note: the last three diffs you've provided are the same; however, I presume you meant to provide this diff and this diff.  AmiDaniel (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

User:156.34.238.220 reported by User:Kameejl (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 11:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert:00:46, 23 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 10:02, 23 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:35, 23 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:23, 23 October 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 13:09, 26 October 2007 (although this user is not new)

The user uses diffenrent IPs to edit and engage in infobox edit wars breaking the 3RR rule on several articles. Thuis user needs a cool down period.

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wintersun&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biohazard_%28band%29&action=history Kameejl (Talk) 11:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Without further evidence that the IPs are the same person, there is no actionable violation. If you can adduce such evidence, please do so. If doing so please also explain whom we should block, as the likelihood is that the user, if it is the same person, would just switch to a further IP and continue. An alternative if the IP continues is to request semi-protection. Stifle (talk) 11:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm practically sure its the same user because:
 * Edits are done from related IPs (probably a school or company network)
 * Edit comments are practically the same
 * Same edits are being reverted over and over.


 * I would feel very sorry if this IP trick would work to game the system but i'll try to find some evidence and related IPs. Please take a look at the research part:

research:

Hypocrisy (band) article:


 * 1) (cur) (last) 00:10, 26 October 2007 156.34.238.220 (Talk) (4,795 bytes) (repair formatting + cleanup re: WP:FLAGCRUFT) (undo)


 * 1) (cur) (last) 20:23, 23 October 2007 156.34.237.194 (Talk) (4,795 bytes) (repair formatting as per Template:Infobox musical artist) (undo)


 * 1) (cur) (last) 19:35, 23 October 2007 156.34.237.194 (Talk) (4,795 bytes) (repair formatting) (undo)


 * 1) (cur) (last) 10:02, 23 October 2007 156.34.216.202 (Talk) (4,795 bytes) (repair formatting + cleanup re: WP:FLAGCRUFT) (undo)


 * 1) (cur) (last) 00:46, 23 October 2007 156.34.236.193 (Talk) (4,795 bytes) (repair formatting) (undo)

Wintersun article:


 * 1) (cur) (last) 20:23, 23 October 2007 156.34.237.194 (Talk) (3,670 bytes) (repair formatting as per Template:Infobox musical artist) (undo)


 * 1) (cur) (last) 19:35, 23 October 2007 156.34.237.194 (Talk) (3,670 bytes) (repair proper formatting) (undo)


 * 1) (cur) (last) 10:02, 23 October 2007 156.34.216.202 (Talk) (3,670 bytes) (repair formatting) (undo)


 * 1) (cur) (last) 00:44, 23 October 2007 156.34.236.193 (Talk) (3,670 bytes) (repair formatting) (undo)

Biohazard (band) article:


 * 1) (cur) (last)  05:37, 26 October 2007 156.34.214.123 (Talk) (17,633 bytes) (repair formatting) (undo)


 * 1) (cur) (last) 05:20, 26 October 2007 156.34.214.123 (Talk) (17,633 bytes) (repair formatting) (undo)


 * 1) (cur) (last) 04:53, 26 October 2007 156.34.214.123 (Talk) (17,633 bytes) (fmt.) (undo)


 * 1) (cur) (last) 01:05, 26 October 2007 156.34.238.220 (Talk) (17,633 bytes) (repair formatting) (undo)


 * 1) (cur) (last) 00:10, 26 October 2007 156.34.238.220 (Talk) (17,633 bytes) (repair formatting) (undo)

IP whois (http://ws.arin.net/whois/) tells us the IP range 156.34.0.0 - 156.34.255.255 is all from:

OrgName:   Bell Aliant

OrgID:     ALIANT

Address:   1 Brunswick Square

Address:   BS-6

City:      Saint John

The IPs used are:

156.34.238.220 contribs

156.34.237.194 contribs

156.34.236.193 contribs

156.34.216.202 contribs

156.34.214.123 contribs

It would be a strange coincidence if all these IPs were used by different people regarding the kind of edits (edit warring to enforce some lay out), similar hard rock-oriented contributions, edit comments, and related IPs (on 3 articles and 2 dates). I think this is enough evidence to assume this is just 1 user. I'm looking forward to see what's the next step. Kameejl (Talk) 15:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe these IPs are all one person trying to game the system. Given that the other side in the revert war - User:Scipo has also reverted a ridiculous number of times, I'm not going to block either. But I consider both Scipo and the dynamic IP to be on final warnings - any more of this petty edit warring and its enforced Wikibreaks all round... WjBscribe 17:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment This is quite obvious as I reported a similar IP just a minute ago for the exact same thing. In my opinion editing from unregistered users at those IP adresses should be blocked, maybe then the user would get an account and play by the rules.--E tac 23:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Dbachmann reported by User:Taharqa (Result: no violation)
. : Time reported: 14:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:14:28, 25 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 07:16, 26 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 10:45, 26 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 10:56, 26 October 2007

User is being very controlling in making drastic and controversial edits that lack consensus, including rearranging the entire format of the article. His first revert consists of him revising and re-formatting sections, for instance moving entire sections around like "Egyptian self-view, "Mummy reconstructions", and a couple of others. He was reverted, yet proceeded to edit war by violating 3rr and making the same revision 4 times and knows that we've been trying to limit edit wars, not to mention that he is an abusive senior member, abusing his seniority. All of these reverts are the same and he knows better not to engage in such disruptive behavior as well as violating 3rr..Taharqa 14:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, that is not a 3RR. They do not show that the person "set" a version and reverted back to that version every time. Even going by a loose definition, information was added during different stages. At most, there were two reverts based on the last two diffs provided. Wait a second, you copied and pasted the previous 3RR notice and left last two as diffs there. This should really be on the talk page and not here. Spryde 14:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean it should be on the talk page and not here? I am reporting a violation of the 3 revert rule within the par 24 hours and merely got the diffs wrong because I was using the preceding report before me as a model to copy and paste into, but somehow forgot a few and the times/links got messed up. I've edited it now and it reports properly, so check again. Though this would have been clear by just double checking yourself as well, which is why you were initially confused and I see how. My fault but it is a clear violation that I merely reported wrong at first by messing up the urls..Taharqa 15:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Now the diffs clearly show 3RR. Thanks! Spryde 16:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * First diff is not a revert or is a self-revert or is a revert without edit warring, therefore the report fails. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleemosynary reported by User:Sbowers3 (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 15:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:51, 24 October 2007

The specific reversions are deleting three lines:


 * 1st revert: 18:20, 24 October 2007 see bottom of diff
 * 2nd revert: 19:07, 24 October 2007 see bottom of diff
 * 3rd revert: 19:16, 24 October 2007 see bottom of diff
 * 4th revert: 19:20, 24 October 2007
 * 5th revert: 19:25, 24 October 2007 see bottom of diff
 * 6th revert: 15:31, 25 October 2007
 * 7th revert: 19:50, 25 October 2007
 * 8th revert: 01:37, 26 October 2007
 * 9th revert: 08:19, 26 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.

He is not a newer warning and is fully aware of 3RR but was warned anyway:
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:01, 24 October 2007

User justifies his reversions as removing POV, which only demonstrates his POV. He says he is reverting vandalism but he has been warned that his reversions do not qualify for the vandalism exception. Sbowers3 15:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the category tags are probably in appropriate, this seems like a pretty clear cut case violation by editor who has multiple blocks for WP:3RR and should know better by this point. Ronnotel 15:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

User:69.211.7.63 reported by User:Precious Roy (Result:semi-protected )
. : Time reported: 15:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:46, 23 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 00:54, 25 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 02:06, 25 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 11:59, 25 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:54, 25 October 2007
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 23:07, 25 October 2007
 * 5th revert: 05:25, 26 October 2007

Edit warring, after 4th revert and 3RR warning, anon waited long enough to avoid a further violation of 3RR in letter, if not in spirit. I have repeatedly tried to engage the anon in a dialog on the article's talk page (via edit summaries (x6) and comments left on IP's talk page (here and here). Anon continues to revert without comment. Precious Roy 15:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Addition: new revert from school state network (school, library, etc.) IP (both IPs are in Illinois) 16:38, 26 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Precious Roy (talk • contribs)
 * if the ip editor is hopping ips then semi-protection is a better option. I protected the page for 48 hours. Hopefully this will engender some discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 18:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Nishidani reported by User:Zeq (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 15:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:

5th revert (a full revert): 15:12, 26 October 2007

the other revertes are partial as they involve intemidiate edit by other users as well as many edits by User:Nishidani himself. This clouds the picture somewhat but since the 3RR policy speaks about "revert in whole or it part " - these are clearly reverts:

4th – restored material removed by this edit:

3rd: – restored material removed by this edit

2nd: - Restored a sentence (from Uri Avnery) that was removed by this edit:

1st: 11:13, 26 October 2007 - removed title (section header) that was added by this edit:

Note: User has been warned before few times (on her talk page) to avoid such 3RR violations.

reported by Zeq 15:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * added later: 6th revert: 16:13, 26 October 2007 - this was adding a paragraph which was removed by this edit: Zeq 16:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't think it occasioned a violation of the 3RR to try and stop a concerted attempt by two apparently coordinated editors, (one of whom formally and inexplicably denounced me for antisemitism elsewhere today because of his failure to understand nuanced English) to remove information doubly sourced to RS historians of world stature like Walter Laqueur and Benny Morris. I was labouring under the impression that I was countering vandalism to a specific passage that is grounded historically. The page in question is one I had over the last day substantially rewritten to conform to criteria of clarity of exposition, synthesis, and grammar, without a murmur of objection from one editor,Zeq, who appears to have a proprietorial attitude to that page, and use it to indict a people. But, rules are rules and thus, if the evidence above fits the case, and infringes on the proprieties, obviously I should wear the penalty. The integrity of that passage must be maintained, since it is not my opinion, but that of first-rate historians. And, I would have appreciated it had either of the two editors troubled themselves to notify me. Whatever the administrator decides is fine by me. I will add that I have, at the very outset of my wiki editing, violated the rule once, from ignorance. And that, on a successive occasion, when I believed I had violated the rule, I reported myself immediately. Regards Nishidani 17:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * I want to underline that what happens on the article about Haj amin al-Husseini sounds more like Nishidani protecting this "hot article" (the Mufti is highly controversed man in israeli historiography) and caring this does not become pov-ed rather than a real 3RR problem.
 * A tag requiring people NOT to modify the article before consensus and discussion the talk page has been put on it long time ago but unfortunately some people do not respect this recommandation.
 * It has been asked for 3 weeks to these editors to discuss before any change. Nishidani has just been trapped but his intentions are -I think- the right ones and he is known to be respectful of wikipedia principles.
 * (sorry if my English is not good).
 * Alithien 18:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue here is not the motives but the behaviour. User:Nishidani reverted 6 times in less than 24 hours. In fact he did so many edits, that it is possible that he revrted more and this is masked by some of his edits. Almost any change to the article that is not by him he is reverting.
 * As for the comment above about "the tag": Clearly User:Nishidani is making tens of edits to this article without reaching consensus. This is a tough article and it actually make sense to edit and see if the edit is accepted, but to revert endlessly - that is not accepted. Zeq 19:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. The 3RR violation is not in dispute. Please remember, Nishidani, that disagreements about content (even when you are think you are right because you use good sources) do not justify edit warring. Try using the methods listed at WP:DR next time. Sandstein 22:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Steven Andrew Miller reported by User:Thumperward (Result:Page protected)
. : Time reported: 19:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:27, 26 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 19:52, 26 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:01, 26 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:06, 26 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:15, 26 October 2007

Note: I've already requested full protection on the article (again) to calm this down. And this is the fifth 3RR report on this article on the current listings.

Contentious smears being reinserted for roughly the fiftieth time in as many months. Chris Cunningham 19:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Both parties violated WP:3RR. However, as the page is already protected I won't impose any blocks, this time. For the umpteenth time, please sort this out on the talk. Ronnotel 19:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Thumperward reported by User:Steven Andrew Miller (Result:Page protected)
. : Time reported: 19:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 13:12, October 26, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 13:58, October 26, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:03, October 26, 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:15, October 26, 2007

User continues to remove factual statements. Official Army investigation has shown matter to be fraud. User keeps reverting. &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Added: Thumperward seems to think his opinion is what makes some thing a "smear" Everything is documented and cited, but editor continues to ignore this. &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that the article was already locked at SAM's version, thanks to me having defused the edit war, when this report was made. This is an attempt to use 3RR as punishment. Chris Cunningham 19:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Article was protected before you asked for it. It is not punishment, but rather fact. You are the editor who attempted to revert the article to the previous state. If you look through the edit history you can see clearly that I am not the only editor reverting the removal of these items. &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * see above. Ronnotel 20:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

User:appletrees reported by User:Sennen_goroshi (Result: Closed)
. : Time reported: 16:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * note

I have cut and paste this report from an old verison as the original was removed by another user by accident

1st revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dano_%28Korean_festival%29&oldid=166717371

2nd revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dano_%28Korean_festival%29&oldid=166741997

3rd revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dano_%28Korean_festival%29&oldid=166753760

4th revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dano_%28Korean_festival%29&oldid=166763414

5th revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dano_%28Korean_festival%29&oldid=166766736

6th revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dano_%28Korean_festival%29&oldid=166767577

7th revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dano_%28Korean_festival%29&oldid=166771123

8th revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dano_%28Korean_festival%29&oldid=166774153

the above are either reverts or edits designed to perform the same/similar function as a revert

if the format of this complaint is not correct, please inform me of my error and i will try to submit it again. (my first 3rr report)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * It looks like the reverting is over (The last reverts were on the 24th). Hit bull, win steak is mediating now. Your report looks to contain the correct info. Spryde 16:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes the reverting is over, but this shows a blatant disregard of the 3RR and condones further abuse. this should be nipped in the bud, before it becomes a habit. as per the users comments on the 3rr board in the past, they are well aware of 3rrSennen goroshi 23:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It is free for any editors in Wiki to report a 3RR incident for pacification, however this report is obviously caused by Sennen goroshi's deep-rooted grudge against me. Before pleading against this accusation, I want to state why he did this.

When Melonbarmonster conflicted with Sennen goroshi and reported his 3RR violation caused by his POV motivation, I backed up Melonbarmonster due to Sennen goroshi's endless disruptive edits on Korean-related articles, such as  Korean cuisine, Korean eating "cute puppy flesh", Kim Ki-duk, Covering up the assassination of Empress Myeongseong, Calling Korean nationalist as murderer. Aside from these examples, I and many Koreans have been horribly insulted by Sennen goroshi's personal and racial slurs like, , , or even his DEATH CURSE, calling comfort women as Chon prostitute, and comparing his opponent with RAPIST'S CRIME, so he seemed to need a time to reflect on his conducts. At last, he got banned for 48 hours as the consequence of his behaviors. Even the administrator was strongly offended by his comment on rape which caused him to be block for more than 24 hours. . But far from reflecting his own faults, he blamed me for the result and made a mock of me again. 

Besides, both I and Sennen goroshi are participating in the Dokdo article which is listed as a lamest edit wars between Korea and Japan. Now Sennen goroshi has to deal with more than 3 people regarding the alphabetical order of the nations, , , so he wants to divert my attention from the article and work off his grudge. He even stalks me as follows my contribution history. Special:Contributions/Sennen_goroshi,. If the term 'recent incident' includes the past 1 or 2 month, I want to add his other violations on 3RR here. In the below cases, none reported his breaking the 3RR rule at that times, and he rather already forgot what he has done in Wiki. If my question is valid, I will report his violations in a formal way.

User:Sennen goroshi reported by User:Appletrees


 * An Jung-geun :Previous version


 * 1st revert 19:00, 2 September 2007
 * 2nd revert 04:37, 3 September 2007
 * 3rd revert 04:56, 3 September 2007
 * 4th revert 15:14, 3 September 2007
 * 5th revert 15:45, 3 September 2007
 * 6th revert 17:44, 3 September 2007

Comfort women
 * 1st revert 19:13, 2 October 2007
 * 2nd revert 04:41, 3 October 2007
 * 3rd revert 04:50, 3 October 2007

These evidences show Sennen goroshi's blatant disregard of the 3RR and condones further abuse. Administrators could consider to block him again because of his habit of violating the 3RR rule and personal attacks.

Back to the Dano (Korean festival) case, I and James collins123 are still discussing the matter under the arbitration of Hit bull, win steak. If Sennen goroshi really has a good faith for pacification or does justice to this case, he might've mediated in the edit wars or reported both of us. Violating the 3RR rule is not solely done myself. Both James collins123 and I were violating the rule. However, all things taken together, we can clearly see Sennen goroshi's ulterior motive: revenge.

The 1st, 2nd and 3rd reverts of which Sennen goroshi has accused can not count in this case because James collins123 (217.155.116.101, prior to registering in wiki) added a claim with providing no citation, so that I removed it which is considered reasonable reverting. . The summary comment of mine "don't delete without any explanation" was an inadvertent mistake because at the same time, 217.155.116.101 removed the cited sentence on the Ssireum article without any explanation.

After he brought up a reference on the Dano, I elaborated on the citation cling to the contents. Therefore, the edit wars was firstly begun by James collins123 15:06, 24 October 2007

In addition, the above 6th revert is not correct, because I didn't revert James collins123 's edit but did subtracted the duplicated word from my own prior edit. . However, Sennen goroshi intentionally included it in the count to look as if  more reverts happened. If I strictly follow Sennen goroshi's own rule, James collins123 reverted 12 times! (see below)


 * 1st revert 08:37, 24 October 2007
 * 2nd revert 13:25, 24 October 2007
 * 3rd revert 13:54, 24 October 2007
 * 4th revert 15:06, 24 October 2007
 * 5th revert 15:07, 24 October 2007
 * 6th revert 15:47, 24 October 2007
 * 7th revert 15:48, 24 October 2007
 * 8th revert 15:49, 24 October 2007
 * 9th revert 16:03, 24 October 2007
 * 10th revert 16:05, 24 October 2007
 * 11th revert 16:19, 24 October 2007
 * 12th revert 16:22, 24 October 2007

James collins123 and I both are guilty of violating the rule, so later this accusation from the third person with grudge is not equally applied. I've been contributing to Wiki by updating, linking, uploading images and creating new articles but edit warring or disputing are not my primary concern unlike Sennen goroshi. He has consistently deferring and making others upset for his own sake. I've never seen him contributing something unless warring with anybody on hot-heated articless.

Anyway, with the sincere aid of Hit bull, win steak, both are discussing peacefully and willing to cooperate each other. But I want to ask something. If the report turns out a false accusation or covering up one side, how things go to the reporter? --Appletrees 04:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The purpose of 3RR blocks is to prevent further sterile edit warring. As Hb,ws is mediating and the edit war seems to have stopped, I will not take any further action, but if it restarts, then Bad Things ™ will happen. Please let me or WP:RFPP know if protection is required. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

User:69.150.64.88 reported by User:dicklyon (Result: 24 h)
. : Time reported: 05:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:47, 26 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 20:57, 26 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:00, 26 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:04, 26 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:11, 26 October 2007
 * 5th revert: 21:21, 26 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: 21:11, 26 October 2007

Anon IP user keeps adding "JR,s Bratwurst" in list of attractions; I'm unable to verify even the existence of any such place, wrongly punctuated or otherwise, but even if it exists it's spam. Dicklyon 05:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked 24 h. Sandstein 09:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

User:appletrees reported by User:Sennen_goroshi (Result: Blocked, 20 hours)
. : Time reported: 14:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

I apologise for making another report regarding this user within such a short time-span, but this seems to be totally against wikipedia's spirit, waiting until the 24hours was up by a whole 7 minutes and then making the 4th revert. (not only making the 4th revert, but in the edit summary, warning me about 3RR)

The first edit was not strictly speaking a revert, however it was the removal of the term "Imperial" so it still falls within the scope of the 3RR - the next 3 edits were reverts, possibly not using the undo function, but still reverts.

The fact that the 3RR was mentioned in his edit summary and that the 4th edit was made 7 minutes outside of the 24hr time -span, shows an intent to game  the system. In addition to this, the user had just been the subject of a 3RR report, and did not receive a ban, due to an editor trying to mediate, rather than push for a ban.


 * 1st 13:34, 26 October 2007
 * 2nd 16:47, 26 October 2007
 * 3rd 18:38, 26 October 2007
 * 4th 13:41, 27 October 2007


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * ✅ – the obvious gaming of the system, as you've mentioned in your report, demonstrates an inherently negative attitude. Blocked, for 20 hours. Anthøny  15:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Bmg916 reported by User:SpeedyC1 (Result: No violation)
. . Time reported: 16:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Three-revert rule violation on

This user has vandalizing the Kristal Marshall page frequently. This user has putting up information that they can not back up at all. This user is stubborn and will not listen. here are the edits that the user has made to the Kristal Marshall page.


 * 1st 15:59, 25 October 2007
 * 2nd 03:43, 26 October 2007
 * 3rd 13:58, 26 October 2007
 * 4th01:31, 27 October 2007


 * ❌ – the four links you have provided span over several days, and therefore the edits are not covered by 3RR. However, I suspect you are looking for the vandalism noticeboard, per your statement above ("...this user is vandalising the article..."). Anthøny  16:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Gscshoyru reported by User:AstroVetro (Result: No Violation)
. . Time reported: 19:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC) This user has moved four requests for help on an another users page within a 24 hour period (actually within a 20 minute period). The majority of the users edits are reverts (he abuses WP:TW and was once blocked for being considered a vandalism only account). User was warned but persisted and continues to revert many articles over Wikipedia in general.
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * 1st 18:48, 27 October 2007
 * 2nd 18:50, 27 October 2007
 * 3rd 18:54, 27 October 2007
 * 4th 18:55, 27 October 2007 - AstroVetro 19:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr Z-man is an admin and quite capable of dealing with disruption on their own user page. The reverted edits appear to be from a sockpuppet of a blocked user editing in contravention of their block. That's allowed under the 3RR and no violation has therefore taken place. Spartaz Humbug! 19:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

User:70.232.93.130 reported by User:HelloAnnyong (Result: page protected )
. : Time reported: 21:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:02, 27 October 2007 (and other versions before this)


 * 1st revert: 21:02, 27 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:48, 27 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:55, 27 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 22:14, 26 October 2007
 * 5th revert: 21:52, 27 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: 21:02, 27 October 2007

User has been removing disputed tags and adding unsourced content, all while being openly hostile in the talk section. I just started paying attention on this page (I saw it listed on 3O) but the two users are in a heavy debate. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t &#183; c ] 21:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Page protected. Krakatoa  Katie  10:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

User:207.69.137.7 reported by User:MalikCarr (Result: page protected)
. : Time reported: 22:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:14, 27 October 2007

Etc...
 * 1st revert: 22:14, 27 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:52, 27 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:51, 27 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:50, 27 OCtober 2007
 * 5th revert: 21:24, 27 October 2007 (note accusation of 3RR violation by editor in question)
 * 6th revert: 19:53, 27 October 2007
 * 7th revert: 18:37, 27 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: 22:16, 27 October 2007

Anonymous IP address has emerged and begun systematic revert campaign of questionable merit. 3RR warning issued and ignored. MalikCarr 22:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum: As the current edit war is spreading, may I recommend reverting to the last accepted version (as indicated here) and protecting the page once again? It worked well last time - no edit war for almost a month. MalikCarr 22:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: User:207.69.137.42 appears to be the same as the above noted IP address judging on activities on the article in question. Jtrainor 14:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Page protected by Anonymous Dissident. Krakatoa  Katie  12:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Good friend100 reported by User:Komdori (Result: 5 day block, sent to ANI)
. : Time reported: 23:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1RR parole violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:43, 25 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 00:39, 27 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 01:45, 27 October 2007


 * 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 (which is now closed). Fresh off a weeklong block for violating the 1RR before.  I don't know exactly what he and the anon are revert warring about, but it's troubling that after so many warnings he continues to keep hitting "undo" with no discussion.


 * No Violation. Different reverts. Spartaz Humbug! 09:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I'd forgot to fill in the form here. Spartaz, I've already enacted a block for a 1RR violation (see the links in statement). Anthøny  09:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's precisely;y why its so important to leave a comment when you have dealt with a report. When I checked the user's talk you hadn't left a note there either. Have you now done this? I didn't see 2 reverts. Have I made a mistake or are they different? If a block is appropriate please make it an indef one. Spartaz Humbug! 09:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've already apologised for not leaving a comment - we all do it once in a while, thanks very much. Incidentally, I had left a comment: see here; the reason I did not make the block indefinite is that the 1RR is no longer in place (although it was at the time of the offence), in that the RfArb has been closed. Anthøny  10:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I should have given more detail perhaps. I think there are two different reverts here (on the same article), but that it still broke the 1RR (per the line on the 3RR page that says, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." It might be "different material," but he was reverting another user's edit, and didn't even try to find a middle ground, not even leaving a comment as to why it was evidently unacceptable to him. As for the arbitration, that ended days ago. It was my impression that the 1RR would last beyond the end of that--since it was a courtesy to edit during the arbitration, I suppose someone could just reinstate the block when it was done, but that seems a bit harsh if the editor was editing according to norms. Unfortunately, as this is the second incident (the previous one where he was blocked last week was much worse), this doesn't seem to be the case. --Cheers, Komdori 13:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the question boils down to, should we allow the user to re-edit, or should be fully re-instate the indef. block, which was only lifted for a now-complete RfArb? Personally, I think the latter is in order - I don't see any constructive contributions to date, and even if the single reverts were permitted, they don't exactly convey a perfect attitude, do they? However, I think we should bring Spartaz back in on this one... Anthøny  13:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we need wider consensus on this. The 1RR was still extant in my mind and had I considered that Good friend had breached it, I would have indef myself. However, there seems to have been some doubt about whether the 1RR still applied and all in all, I think that we should run this past ANI. I also agree that this user seems incapable of learning to comply with our editing standards. Spartaz Humbug! 16:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Now at ANI Spartaz Humbug! 18:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Dicklyon reported by User:Geoeg (Result: 24 hours for Dicklyon and 48 hours for Geoeg )
. : Time reported: 19:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:58, 28 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 16:58, 28 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:49, 28 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:33, 28 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:24, 28 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: 16:52, 28 October 2007

This user engages in edit wars, sets block traps while misusing WP regulations, is ignorant in the article subject matter (my article has been featured on WP main page) and has a history of edit wars with many editors. He keeps pushing his POV on "sinusoids" being the keyword for the article I wrote, but he can not back it up with scientific references on the article method. On the other hand, I stated two references on the method that use more general "trigonometric functions" instead of sinusoids, but he keeps replacing them with references related to a completely different method (Fourier analysis). Note his 3RR violations also happened with other parts of the article but I am just filing one report. Please see my Talk for the complete list of all of his violations (bolded items at the bottom, separate section). Geoeg 19:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 24 Hours. Spartaz Humbug! 20:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 48 hours for Geoeg. 24 for his part in the edit war and another 24 for the personal attack and abuse directed at Dicklyon on his (geoeg's) user page. Both of you are prolific contributors. Please make this your last blocks by seeking mediation or an rfc t sort out your differences. Spartaz Humbug! 20:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * These names are coming up with increasing frequency - either or both of you are liable to get a significant block if you come up here again. Stifle (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Davkal reported by User:Baegis (Result: page protected)
. : Time reported: 21:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:11, 28 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 15:35, 28 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:59, 28 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:45, 28 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:06, 28 October 2007
 * Possible 5th 21:13, 28 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:

There has been an ongoing discussion on this page between a group of users. 3 editors were contending that a book that has long since been used for this particular list. Davkal kept re-adding irrelevant commentary about one topic after it was established on the talk page that the commentary wasn't relevant in regards to the list. After his 2nd revert, he was warned by OrangeMarlin that he was approaching the 3RR limit. He deleted the warning and then accused me of being a sockpuppet of ScienceApologist on OrangeMarlin's user page. He then began to insert a disputed tag onto the article, which I reverted twice. With regards to the 5th edit, a user who had only once visited the page came in and undid my revision, possibly to try to save Davkal from an obvious 3RR. Davkal has an extensive history of 3RR and has also been quite uncivil during the entire talk page discussion. Baegis 21:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Page protected for two weeks – the diffs aren't technically a 3RR violation, but it's clear the article is a free-for-all right now. Krakatoa  Katie  11:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

User:DreamStar05 reported by User:Nikki311 (Result: 31 hours )
. : Time reported: 00:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:30, October 28, 2007


 * 1st revert: 19:41, October 28, 2007-19:45, October 28, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:00, October 28, 2007-20:06, October 28, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:16, October 28, 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:19, October 28, 2007-20:19, October 28, 2007
 * 5th revert: 20:21, October 28, 2007-20:22, October 28, 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: 20:18, October 28, 2007

This user originally created an article at both Brooke Gilbertsen and Brooke Gilbertson, both of which I tagged for speedy deletion as they did not establish notability and have already been deleted several times for that reason. WP:PW has already decided that being in the Search alone is not enough to establish notability. After removing the tag from one, despite being the original author, I left a message on their talk page explaining about the hang on tag. In response, they added all the information about Gilbertson to WWE Diva Search, even though the article is about the Search itself, and not about the contestants (none of the other contestants have short bios). I left the warning about 3RR after the third revert, and they reverted twice after that. Nikki311 00:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * DreamStar05 blocked for 31 hours. Krakatoa  Katie  12:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

User:DemolitionMan reported by User:Josquius (Result:1 week)
. : Time reported: 14:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:33, 26 October 2007


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 17:24, 28 October 2007[
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 03:24, 29 October 2007[
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 05:16, 29 October 2007
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 06:54, 29 October 2007
 * 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_Rebellion_of_1857&diff=167832950&oldid=167811986 Revision as of 10:10, 29 October 2007]
 * 6th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_Rebellion_of_1857&diff=167832950&oldid=167819714 Revision as of 11:29, 29 October 2007]

DemolitionMan is determined to push a Hindu nationalist POV on this article against all attempts to establish NPOV- which he insists is a British POV. The aim of his constant reverts is the infobox where he insisted on calling the Indian rebels freedom fighters and calling the war the Indian war of independance. After exact rules detailing freedom fighter being unacceptable language were shown to him he decided he was compromising by saying patriot instead despite the meaning being very similar and even more inaccurate to the subject matter. Dispute resolution has been tried- but when the mediator leaned my way he decided to ignore it. This isn't the first time he's broke the 3RR recently, just the first I've reported it, earlier incidents can be spotted easily over the past week. Additionally he was kicked for using a sock to break the rule earlier in the month and is consistanly rude to those who disagree with him. Josquius 14:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * User has history of persistent POV pushing including use of sock puppets. Ronnotel 14:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

User:M5891 reported by User:DCGeist (Result: No action)
. : Time reported: 16:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 12:20, October 29, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:26, October 29, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:33, October 29, 2007
 * 4th revert: 12:38, October 29, 2007


 * Diff of vandal-2 warning: 12:34, October 29, 2007
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:38, October 29, 2007
 * Diff of vandal-3 warning (post–4th revert): 12:39, October 29, 2007

User has edit warred on this topic on several occasions in the past. User never provides edit summaries and has not participated in Talk section recently initiated to address matter (Talk:United States).DCGeist 16:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence that the user was previously warned for 3RR, or that they have continued to revert after the warning was given. I'll certainly block if I see continued reversion. --John 17:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Bmg916 reported by User:SpeedyC1 (Result:page protected )
. . Time reported: 17:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)).
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st 13:45, 29 October 2007
 * 2nd 13:51, 29 October 2007
 * 3rd 13:58, 29 October 2007
 * 4th 14:33, 29 October 2007
 * 5th 16:40, 29 October 2007

This user has vandalizing the World Wrestling Entertainment roster page frequently.5 times in 3 hours. Above are the edits that the user has made to the World Wrestling Entertainment roster page.SpeedyC1 18:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Speedy has also violated the 3 revert rule,and refuses to compromise and is repeatedly inserting wrong information. All the Wrestling Websites out there (as well as her official website have confirmed Kristal Marshall's release and Speedy is refusing to acknowledge this. While I admit to violating the 3RR and regret doing so, I would like the reviewing admin to please take note of these facts. I also don't appreciate Speedy calling my good faith edits vandalism. Thank you. Bmg 916 Speak 18:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please not also tha kristal does't have an official websit. It is just some fan claiming that he knows her.SpeedyC1 18:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the legal disclaimer, it's her official site... Bmg 916 Speak 18:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * please find consensus on the talk page. page protected for 3 days. Spartaz Humbug! 18:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

User:156.34.221.137 reported by User:E tac (Result:24 hours and see E tac below)

 * 1st revert: 22:53, 29 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:58, 29 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:02, 29 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 23:04, 29 October 2007

User is stepping out of bounds, claiming something is a concensus, which it clearly is not as I have cjecked the template talk page and tried directing the user to it and he is not responding. E tac 23:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Edits are to maintain the formatting as it is clearly shown in the Mariah Carey example which appears on the Template:Infobox musical artist page. A clea edit summary pointing to this has been given with each edit., however has not provided any valid reason for reversion... other than to simply revert for his own pleasure. Mr. E Tac has violated 3RR on numerous article in the past hour. 156.34.221.137 23:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No I never went over 3 reverts, so you are wrong there. Also I pointed you to the talk page on the template, there is very little disscusion on the topic and NONE OF IT supports what you are claiming to be the concensus. I am not doing it for my editing pleasue but because it makes the infobox much neater and easier to read. Perhaps it is you doing it for pleasure as your claim that it is a growing concensus is ridiculous. Growing amongst who? you? Where is your proof that this in concensus, the template talk page shows quite the contrary.--E tac 23:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Also I find it funny you posting a warning on my talk page saying I have violated policy and need to use the talk page. I never went over 3 reverts and I added a comment on the topic to what little was on the talk page for the template you keep citing, where is your disscusion by the way since you seem to feel that you need to warn me? You made more reverts then me, not to mention you already were reported for this same thing earlier today.--E tac 23:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Knock it off, both of you. Revert warring over whether to change a comma to a line break in an infobox is just silly. Sam Blacketer 09:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not the one claiming it is "concensus" and changing it on every article I can despite the fact that it looks like garbage so don't tell me to knock it off because I'm not the one instigating it and trying to pass it off as policy.--E tac 21:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You didn't knock it off. Bad move, that's 24 hours for both E tac and 156.34.221.137. I am confident that all the 156.34s that edit heavy metal groups are the same user or group of users and the revert limit should apply to them all. Sam Blacketer 22:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

User:172.163.240.204 reported by User:Chubbles (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 23:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:31PM


 * 1st revert: 16:05PM
 * 2nd revert: 16:44PM
 * 3rd revert: 17:17 PM
 * 4th revert: 17:49PM


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:30PM

User posted some information about the band's charity work, along with this comment: One Middleburg man who went to Middleburg High School with Ronnie Winter, Michael Flamino, is trying to gain publicity by starting a "F**k Ronnie" slogan with his fledgling band, despite the Red Jumpsuit Apparatus' good works in fundraising for above said causes. I reverted wholesale. User restored, and I did a partial revert, keeping the bit about the charity work but removing the axegrinding. Two more reverts and here we are. Chubbles 23:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No violation, because the anon has an edit and three reverts. I'm inclined to regard the addition as an unsourced WP:BLP violation and so I will remove it. Sam Blacketer 10:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Naiseroder reported by User:Atari400 (Result:Warned)
. : Time reported: 08:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:04, 21 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 14:44, 29 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 02:32, 30 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 06:31, 30 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 06:46, 30 October 2007

User Naiseroder continues to revert to an earlier version of this article without discussion. This earlier version of that article contains an image uploaded and inserted into the article by User Naiseroder. That image itself is very unencyclopedic in nature and a POV violation in content. In the process of trying to maintain the image's place within the article, User Naiseroder violated 3rr by committing 4 reverts in a 24 hour period. Atari400 08:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Naiseroder is a very new user, appears to be editing in good faith and was not warned or informed about the three revert rule. I will give a warning; can you please try to communicate to users and engage them in discussion rather than reporting here as your first stop? Sam Blacketer 10:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your rationale, even though I do question how new this user is. After all, how many new users commit there very first edit with an image creation and upload? Atari400 20:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

User:E tac reported by User:142.166.239.237 (Result:24 hours concurrent)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 22:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:38, 29 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 22:57, 29 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:00, 29 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:03, 29 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:29, 30 October 2007

Comment User User was issued a warning for edit warring but later blanked the warning from his/her talk page. 142.166.239.237 22:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This user didn't take the good advice to let this issue go and gets a 24 hour concurrent block for this and the violation below. Sam Blacketer 22:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

User:E tac reported by User:142.166.239.237 (Result:24 hours concurrent)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 22:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:49, 29 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 22:55, 29 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:02, 29 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:03, 29 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:27, 30 October 2007

Comment User User was issued a warning for edit warring but later blanked the warning from his/her talk page. 142.166.239.237 22:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 24 hours concurrent block; see above. Sam Blacketer 22:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

User:207.219.255.27 reported by User:Edgarde (Result: Resolved elsewhere)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 23:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 2007-10-30T15:55:41, 2007-10-29T21:54:21


 * 1st revert: 2007-10-30T22:02:33
 * 2nd revert: 2007-10-30T22:17:32
 * 3rd revert: 2007-10-30T22:23:13
 * 4th revert: 2007-10-30T23:07:02
 * 5th revert: 2007-10-30T23:24:45


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

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 2007-10-30T23:22:27

IP user is revert warring to add anti-abortion page to External links. Talk page discussion considers link a POV smear site (defamatory in a bio article, albeit not a living person). 207.219.255.27 prefers to make points via ad hominem attacks. edg ☺ ★ 23:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is resolved thru other admin intervention. / edg ☺ ★ 00:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Travb and User:129.71.73.248 reported by LotLE × talk (Result:24 for both)
. and : Time reported: 00:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th:
 * 6th:
 * 7th:
 * 8th:
 * 9th:
 * 10th:
 * 11th:
 * 12th:
 * 13th:
 * 14th:
 * 15th:
 * 16th:
 * 17th:
 * 18th:
 * 19th:
 * 20th:
 * 21st:
 * 22nd:
 * 23rd:
 * 24th:

Users Travb and 129.71.73.248 have engaged in a slow, but constant revert war at Guenter Lewy over a rather trivial matter of choice of section titles. Apparently, these two users of a history of edit conflicts, and at this point, the reversions are simple one-upsmanship rather than representing any actual content disagreement at all.

The last two dozen edits have consisted primarily of this trivial dispute. I asked the parties to discuss the matter on the article talk page, and they both carried it over to my user talk page (for no obvious reason). Both parties are engaging in this reversion just slowly enough to escape the letter of 3RR (i.e. ending at exactly 3 reversions each day), but doing the same thing every day in obvious violation of the spirit of the rule. LotLE × talk 00:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Blech on a stick. Well, I can only admire your diligence in making such a long report. I've blocked both for 24 hours for clear edit warring. 3RR is not an entitlement to three reverts per day. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Warren reported by User:Tqbf (Result: Resolved amicably)
. : Time reported: 01:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

I agree with User:Warren's POV on these edits, regarding critiques of the OS X Leopard operating system in the press. I made a good faith effort to rewrite the section to reflect Warren's view of the critiques, which I share, and which is probably the majority view. Warren has decided that any critique that involves a "third party" or a "forum post" of any sort cannot remain in the article. These are drastic edits, and are rejecting solid work by other editors in favor of no alternative content. --- tqbf 01:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * These are not reverts of the same thing. Besides, Warren is reverting unsourced, unverified, and often unreliable sources.  In any case, different reverts of different POV edits.  This is a ridiculous ANI.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 01:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if they are reverts of the same thing, 3RR specifically states "whether involving the same or different material each time." As far as reverting unsourced, etc., that exception to 3RR only applies to BLP.  I can see where he's coming from, and agree with some of what he is doing, but he is clearly violating 3RR; he also just did a 5th revert over 3 posts .  V-train 01:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not my read of WP:3RR, which states "whether involving the same or different material each time", and makes an exception for "unsourced" material only for WP:BLP, not for POV disputes on inanimate objects. But if I'm wrong, I'll have learned something from this, so thanks! --- tqbf  01:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently in my 10,000 or so edits I somehow forgot to read these things. Damn.  I guess I'm a noob.  Sorry, but Warren is an outstanding editor.  His reverts are of various, unsourced POV edits.  That's allowed.  Give me a break lecturing me ever again about what is said in Wikipedia.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 01:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Both myself and V-train have said repeatedly that we agree with the substance of Warren's problem. Please don't refer to me as a "POV-warrior". WP:AGF. Reverts weren't the right way to accomplish Warren's objective; he's essentially reverting NEWS.COM out an article on an OS. --- tqbf  01:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Damn, once again you're trying to teaching me Wiki-lawyering. Cool, because apparently in 10,000 edits, a few GA's and FA', tons of vandal fighting, I somehow forgot how to read.  I guess my BS, MBA, MS and MD degrees were purchased online.  You got me there bud.  Oh, one more thing. Usually the person who feigns being violated by AGF is the one whose usually violates AGF.  Just thought you should know.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 01:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you please try to be civil? V-train 01:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note to whomever, the issue's been resolved via talk pages, and editing is moving forwards. -/- Warren 02:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If, after I spent 45 minutes dredging up cites from 9 major trade press venues, my edits are not reverted by this user, I'll agree, noting that I perceive that the 3RR noticeboard posting helped end the edit war. --- tqbf  02:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, this filing had absolutely nothing to do with it. The fact that you stopped trying to use sources that are unsuitable for Wikipedia made all the difference. -/- Warren 07:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Ssbohio reported by User:SqueakBox (Result: Page Protected)
. : Time reported: 05:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 02:20, 31 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 02:42, 31 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 02:49, 31 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 04:47, 31 October 2007

A user of 2 years experience and many edits so he clearly knows about 3rr, SqueakBox 05:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec) My record speaks for itself. I do not use the revert function lightly or indiscriminately.  This was not editing the article, this was replacing the article with a redirect.  SqueakBox attempted to delete this article at [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex|AFD]], then challenged the result at DRV, where he did not prevail.  Undeterred, he did some more forum shopping, held an artificially short discussion, and deleted the article, replacing it with a redirect as he originally wanted to.


 * My normal procedure is to use the one-revert rule, but, in this case, an experienced editor was deleting content that the community had determined (a few days before) there was no consensus to delete. I placed a notice at the administrators' noticeboard and reverted to preserve content where there was no consensus to delete demonstrated.  He's tried to delete the article,  or replace it with a redirect , , ,   multiple times.  In this situation, SqueakBox deleted the article as shown above, then reverted my restoration once & twice, then Thebainer came in for the third deletion.  The page finally required protection.  If there's no consensus to delete the page, and that lack of consensus is confirmed by a deletion review, then gaming the system by blanking the page and putting up a redirect is no more supported by consensus than deletion was.  --Ssbohio 06:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This case is messy... Article was AFD'd (no consensus defaulting to keep), followed by a DRV (endorse the keep), and then was redirected less than 24 hours since a merge call was asked on the talk page. I've page-protected this for a week so discussions can take place. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 06:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I think that kind of circuit breaker is what's needed more than anything else. --Ssbohio 06:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There was certainly not either deletion or gaming the system, please stop attacking all those editors who think differently to you, SqueakBox 06:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Move along; this noticeboard isn't a place to extend your discussion to. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 06:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Haleth reported by User:Aladdin_Zane (Result:Warned)
. : Time reported: 13:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: |08:04, 28 October 2007 Haleth


 * 1st revert: |01:44, 30 October 2007 Haleth
 * 2nd revert: |16:47, 30 October 2007 Haleth
 * 3rd revert: |16:56, 30 October 2007 Haleth
 * 4th revert: |17:08, 30 October 2007 Haleth

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:

Haleth kept inserting material that was uncited me, and Nikki311 told him not to do it. During this he went to my talk page and used severe vulgarity towards me. Since this time he has also been reported as a sock puppet. By me and Nikki311 she mentioned on Stacy Carter talk page for him to be reported so I did. with plenty of evidence gathered. Another of the sock puppets was used on Stacy carter page today to partially revert what was being disputed yesterday, now making 5 reverts in 24 hours.Aladdin Zane 13:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Haleth did violate the three revert rule but has not edited for 24 hours and did not edit after being notified. I don't think a block would be merited but I am going to give a warning. Sam Blacketer 16:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually he has editted in the past 24 hours, He was just using a sock puppet as noted here Aladdin Zane 17:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That is unproved as yet. Sam Blacketer 17:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know it is still waiting review, there are a few other ahead of it. But once you go over the evidence there is no doubt it is the same person. BTW I'm not disagreeing with the warning, as he hasn't had one before. Just pointing out that he progressed to Sock puppetry after I warned him, instead of using Haleth a 5th time. Thanks for checking into thingsAladdin Zane 17:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

User:70.116.31.203 reported by User:Ultraexactzz (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 16:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:10


 * 1st revert: 08:49
 * 2nd revert: 09:46
 * 3rd revert: 10:06
 * 4th revert: 10:12

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: 10:11

Anon user began to place CSD tags on multiple webcomic articles, including Salamander Sam, Shonen Punk!, Pandect, Dresden Codak, and at least two dozen others. The claimed CSD reasoning was WP:CSD, which claims no assertion of notability. The tag was reverted. , as Salamander Sam does indeed claim notability. The user repeatedly reverted the removal, rather than initiating an Afd process or discussing the issue on the article's talk page. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also see ,, and Spryde 14:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as how salamander sam claims notability? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * not the issue. This is a violation of process, not a content based conflict. --Martin Wisse 14:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also up to 4 reverts on Perfect Storm (comic).   .  Ariel  ♥  Gold  14:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct, Salamander Sam does not claim notability as such, and I struck that part of my report. However, per WP:CSD: Any user who is not the creator of a page may remove a speedy tag from it. The creator may not do this; a creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead add "hangon" to the page, and explain the rationale on the page's discussion page. An article where the CSD tag is removed may still be nominated for deletion via AFD. The procedural violations here are the repeated reversion of the disputed CSD tag. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked 24 hours by Isotope23. Sam Blacketer 17:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Dbachmann reported by User:Taharqa (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 16:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 17:39, 30 October 2007

First of an initial series of edits/reverts that disrupted the page at the expense of consensus, moving around the format, subsequent edits reworded and changed material, but this was the initial revert.


 * 2nd revert: 09:15, 31 October 2007

^^Same, simply reverting back to his revision


 * 3rd revert: 12:44, 31 October 2007

^^Same

13:42, 31 October 2007
 * 4th revert:

^^Same

The main problem I have is that this user was just recently reported for this exact same violation, yet it was ignored and he continues to violate and edit war with everybody.

^These are clear violations, though curiously, other have been blocked for much less concerning that page as it is a very very contentious page. Several users have complained about him and his lack of professionalism as a supposed senior member. He continues to edit war, and then takes it to people's talk pages to personally attack, while imposing his pov and unjustifiably threatening sanction because no one agrees with it. Beyond abusive and immature. He has also been warned on his talk page, and there are other misallaneous complaint about his abusive behavior as well. In any event, this all boils down to this one case that I'm reporting though which demonstrates that h's clearly violated policy ad 3RR..Taharqa 16:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Calling someone trolling, as well as using admin rollback in a revert war, makes me wonder. For that... 24h. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 20:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Rimerimea reported by User:SparsityProblem (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 01:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:07, 1 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 00:17, 1 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:34, 1 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 01:00, 1 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 01:01, 1 November 2007

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 00:25, 1 November 2007

User reverted edits to article multiple times, and has been given ample warning. I explained that YouTube was not a reliable source, but user continues to restore some dubious claims with a YouTube link as the only source, despite being reverted by the bot that reverts such links. SparsityProblem 01:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Clear case; reverting many times, not just to add the problem YouTube link, and after being warned and given helpful advice. This user, although new, was being disruptive and so I have blocked for 24 hours. Sam Blacketer 09:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User:219.90.242.174 reported by User:Irishguy (Result:Page protected; 31 hours)
. : Time reported: 02:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Also using 122.49.166.14. Harassing other editors while edit warring. IrishGuy talk 02:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Irishguy vandalised that article repeatedly, and refused to answer questions as to why, or use the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.167.51 (talk • contribs)


 * The page has been protected; otherwise I would have blocked both anon IPs for 24 hours. I will check for disruption on other articles. Sam Blacketer 09:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * After considering the user's switch of IP addresses and aggressive talk page comments I have made it 31 hours for each IP. Sam Blacketer 09:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Gscshoyru reported by User:219.90.167.51 (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 02:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

The reverts are removing information that has a valid source. Refusing to provide a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.167.51 (talk • contribs)


 * You have not provided diffs, so this report is malformed. But, I have only made three, so am not in violation of the rule, and you, on the other hand, have -- see above report. Gscshoyru 03:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No violation; the page has been protected. Clear malformed tit for tat report after the anon was reported above. Sam Blacketer 09:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User:GB-UK-BI reported by User:TheGerm (Result:Indefinite)
. : Time reported: 02:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 23:00
 * 2nd revert: 05:25
 * 3rd revert: 19:44
 * 4th revert: 20:42

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: 19:10

It looks like User:GB-UK-BI is changing ID often and has been blocked on other IP addresses... Read comments from User:Noclador on User talk:GB-UK-BI Germ 02:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of Gon4z (by MastCell). Sam Blacketer 09:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Sfacets reported by User:Will Beback (Result:No action)
. : Time reported: 04:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:15, October 31, 2007


 * 1st revert: 02:40, October 31, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 04:55, October 31, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:59, October 31, 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:07, October 31, 2007
 * 18:33, October 31, 2007
 * 18:37, October 31, 2007
 * 18:39, October 31, 2007
 * 18:50, October 31, 2007
 * 18:55, October 31, 2007
 * 01:30, November 1, 2007
 * 02:27, November 1, 2007
 * 02:30, November 1, 2007

I have reverted the edits mentionned. Feel free to mention if I missed any and I will fix them. Thx. S facets 04:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ihe user has been blocked three times for 3RR previously. I warned the user that he was over the revert limit and he expressed surprise. He may have undone some of his reverts.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, while engaging in the above reverts, the user gave a 3RR warning to a new user.18:55, October 31, 2007 ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * According to this current/diff there are still added materials that you reverted.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocks under the three revert rule are preventive, to prevent disruption. Even if there are individual sentences in the article which may not be present (I don't have the time to check in detail), the fact that Sfacets has self-reverted and is clearly aware of the need to avoid disruption, is a substantial argument against a block. All concerned are encouraged to engage in civil discourse on the article talk page. Sam Blacketer 10:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: I ended up protecting the page; the reverting continued. Mango juice talk 17:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Steve Dufour reported by User:Anynobody (Result:No action)
. : Time reported: 05:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: Any time before 31 October 2007 See explanation below.


 * 1st revert: 22:08, 31 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 03:37, 1 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: a: 04:21, 1 November 2007, b: 04:22, 1 November 2007, c: 04:24, 1 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 4:05:20, 1 November 2007
 * Diff of 3RR warning: Editor is experienced enough to know better

Steve Dufour has a history of trying to minimize this article. Lately he has been insisiting that the article be written his way despite previous conversations on the articles talk page already explaining the rationale behind the information he doesn't like. Anynobody 05:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This concerns negative material with the intention to attack a living person. On the Usenet site alt.religion.scientology there has been a long-going campaign of harassment against Barbara Schwarz, the subject of the article, with the intention of driving her to commit suicide.  This is the reason I feel so strongly about this article.  I would prefer not to edit it anymore myself; but if no one else will work to keep it an encyclopedia article, not an attack, I will continue until I am kicked off of Wikipedia. Steve Dufour 06:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is not alt.religion.scientology though and the article didn't say anything that wasn't in a WP:RS. Anynobody 06:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If the article remains on a respectful level toward its subject I will not object. Steve Dufour 06:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Except that your idea of respect ignores reliable sources and favors your personal preferences. I really hate having to point this out, but you're essentially saying you have no intention of abdidng by policies, guidelines and even consensus to do what you think is "right"... I will continue until I am kicked off of Wikipedia. Anynobody 06:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If the claimed WP:BLP exemption is disregarded, then there would be a technical three revert rule violation. The application of BLP is difficult and questionable but because Steve Dufour is clearly acting in good faith in believing it is applicable, to block him for disruption would be wrong. Hence I do not propose to take any action about the 3RR report. Further work should be taken to make sure the article complies with BLP policy because this is a controversial biography subject who has antagonised one group of people while being perceived as a crank by others; such a situation means that both groups start off with some reason to include questionable material. Sam Blacketer 11:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Sam. I will take a break from editing the article for a while and see what happens with it. Steve Dufour 11:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Steven Andrew Miller reported by User:Eleemosynary (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 09:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 22:18, 31 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:03, 31 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 02:57, 1 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 05:51, 1 November 2007
 * 5th revert: 06:00, 1 November 2007
 * Diff of 3RR warning: Editor has been warned for 3RR in the past, which he has dismissed as "spam," and blocked once for 3RR. See below for diffs.

User:Steven Andrew Miller is conducting an edit war on the Mukasey page, similar to one he is also conducting on the Scott Thomas Beauchamp page. (Please see his earlier 3RR violation report, by another user, above.) He has been warned about edit warring in the past, but has deleted the warnings as "spam," here. He's also been blocked for 3RR, so he's well aware of the policy. --Eleemosynary 09:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Clear cut case; and reverting with an edit summary that warns others not to edit war is a bad sign. I have made it a 24 hours block. Sam Blacketer 10:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Simon D M reported by User:Sfacets (Result:protected)
. : Time reported: 11:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 18:06, 31 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:26, 31 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:47, 31 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:53, 31 October 2007
 * 5th revert: 10:21, 1 November 2007
 * 6th revert: 18:06, 31 October 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User has reverted more than 3 4  5 times over 24 hours, despite a warning being given. Note that the submitter also inadvertently transgressed, however self-reverted after warning. S facets  11:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See also above.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 13:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, as the note explains^.  S facets  13:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Protected the page for 48 hours. I don't care about good intentions/bad intentions here, too many reverts recently.  More discussion required.  Protection will, hopefully, force it.  Mango juice talk 17:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Piotrus reported by User:M0RD00R (Result:warning)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 16:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 2007-10-31T12:15:50


 * 1st revert: 2007-10-31T17:44:54 Removed who was emasculated in Poland
 * 2st revert: 2007-11-01T02:42:47. Removed NPOV tag and who was emasculated in Poland
 * 3nd revert: 2007-11-01T12:41:57 Removed who was emasculated in Poland
 * 4rd revert: 2007-11-01T12:43:05 removed NPOV tag
 * 5th revert: 2007-11-01T14:53:01 reverted addition of the source and removed in Poland.


 * user:Piotrus was already blocked for 3RR violation in the past

For some time user:Piotrus engages in edit war by reverting full or parts of text, while 3RR rule 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. So violation is obvious. M0RD00R 16:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This particular list of edits doesn't look like a violation to me, except in the most legalistic reading. I left Piotrus a note reminding him about 3RR; that should be sufficient.  Mango juice talk 17:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3 times referenced info was removed, 5th revert is removal of the reference that was added upon request. So nothing legalistic but pure edit warring case and a breach of 3RR IMO. M0RD00R 17:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The 1st revert is not a revert - it is a normal edit; MORDOOR claims it was a revert to this revision which is obviously not true. I have simply removed a dubious claim that as discussion at related talk pages show is not supported by reliable source, a claim that has not been ever challenged since it was added a few weeks ago to the article (which, accidentally, I expanded to the GA-level).
 * Reverts 3rd and 4th are one revert - I could have just as well made one edit instead of two and removed both the dubious claim and the tag in a single edit; I did two to provide a better WP:SUMMARY in my edits. To claim that hence I broke the 3RR is obviously wikilawyering.
 * I would also point out that MORDOOR has not contributed to this article in the past; his revert warring there at present - which seems to be his only contribution in the past day or so - borders on WP:STALKing my person. Further, MOORDOR revert warring is a violation of WP:V and WP:RS - he is removing a proper attribution to Zhylenko, instead replacing it with some non-English and less reliable website. Such disruptive behavior certainly should warrant a warning.
 * --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Unapologetic stance of Piotrus shows that he did learn the lesson, and in this situation I don't think that mere warning is enough. I have no intention to respond to off-topic remarks breaching WP:AGF and WP:NPA and will not get dragged into content discussion here because this is not the right place for such discussions. M0RD00R 18:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Moldopodo reported by User:Moldorubo (Result: Page protected )
. : Time reported: 17:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


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

He was warned before. Moldorubo 17:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Edit warring; page protected. --Haemo 18:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Anittas reported by User:Moldopodo (Result: Page protected )
. : Time reported: 18:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


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

He was warned before. Moldopodo 18:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This user Moldopodo should be blocked in the first place. He started the edit wars and now he wanted also to hide this thing. He should be blocked at least for one month..Moldo juice talk 18:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Bad behavior all around. Page protected.  --Haemo 18:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Navnløs reported by User:216.21.150.44 (Result: No action)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 23:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:32, 31 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 19:43, 31 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:05, 31 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:19, 31 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:12, 1 November 2007
 * 5th revert: 18:39, 1 November 2007
 * 6th revert: 19:16, 1 November 2007
 * 7th revert: 19:38, 1 November 2007

Comment User has made a claim on both their user page and their talk page that they intend to revert any changes to the Iron Maiden article (along with many others) if anyone changes the coded line breaks in the artist infobox for the standard comma delimiter. See User talk:Navnløs for the users pre-planned edit war. 216.21.150.44 23:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The user had not been warned so no action has been taken yet. They have now been warned, so any further violation will result in a block. TigerShark 00:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User:220.255.115.209 reported by User:Inertia Tensor (Result: 24 hours by Chaser)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 02:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 01:05, 2 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 01:16, 2 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 01:27, 2 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 01:34, 2 November 2007
 * 5th revert: 01:47, 2 November 2007
 * 6th revert: 02:04, 2 November 2007
 * 7th revert: 02:23, 2 November 2007
 * 8th revert: 02:43, 2 November 2007
 * 9th revert: 03:24, 2 November 2007
 * 10th revert: 03:32, 2 November 2007
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 02:13, 2 November 2007

Comment Mainly the first sentence "Waterboarding is XXXXXXX". Multiple parties are edit waring in Waterboarding, however I am only reporting one who provoked it by making massive edits to a seriously hot article without participating in talk at all until afterwards. User:89.100.48.103 is the other party blasting 3RR to hell. I feel this is a particularly serious example, as user User:220.255.115.209 did not engage in talk until 01:30, and only when the other demanded he work there. As this was a hot potato article, the talk page asks for comment and discussion before engaging in major activity which he ignored. As this is a IP war, a 24 hour semi-protection on Waterboarding may help in case of other problems and escalations, saving us having to checkusr. 7th revert was after a long over due warning. Inertia Tensor 02:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Couillaud reported by User:YoSoyGuapo (Result: Warning)
. : Time reported: 05:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:08, 2 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 04:15, 2 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 04:35, 2 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 05:07, 2 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 05:19, 2 November 2007


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

Not a new user but was given a warning 05:11, 2 November 2007 Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 05:11, 2 November 2007

Uses WP:OWN and censoring others opinions which is seen on a talk page. Also has a history of deleting others opinion he isn't fond of. YoSoyGuapo 05:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply


 * YoSoyGuapo is exaggerating the situation. I have been forced to revert vandalism that he placed there as personal harassment against me.


 * This article has been the subject of vandalism by an anonymous user before, and Administrator WKnight94 put up a warning that he would block that user's range if he continued to troll. YoSoyGuapo has been continuing the same type of vandalism, and keeps trying to act as if he's really contributing something.


 * The original troll made ethnically insensitive remarks calling French Canadian women prostitutes (a false claim, and simply his opinion); he was just trying to stir trouble. YoSoyGuapo is adding his because he found that I am one of the editors who built and maintain this article.  He and I have had a dispute over the article on Josh Gibson (where he falsely accused me of deliberately "downplaying the achievements of minorities" (and untrue and frankly insulting claim).


 * The article is "Daughters of the King", about French women of childbearing age who were recruited by the royal French government to emigrate to Canada and help populate the new colony. YoSoyGuapo googled "kings daughters prostitutes" and found an absolutely unrelated article about prostitutes in Namibia (in this century) who refer to themselves by the same sobriquet; their name does not originate from the French Daughters of the King (nor anything else similar).  There is no article on this group yet placed in Wikipedia, and no need for a disambiguation page.  All the same, YoSoyGuapo keeps placing arguments into the discussion page that violate the guidelines for discussion pages, and keeps adding this irrelevant section on Nambia (which he has misspelled more than once).


 * As far as his claim that I have "a history of deleting others opinion he isn't fond of", that is not true. I deleted comments that were racist and irrelevant because two particular editors (one anonymous, the other YoSoyGuapo), instead of using the discussion page to discuss facts or sources of the article are just using it to attack ideas and people.  He seems to not understand the full purpose of the discussion page.


 * I am filing a complaint elsewhere about his vandalism of my own talk page; I cleared it recently to clean up old conversation, and he put his own personal "warning" to me on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Couillaud (talk • contribs)


 * I'm giving Couillaud a warning. If the user in question is not banned, removing their comments is not appropriate.  Although you may remove comments from your talk page, it is not the normal practice on article discussion pages.  The requests of YoSoyGuapo are baseless and easily dismissed by Wikipedia policy, there is no need to actually remove them, though.  Mango juice talk 14:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Grant.alpaugh reported by Van Tucky Talk (Result: 24h)
Time reported: 07:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC) This user has been warned and given links to appropriate policy by multiple users (see article and user talk). Van Tucky  Talk 07:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three revert rule violation on


 * first revert
 * second revert
 * third revert
 * fourth revert


 * Blocked for 24 hours. VanTucky, next time please post diffs, not old versions, and include the previous version reverted to.  Mango juice talk 14:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was pretty late on the west coast. Van Tucky  Talk 17:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User:PDAWSON3, User:204.210.195.250, and User:209.152.49.214 reported by User:Strothra (Result: Page protected)
. : Time reported: 13:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:58, 21 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 02:32, 1 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:28, 1 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:22, 1 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 06:43, 2 November 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:24, 1 November 2007

Editor is utilizing sockpuppets to evade 3RR and to edit war over the insertion of original research. Strothra 13:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Page has been semi-protected for a time.  Citi Cat   ♫ 17:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Citicat, please remember to fill in the header, indicating the result of your consideration of the report :) it makes things much easier! Anthøny  20:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Three-revert rule violation on the part of unregistered user in page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_in_a_Box Icarus of old 00:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Keyblade626 reported by User:Someguy0830 (Result: page protected)
. : Time reported: 02:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:40, October 31, 2007


 * 1st revert: 19:29, November 1, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:15, November 2, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:39, November 2, 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:10, November 2, 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:44, November 2, 2007

This user seems hell-bent on including what they think is an affiliation the three people have, the only rationale being "read the manga correctly". The last edits are also restoring vandalism, which I've warned the user about. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-day long edit war; I'm not blocking the both of you because I'm in a good mood. Figure it out on the talk page. east. 718 at 02:40, 11/3/2007

User:Shshshsh reported by User:Lahiru_k (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 09:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:39, November 3, 2007


 * 1st revert: 06:15, November 3, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 07:25, November 3, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 07:58, November 3, 2007
 * 4th revert: 08:44, November 3, 2007


 * Warning not required since user has been around for almost one year.
 * This user have simultaneously violated the WP:3RR on Preity Zinta as well. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  |  tool box  09:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have discussed things on the articles' talk page and FAc respectively. This user didn't. Please see that. We have to discuss before doing something, they didn't, they just tagged. It's unfair. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 24 hours Spartaz Humbug! 10:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Cecrops reported by User:davidpdx (Result: blocked elsewhere )
. : Time reported: 12:28, 3 November 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: DIFFTIME

I strongly believe this person is the same person as User: 69.132.96.215 and the person has reverted my talk page as well as another users. I ask that this person be banned ASAP. Davidpdx 12:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Never mind, he got blocked already. Davidpdx 12:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

User:John Foxe reported by User:FyzixFighter (result: 48h)
. : Time reported: 16:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 1 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 15:42, 2 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:36, 2 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:59, 2 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 15:43, 3 November 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warnings:
 * 18:29, 19 September 2007
 * 20:24, 24 August 2007
 * 08:54, 21 August 2007
 * 00:25, 24 July 2007
 * 18:35, 23 July 2007
 * 19:03, 11 July 2007

User:Bytebear, a non-LDS editor and recent editor to the article has tried to remove some of the overly-detailed, POV historical interpretation from the intro of the article. User:John Foxe insists that these are historical facts that must be included, and reverts to his preferred version without any discussion for consensus or compromise wording. Even though Bytebear is not LDS and a new observer to the ongoing dispute at the article, John Foxe still accuses Bytebear and everyone else that doesn't agree with his POV of pushing a Mormon POV and summarily reverts any of their edits. While the fourth revert in this case came only one minute past the 24 hour mark, this IMO is gaming the system, something that John has previously been called on  and more evidence of John's ownership of the article. --FyzixFighter 16:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 48 hours. east. 718 at 17:44, 11/3/2007

User:A_Man_In_Black reported by User:MalikCarr (Result: pages protected)
and : Time reported: 02:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Mk-II: 01:46
 * Zock: 01:36

Mk-II
 * 1st revert: 00:44
 * 2nd revert: 00:45 (may not be revert technically; see two following edits in page history)
 * 3rd revert: 00:49
 * 4th revert: 01:46
 * 5th revert: 01:47

Zock
 * 1st revert: 00:21
 * 2nd revert: 00:23
 * 3rd revert: 00:43
 * 4th revert: 01:36

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff: Unnecessary, user is an administrator and has been blocked for 3RRV before.

User:A Man In Black is expanding current months old revert/edit war over articles currently protected (see MSN-02 Zeong and MSN-04 Sazabi) to others I have contributed significantly to. RfM currently underway to attempt to resolve disputes, but user continues edit war regardless. 3RRV by reverting edits contributed by User:Jtrainor. MalikCarr 02:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Pages are currently protected with contested/3RR violating version by User:A Man In Black; those of us in established consensus would obviously like to see something done about this. MalikCarr 03:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Pages protected by East718. If other articles are similarly affected after this report, let us know. - Krakatoa  Katie  03:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I probably dont need to point out that User:MalikCarr initiated the revert wars and has also violated 3rr, but I will anyway.4.158.222.133 03:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I was hoping to see something done about the protected versions, which are utter garbage, but I won't overstep myself at this juncture. MalikCarr 04:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We're just here to stop the bloodshed, and we always protect the wrong version. Work it out, guys. - Krakatoa  Katie  06:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hahah, I'll keep that in mind in the future. MalikCarr 08:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

User:71.193.244.183 reported by User:jmegill (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 21:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:49, 4 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 20:43, 3 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 01:32, 4 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:28, 4 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:06, 4 November 2007
 * 5th revert: 20:09, 4 November 2007

First Previous Deletion warning: Second Previous Deletion warning: 22:48, 3 November 2007 Diff of 3RR warning: 20:42, 4 November 2007

Anonymous editor persists in the deletion of "Janet Huckabee" subsection which includes sourced information. Also persists in the deletion of sourced information in the Fiscal Policy section. The Fiscal Policy section is the result of many lengthy discussions on the talk page. Jmegill 21:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 24 hours for the anon. east. 718 at 22:33, 11/4/2007

User:Sfacets reported by User:Will Beback (Result: 72h)
. : Time reported: 21:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:11, November 3, 2007


 * 1st revert: 18:04, November 3, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:53, November 3, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 06:58, November 4, 2007
 * 4th revert: 07:24, November 4, 2007
 * 5th revert: 07:24, November 4, 2007


 * User has been blocked for 3RR several times.

The article was protected after a string of reverts last week. As soon as the protection expired Sfacets began reverting again. He is an experienced editor and is exercising ownership over the article. A new user, user:Simon D M, has also been reverting but Sfacets has been much worse. I warned Sfacets that he was over the 3RR limit and asked him to undo some reverts but he hasn't done so. He labels the other editor's contributions as "vandalism" and believes he has the right to revert them because they are not discussed on the talk page.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 72 hours for Sfacets, as he already has three blocks for 3RR. east. 718 at 22:37, 11/4/2007

User:EdChampion reported by User:secisek (Result:48 hours)
. : Time reported: 23:31, 4 November 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

Disruptive SPA returns after a month to attack the article. Edmund the Martyr. Consensus exists and it is not on his side. Rude and almost threatening on Talk Page. Article is GA. Violator uses sock puppets, too. I believe he is already banned from WP with several socks. Article may need partial protection, as well. SECisek 23:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not true. There has been NO attack. EVERY CHANGE HAS A CITATION/REFERENCE. I have contributed to this article on numerous accassions. SECisek is trying to impose a POV and prevent my additions - even though I have provided FULL citations - this is against the WIKI spirit. Neither have I been banned. EdChampion 23:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added a dispute tag to this article. EdChampion 23:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The report is incomplete but I looked at the article history and it is clearly a violation; once EdChampion realised he had his third revert, he logged out and used an IP to do the fourth. For that, and the POV pushing, 48 hours. Sam Blacketer 23:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

User:UBeR reported by User:callmebc (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 04:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 03:06, 3 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 04:51, 3 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 02:36, 4 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 01:59, 5 November 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: 05:40, 4 November 2007

A short explanation of the incident. Callmebc 04:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC) I guess the usual stuff for a "political sensitive" Wikipedia article -- lots of WP:TE and WP:UNDUE (for starters) by people with zero interest in actually improving the article, but mucho interest in pushing a political agenda. In this particular case, there is a scientific consensus regarding global warming, but the skeptics/deniers keep trying to undermine this by bringing up lists of rogue-ish scientists, few if any actually being involved in climate research. The point of course is to cast doubt on there being a genuine consensus. I recently added a ref to this Nature Magazine editorial, which rather relevantly, I do believe, addresses the consensus "issue." User:UBeR however keeps reverting it for cryptic, false and/or nonsensical reasons like the one he gives here. Apparently his idea of a "consensus" is when anyone at anytime in the past ever semi-agreed with him. That Nature Magazine is merely universally regarded at one of preeminent science journals in the world, but apparently this doesn't matter to some people, even though, I think, it fits neatly this Wikipedia guideline.


 * Basic time telling logic tells me there can't be 24 hours or less over a span of three days. Your 3RR report is null and could possibly be considered further incivil behavior that you've displayed over the last several days, as well as a failure to assume good faith. (Needless to say, this user has already been warned for inappropriate accusations of 3RR). In any case, content disputes should not be discussed here, per the very first and bold sentence at the top (contrast with Callmebc's diatribe above), so suffice it to say Callmebc is wrong regarding his account above. ~ UBeR 05:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing to see here. east. 718 at 07:21, 11/5/2007
 * Hmmm....I do believe I may have to escalate this issue at some point -- if someone had done his/her homework, he/she perhaps would have noticed that these last 4 reverts by User:UBeR are only the latest in a long, LONG series of essentially the same reverts there are evidently part of a continual effort to block any major updates or improvements to the politically sensitive global warming article and its related wikis. And according the general Wiki 3RR policy, "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks." But, whatever, I guess there are other ways to deal with these problems.... -BC aka Callmebc 13:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You may want to look at dispute resolution, e.g. with an RfC either on the topic or on the users involved. This is clearly not a case for WP:3RR, and your warning of an long-established user is entirely unnecessary. --Stephan Schulz 13:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ummm, did anyone actually check the times on the reverts? UBeR did 3 reverts in less than 24 hrs, I gave him a warning, and he did his 4th a day later (with identical reverts conveniently made in between by a self-professed global warmin skeptic under the name User:Rossnixon.) And this is on an edit item he's been WP:TE about many times in the past. You know, it's not really my job to police or in general deal with this sort of stuff beyond trying to bring it to the attention of the proper authorities. Whatever.... -BC aka Callmebc 16:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ummmm...if you think there are "proper authorities", you don't get the Wiki idea. We mobsters try to enforce a minimum set of rules, not to decide on content questions. Your best tools are convincing arguments. Arguments that don't convince are not convincing. Claims of tendentious editing are misplaced here (and not exactly fitting - I'll be the second to acknowledge that UBeR can a PITA, but his obsessive demand for exact/pedantic/anal sources is not limited to one side of the debate). --Stephan Schulz 16:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't chronic 3RR-bending sorta, kinda a form of WP:TE? And are you saying that things like, oh, say this particular page for example, are just for Show & Tell and not really meant for calling attention to issues and situations suitable, in theory at least, for policing/janitorial activities by admins? And how is UBeR's objection to a Nature magazine ref related to an "obsessive demand for exact/pedantic/anal sources"? As I kind of pointed out before, his history of global warming edits/reverts, especially in regards to that whole RFC business on "Solar Variation," does not appear to be of one actually interested in science and in making the article accurate, up to date, balanced, and clear, especially for people coming to Wikipedia's Global Warming article for knowledge and understanding. Perhaps it's that most admins don't want to be considered the proper authorities, but, as I've said way too many times, whatever.... -BC aka Callmebc 18:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not bending anything. I keep the article clean from trash. Like I said on the talk page, the problem isn't the source at all. It's your poor sentence. But, as I've clearly pointed out above (and this page makes very clear) this isn't the place for content dispute. I never broke 3RR, unless there's some way to bend 24 hours into a 3 calender day period. There's no violation, as the admins have stated, so deal with the facts. You've already been warned for meritless 3RR warnings, as stated above and below, so I suggest you take more consideration before the next time you choose to falsely accuse me of having broken rules, which you are keen on doing. On that note, if you have a sockpuppet accusation, this is not the place, and I've already warned you of the inappropriate places to make such accusations. But also consider that baseless accusations are not regarded well here. And, for your information, all of your descriptions of me regarding Wikipedia are clearly incorrect, and I really do suggest you stop spewing your tosh about me. It's not acceptable. ~ UBeR 23:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Participants should be aware that User:Callmebc has a history of frivolous 3RR reports (SEWilco diff) and warnings (3RR for 1 rv). He also thinks these articles are part of some sort of war, has stated an intent to cover articles with changes , and expects to break 3RR a lot more . He also claims WP record manipulation at User talk:Charles Matthews#SEWilco - Revising quotes and diffs to hide a lie.  (SEWilco 19:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC))


 * Yeah, SEWilco is another "helpful" editor (and I was dead on about the diff history manipulation) very, very much like UBeR, and whom I likewise haven't been getting much help dealing with by admins. Go check out the discussion in this ANI complaint by SEWilco about a supposed "frivolous" 3RR warning I made. Note especially my description and links regarding the utterly bizarre "Mother's Day" business, and ask yourselves why this sort of nonsense is allowed to go on, and why are people like SEWilco and UBeR are allowed to obstruct with impunity, to the point that correcting even blatent, demonstrable nonsense escalates into a massive revert war. And speaking of nonsense, go check out UBeR's last little  Global Warming  revert. Also check out this other recent revert of his that he described as "clean up" in his "edit summary": what he actually did was put back discredited nonsense about "A different hypothesis is that variations in solar output, possibly amplified by cloud seeding via galactic cosmic rays, may have contributed to recent warming" and removed refs to a genuine scientific study showing that the sun has nothing to do with current global warming cycle.


 * If you guy really don't want to deal with stuff like this, well...whatever.... I'm done here. BC aka Callmebc 01:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place, as you've been told probably about a half dozen times. But to defend myself, the cleanup is simply some maneuvering of paragraphs and sentences, the addition of a sentence that was deleted by Callmbc for no apparent reason, and a few word changes. No references were deleted, no sentences were deleted, and no major content was changed. Lies and hypocrisy do little to get you anywhere in Wikipedia... ~ UBeR 01:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User:GundamsRus reported by User:MalikCarr (Result: )
. : Time reported: 22:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:25

Reverts sometimes spread out over multiple edits; end content still the same and still within 24 hours
 * 1st revert: 18:22
 * 1st revert: 18:23
 * 1st revert: 18:27
 * 1st revert: 18:28
 * 1st revert: 18:28
 * 1st revert: 18:29
 * 1st revert: 18:33
 * 2nd revert: 20:46 (note: edit by same user editing anonymously; see AN/I report here.
 * 3rd revert: 23:20
 * 4th revert: 00:18
 * 4th revert: 00:21
 * 4th revert: 00:36
 * 5th revert: 09:14
 * 6th revert: 13:08

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 00:43 (user has been reported for 3RRV before while editing anonymously: see here.

Same user is still engaging in WP:POINT campaign over every Gundam-related article I edit. Page is currently protected for 24 hours, but I see no reason why this will stop then. This user account,, is a sockpuppet of the anonymous addresses listed at the above AN/I report, and has made very little contributions outside trawling my user page. Article Psyco Gundam was created and published by me less than an hour before this user found it and began making nonconstructive and unwarranted edits. Can something be done about this? MalikCarr 22:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I see the page has already been protected, but smells like a sockpuppet... hmm... I'm going to leave this one to the discretion of a fellow admin. east<big style="color:#090">. 718 at 22:36, 11/5/2007
 * Point of information MalikCarr calls ANY edits to 'his' pages as " nonconstructive and unwarranted "GundamsRus 00:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A blatant lie. You'll note I did not revert the changes by because they were constructive and generally improved the article in some fashion. Everything you change to it has, to date, either been a stylistic disagreement, a poorly-supported claim of policy violation that I can't even begin to fathom the logic behind, or a template in every section (sometimes two). Perhaps if you'd contribute sourced content for once, we wouldn't be having this discussion. MalikCarr 07:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind me making more mess, I would like to point out that although User:GundamRus started to add in-universe tags in most of the articles related to MalikCarr's edits and with an attitude not very well appreciated and against fan society(see his talk page's history), he/she is willing to take away the possible insult on his talk page and have at least helped in improving the Antarctic Treaty (Gundam) article where he placed an in-universe tag by engaging in discussion. On the other end, MalikCarr is of course very helpful on the articles since he is an active member of WP:GUNDAM for some time now.  I'd say this is only a misunderstanding on both parties and I hope that they can resolve this in a more civil manner, possbly in the project page which I invite User:GundamRus to discuss a while ago. MythSearchertalk 07:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Begging the indulgence of the administrators on call, but will there be any action taken at this request? I'm not one to prejudge the decision of the powers that be, just looking to get some closure on the matter. MalikCarr 20:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Saguy1982 reported by User:Cyrus XIII (Result: Page sprotected)
. : Time reported: 01:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:45, November 5, 2007


 * 1st revert: 01:41, November 6, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 01:49, November 6, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 02:03, November 6, 2007
 * 4th revert: 02:06, November 6, 2007
 * 5th revert: 02:07, November 6, 2007


 * 3RR warning: 02:06, November 6, 2007

Repeated content removal, including citations and without a talk page consensus. Reverts 3-5 were performed without any intermediate edits by other editors, yet individually undo previous editing of that day by other users. The timing of the 3RR warning is not ideal, but was also only placed as a formality, given that several editors have already voiced the suspicion, that the editor in question is a sock-puppet of, who was previously blocked for 3RR violations and block evasion (see a related discussion at WP:ANI for details). At the very least, "Sakaguy1982" has been a single-purpose account so far and the user behind it knows a great deal of Wikipedia policy and procedure and participated in aforementioned discussion, were 3RR violations were mentioned (in connection with the suspected sock-puppetry). - Cyrus XIII 01:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll stay away from this one, but there's several threads on WP:AN/I about this. <small style="background:#fff;border:#ff8c00 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">east<big style="color:#090">. 718 at 03:45, 11/6/2007

Page sprotected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Colin012/User:76.210.12.128 reported by User:Robert Stevens (Result: no action)
. /: Time reported: 10:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:08 GMT


 * 1st revert: 14:04 GMT
 * 2nd revert: 14:29 GMT
 * 3rd revert: 15:04 GMT
 * 4th revert: 21:07 GMT


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This user has placed a "totally-disputed" tag on Macroevolution 5 times in one day (3 as User:Colin012 and 2 as User:76.210.12.128: from the talkpage history, and on my own talkpage , it is evident that this is the same person). The first 3 of these occurred before any explanation was placed on the talkpage. I reverted him 3 times, another user has reverted him twice: he has also attempted to file a bogus 3RR violation accusation against me (see "Reporting User:Robert Stevens" on 3RR talkpage). Robert Stevens 10:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Admitted socking, 24 hours for the user. <small style="background:#fff;border:#000 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">east<big style="color:#090">. 718 at 16:54, 11/6/2007
 * On second thought, I've lifted this, as the user is participating in discussion. <small style="background:#fff;border:#800080 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">east<big style="color:#090">. 718 at 16:56, 11/6/2007

User:210.54.245.44/User:Rabidly Placid reported by User:Pleasantville (Result: Blocked for disruption)
. /: Time reported: 20:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:42, 4 November 2007 and then 01:15, 5 November 2007.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleasantville (talk • contribs)


 * 1st revert: 22:47, 4 November 2007 as User:210.54.245.44
 * 2nd revert: 01:15, 5 November 2007 as User:210.54.245.44
 * 3rd revert: 03:57, 5 November 2007 as User:Rabidly Placid
 * 4th revert: 14:32, 6 November 2007 as User:Rabidly Placid
 * 5th revert: 15:48, 6 November 2007 as User:210.54.245.44
 * 6th revert: 16:00, 6 November 2007 as User:210.54.245.44

User:210.54.245.44 seems to have created the user name Rabidly Placid in order to evade the 3RR rule on The X-Files. (I am uninvolved in the content dispute. I merely note that it is taking place and made one reversion on the basis of the attempted evasion of WP:3RR.) --Pleasantville 20:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I implemented a 31-hour block on this user, and blocked a number of his/her sockpuppets (see User:Rabidly Placid for a link). This should prevent any further disruption to the related articles for the moment. Anthøny  22:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Michel Tavir reported by User:Merzbow (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 22:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 2007-11-05T09:47:53


 * 1st revert: 2007-11-05T15:17:16
 * 2nd revert: 2007-11-06T03:27:3
 * 3rd revert: 2007-11-06T12:34:32
 * 4th revert: 2007-11-06T14:39:39


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 2007-11-06T14:25:28. This warning was given before the fourth revert, and he reverted the warning with an incivil edit summary.

User makes the curious claim that we need to provide sources that prove that Hiroshima was not a massacre, or else he can continue to call it that in the article without a source. He has been reminded that on Wikipedia, contentious material needs to be sourced. He has only responded so far with incivility and name-calling, classic signs of a disruptive user. Merzbow 22:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation compounded by incivility. MastCell Talk 00:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Funkynusayri reported by User:Muntuwandi (Result: Funkynusayri and Muntuwandi both blocked for 1 week)
. 22:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC) The editor has been blocked before for edit warring on the same article. Muntuwandi 22:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * Blocked. As this is the user's third block for 3RR, I have set the duration to 1 week. TigerShark 23:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Upon closer inspection Muntuwandi has also been edit warring on this article, today performing exactly 3 reverts. As Muntuwandi has also been blocked twice previously for 3RR violations, and presumably is well versed in the letter and spirit of 3RR policy, I have blocked their account for 1 week also. TigerShark 23:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Good call. MastCell Talk 00:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Nicolharper reported by User:WLU (Result: 24 hrs )
. : Time reported: 02:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:44, November 4, 2007


 * 1st revert: 18:06
 * 2nd revert: 20:27
 * 3rd revert: 21:56
 * 4th revert: 22:16


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:07

3rr on bipedalism, failure to listen to my reasoning on his talk page or even respond to it with any depth, failure to adhere to policy, ignoring the results of a WP:3O without a reason (3O not binding, but failure to even acknowledge the results). WLU 02:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 24 hr block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User:IPSOS reported by User:AWachowski (Result: Page protected )
. : Time reported: 03:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 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:

The article is subject to a concerted WP:OWN effort by the self-identified, single user accounts belonging to the BKWSU IT/PR Team of the organization in question who in my opinion are willfully obstruct progress using a variety of devices. I have named the members in a sockpuppet complaint, here; Suspected_sock_puppets/Bksimonb

They have latterly been joined by skillful but uninformed on the topic user User:IPSOS who is copying the team's reversions in what I consider to be deliberately provocative manner undoing even perfectly beneficial edits in a sloppy or lazy manner. I know that this user is skillful and does want to provoke a response he can then exploit and so I wish to avoid such a situation. This is a repeat event. Thank youAWachowski


 * Page protected. Edit warring does not achieve anything useful. Engage in talk page discussions and try to find common ground. If you cannot, please pursue dispute resolution ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Jbloun1 reported by User:SiobhanHansa (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 07:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:14, 6 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 5 edits between 22:02 and 22:21, 6 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:52, 6 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:09, 6 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 14 edits between 23:14 6 November 2007 and 01:59 7 November 2007 (many image replacements as before)

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 23:12, 6 November 2007

Massive changes to images over the last 6 weeks on the article lead to a discussion on the talk page to which Jbloun1 has been invited but has failed to make any constructive attempts to join. The final set of edits above did not revert to exactly the same version as before, but still replaced many of the photos from the last stable version with ones uploaded by Jbloun1 that were being discussed. SiobhanHansa 07:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * After reading the report, I have concluded that Jbloun1 is in fact edit warring. I have blocked for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Callmebc reported by User:Merzbow (Result:1 week)
Two articles now:

Article 1
. : Time reported: 07:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 2007-11-05T22:56:45


 * 1st revert: 2007-11-06T16:55:56
 * 2nd revert: 2007-11-06T18:07:08
 * 3rd revert: 2007-11-06T21:53:41
 * 4th revert: 2007-11-06T23:49:59

Article 2
. : Time reported: 07:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 2007-10-24T10:18:42


 * 1st revert: 2007-11-06T17:17:03
 * 2nd revert: 2007-11-06T18:04:58
 * 3rd revert: 2007-11-06T21:59:58
 * 4th revert: 2007-11-06T23:24:48

User has an extensive block log. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of original research and why his edit contains it. Plenty of incivility in edit summaries and talk page comments as well. Merzbow 07:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Said user also violated 3RR on global warming, which has now been locked due to his edit warring there. (1 + uncivil comment 2 3 4.) ~ UBeR 07:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * He's also violated 3RR on United States journalism scandals (see here, also added diffs above). He's really on a roll today. - Merzbow 07:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for a week by . Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Halibutt reported by User:M.K (Result:Page protected, mediation recommended )
. : Time reported: 09:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 2007-11-05


 * 1st revert: 2007-11-06T14:59:12 inserting "''or Jan Basanowicz"
 * 2nd revert: 2007-11-06T15:32:22 inserting "''or Jan Basanowicz"
 * 3rd revert: 2007-11-06T21:22:42 inserting "''or Jan Basanowicz"
 * 4th revert: 2007-11-07T08:44:04 inserting "''or Jan Basanowicz"
 * 5th revert: 2007-11-07T09:17:04 inserting "''or Jan Basanowicz"


 * Contributor familiar with 3RR policy as he was block for its violation several times . Currently contributor waging massive revert war on numerical articles . Was already warned by uninvolved administrator that such actions are disruptive and can result block . However behavior did not changed. And let me remind that WP:3RR rule 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." Requesting immediate involvement as multiply pages are affected. M.K. 09:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's revise the links then:  // Halibutt 09:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Adding the Polish name to the lead
 * 2) Adding it back and sourcing it as per Paul Pieniezny's request (this does not sound OK)
 * 3) 1st revert
 * 4) Adding .ogg sound file
 * 5) Adding yet another reference
 * First revert, edit summary restore Polish name in the header name originally added in 2007-11-05T15:57:51, and was removed on 2007-11-05T19:05:00 as well until revert of 11-06, T14:59:12. Second, undoing another editors actions and inserting additional material meets 3RR notice of 'in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Third same meets as per second. fourth revert  most evident automatic revert and summary Reverted. Fifth revert same pattern as per second and  is partial revert (in whole or in part). I really hope that such massive disruption of articles  will be prevented, as more and more neutral people say such patter is troubling. M.K. 12:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In his edits Halibutt's expands the article providing requested references - which seems ok withing the scope of WP:BRD - but there is indeed a 3RR issue if we look at it from technical standpoint. I'd suggest warning Halibutt about 3RR and asking him to take off a one or two day break from those articles to cool down.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Page protected. I've protected the page and strongly encourage that those involved in this dispute pursue dispute resolution. It seems to me that mediation may be productive whereas a block would only inflame the situation. Protection should give everyone a chance to take a step back and discuss. On the basis it seems to me a block would be (a) punitive rather than preventative and (b) would prevent one of the parties joining in discussion. I am not therefore minded to block Halibutt at this point. I recommend that any further edit warring be dealt with harshly however. WjBscribe 18:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your involvement, however I would like request following - please state clearly was it violation of 3RR by user:Halibutt or not. It is important for several issues, major one if these actions are not 3RR violations this means that they can be allowed. And lastly if it was violation of 3RR please inform the contributor that he violated it because he refused to acknowledge (per above) his wrong doings and found another article for his revert campaign  (probably fifth one per 24 h. ). M.K. 20:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User:81.156.63.51 and 81.156.56.232 reported by User:Abtract (Result:48 hours for both IPs)
. Time reported: 10:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Anon user has removed cited information 7 times in the last 24 hours and ignored a warning on usertalkpage. The placement of this info is supported by at least four editors. This may be a sock puppet of Mallimak. Abtract 10:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitely violation, and unconstructive comments on the talk page. I've given the IPs 48 hours each, and possibly the page could be semiprotected if they resume on their return. Sam Blacketer 11:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Abtract 14:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User:83.192.172.171 reported by User:Djsasso (Result: Blocked, for 20 hours)
. : Time reported: 16:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:19, 6 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 14:38, 6 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:47, 6 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:12, 6 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 03:05, 7 November 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 16:45, 6 November 2007

User has been going trough numerous articles on numerous IPs having a WP:POINT war with numerous individuals. On this specific article no fewer than five different editors have explained that his reverts are incorrect or to atleast find a reference for his point of view. He needs a cool out period I feel. Djsasso 16:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Anthøny 17:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Ledenierhomme reported by User:Gatoclass (Result: Blocked, for 31 hours)
. : Time reported: 17:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 22:27 6 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 13:27 7 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 13:58 7 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:41 7 November 2007
 * 5th revert: 14:56 7 November 2007
 * 6th revert: 15:10 7 November 2007
 * 7th revert: 15:12 7 November 2007
 * 8th revert: 15:38 7 November 2007
 * 9th revert: 16:18, 7 November 2007

In between, added a section in clear violation of WP:POINT, see his edit summary

Has been editing article more and more aggressively over several days. Has also shown a degree of impatience and condescension, at times bordering on incivility, to other users on the talk page. Today, has engaged in wholesale reverts of entire sections without consensus against two users which includes adding and then repeatedly restoring dubious content just to make a WP:POINT.

Update: I asked the user to self revert rather than be the subject of this report and he declined the invitation. Gatoclass 17:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Note:Ledenierhomme will claim not to understand the 3RR rule, but he has been warned before diff. He likes to remove the warning messages. --Bryson 17:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've never claimed any such thing. And I would appreciate you ceasing these ad hominem attacks on my character. If you have a problem with my edits, engage on the talk page and try to come to a consensus. So far, I have been supported by two neutrals when I requested for comment. Neither PBS, nor Gatoclass, have been editing by consensus. - Ledenierhomme 17:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See also his comment to me in the edit history "PBS: this is your THRID revert. (you have also altered the content of several sections this time))" Philip Baird Shearer 17:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I was going to add my own entry but I will piggy back on this one


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:58, 7 November 2007 Ledenierhomme


 * 1st revert: reverted change 14:18, 7 November 2007 ] & changes against base version
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 14:56, 7 November 2007 reverted change & changes against base version
 * 3rd revert: 15:12, 7 November 2007 & changes against base version
 * 4th revert: 16:18, 7 November 2007 & &changes against base version

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:
 * See also his comment to me in the edit history "PBS: this is your THRID revert. (you have also altered the content of several sections this time))"

See specifically the France section. I think User:Ledenierhomme is frustrated over not being able to delete the Tibet section, and not only has (s)he decided to revert the French section but to WP:POINT has followed through with a suggestion suggestion (s)he put on the talk page on 27 October 2007 at 04:23 (see edit). I think a cooling off period would help everyone consider the changes in a cooler manner. Philip Baird Shearer 17:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This block length is particularly long due to the severe nature of the user's disruption of the article. Anthøny  17:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Gatoclass reported by User:Ledenierhomme (Result: Insufficient report)
. : Time reported: 4:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This user has removed sourced material (re: USA section), and re-inserted material from non-scholarly sources (re: Tibet section).

- Ledenierhomme 17:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If there are further WP:3RR violations, please provide them. Anthøny  17:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User:71.103.137.29 reported by User:Electiontechnology (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 19:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:32, 5 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 00:32, 5 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:55, 5 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 01:06, 6 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:01, 7 November 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: 07:46, 6 November 2007

Anonymous user is ignoring multiple warning on both the article and talk page. The edits are not constructive, rewriting the article header, include commentary, duplicate existing information and are not correct. User has made no attempt to form a consensus or heed warnings. See Talk page entry for more information. Electiontechnology 19:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To break the three revert rule, a user must have more than three reverts in a 24-hour period, and in this case the four reverts are spread over two days, so this is a technical non-violation. However, the user is pushing a point of view and it does look disruptive. I will leave him a warning generally and try to watch. Sam Blacketer 00:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Kintetsubuffalo reported by User:Watkinsian (Result:No violation)
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Previous versions reverted to:
 * Comments: I posted a notification to ther person's :talk page as outlined here.
 * I only count three reverts, please read WP:3RR. Ronnotel 02:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

reply by User:Kintetsubuffalo
To administrators, should this come up-I posted at watkinsian's talkpage, warning him of a 3RR violation, at which point he placed a retaliatory 3RR posting at my own talkpage. watkinsian has been making edits on this article, most of which may be justified, and is stubbornly sticking to one that is not. His order summary is that unconstructive, bossy editors blow, his entire talkpage here is fraught with conflict and useless edits others have had to revert; I'm not the only one apparently that thinks he is unfamiliar with what an encyclopedia is.

His edit history shows a propensity to plaster articles with cumbersome or ugly (and in one article, openly racist) text-for this edit he has added verbose wording and readded poor edits and redlinks. The article clearly states His edits I reverted are these, whether they are his or someone else's, yet he keeps reverting to this variant:

*Eaglecrest High School, unincorporated area near Aurora and Centennial
 * Line 16:


 * which I reverted as being unencyclopedic and unnecessary

*[[north High School Denver
 * Line 62:


 * which needs no comment, it is clearly unwikilike

and
 * Line 106:

=== Hinsdale County===
 * Lake City Community High School, Lake City


 * which is counter to the clearly stated and repeated mandate of this list, External links, redlinks, and non article entries will be removed per Lists (stand-alone lists)."

Should an admin be necessary in this matter, I would submit that these edits should be disallowed as they bring down the encyclopedic character of the pre-existing list. Chris 03:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:TDC reported by User:Xenophrenic (Result:1 week)
. : Time reported: 01:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: Previous attempts by TDC to insert the word "allegations":  and  despite objections from editors on the talk page.


 * 1st revert: 20:23, 6 November 2007 Deleted sourced content w/o explanation; Wiki-link to Winterfilm Collective; inserted the word "allegations"; etc.
 * 2nd revert: 15:00, 7 November 2007 (Identical to the previous edit)
 * 3rd revert: 17:38, 7 November 2007 (Identical to the previous edit)
 * 4th revert: 19:27, 7 November 2007 (Identical to the previous edit)

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: This user has been warned and/or blocked for revert warring numerous times. Even by admins watching this article.

The 4 Diffs listed above are identical, and made within a 24 hour period. These are the first edits made by TDC on this article since a week-long protection was lifted. The article protection was requested to halt a previous revert war over similar edits by TDC previous Diff of editing in "allegations" etc. A review of his block log shows several blocks for violations on this article in the past. He has been banned from editing the article in the past. I'm not exactly sure what steps to take, but I know I won't be baited into another revert war with this editor. Xenophrenic 01:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 1 week. I would think he would know the drill by now. Ronnotel 01:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * UPDATE Thank you.  I was starting to take it personally, but when I was reviewing TDCs edits for this report, I noticed he violated 3RR on Depleted Uranium with other editors during the same editing spree:
 * 00:05, 6 November 2007
 * 14:54, 7 November 2007
 * 19:26, 7 November 2007
 * 19:41, 7 November 2007
 * 19:49, 7 November 2007


 * Maybe someone hacked his account. Xenophrenic 04:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:72.186.213.96 reported by User:Akhilleus (Result:24h)
. : Time reported: 04:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:20, 6 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 16:45, 7 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:59, 7 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:14, 7 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:36, 7 November 2007
 * 5th revert: 22:46, 7 November 2007
 * 6th revert: 22:56, 7 November 2007
 * 7th revert: 23:03, 7 November 2007
 * 8th revert: 23:19, 7 November 2007
 * 9th revert: 23:44, 7 November 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: 23:06, 7 November 2007

IP user is trying to insert a section based on Blavatsky, backed up with some questionable OR. There are two different versions of the disputed material, but the underlying substance is the same. User probably didn't know about 3RR at the beginning of this spree, but I warned him/her after the 7th revert listed above and the user went ahead and reverted anyway. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for twenty-four hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Savignac reported by User:Yahel Guhan (Result:800 hours)
. : Time reported: 05:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:23, 24 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 00:00, 8 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:03, 8 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:05, 8 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:14, 8 November 2007

. : Time reported: 05:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:26, 3 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 00:02, 8 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:12, 8 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:19, 8 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:38, 8 November 2007
 * 5th revert: 01:08, 8 November 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: 01:36, 6 November 2007

This user keeps adding Nation of Aztlán‎ to the template dispite consensus against it.  Yahel  Guhan  05:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:TEND on his part. He was revert warring with me; his consensus consists of himself and what, one other person? Also, he has maintained that WP:OWN doesn't apply to himself and his fellow discrimination wikiproject colleagues, whom form a cabal-clique. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Savignac 05:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not violating WP:TEND; you crossed 3rr, not me. I suggest you self revert. Nor did I ever claim to "own" the template. I did, however revert to the consensus version, which is against you at this time.  Yahel  Guhan  05:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The consensus only includes your wikiproject buddies. You are a cabal and try to get your way by ganging up on minority views to silence them! Well, this is not a minority in real life, just academic elitists (not nearly as credible as Britannica) like your type of Wikipedian consider it so. The mainstream media considers those people to be racist and so does the ADL. You are twisting this. BTW, you are an activist so WP:DBF. I'm just another person without the luxury of a wikiproject to work tirelessly for my beliefs as you do, with like-minded Jonestown kool-aid junkies. With your wikiproject cabal to join you in WP:3RR, you violate WP:GAME all the time, in order to suppress legitimate differences of editing inclusion from your own. Savignac 05:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * mind WP:NPA  Yahel  Guhan  05:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:DICK Savignac 06:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

To interested parties: this accusing editor, has in collusion with User:Malik Shabazz, contrived to fight an edit war to maintain their favored version against any non-wikiproject editors. That's the only way I have broken 3RR. Savignac 06:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * you are supposed to talk about your objections on the talk page and try to get a consensus rather than edit war and break WP:3rr.  Yahel  Guhan  06:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

REMOVED FROM YAHEL GUHAN'S TALK, BECAUSE HE DELETED MY ACCURATE COMPLAINT OF HIS GANGBANGING: ''Play your wikiproject cabal WP:GAME. You take turns revert warring me, to avoid breaking the 3RR. How cool to win. Aren't you proud? Savignac 06:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)''

I think his comments speak for themself.  Yahel  Guhan  06:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your actions speak louder than my words. It is the fact that you are lynching me that matters, not that I'm reporting it. Step off your cloudy high horse. Speak directly to me; don't pretend I'm not here. You don't look any cooler by pretending I'm the crazy one. All of your edits have been dedicated to your activist causes about race and color. Savignac 06:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Savignac was blocked for 800 hours for disruptive edits by KnowledgeOfSelf. Sam Blacketer 15:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Dengarde reported by User:Dengarde (Result: No reason to block, page full protected)
. : Time reported: 08:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:26, 7 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 1:08, November 8, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 1:19, November 8, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 1:23, November 8, 2007
 * 4th revert: 1:34, November 8, 2007

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: None, No warning was given.

A misunderstanding at this video games blog has led many to jump to their own conclusion. As a result, many accounts and IP's have edited the page with Original research. In order to avoid a war, I used WP:Ignore All Rules in order to violate WP:3RR and uphold WP:OR until a discussion on the talk page came to a decision, but obviously failed, and I feel I crossed the line, thus I am reporting myself. My apologies to Wikipedia. Dengarde ► Complaints 08:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocks are supposed to make people not do things. Since you already know you made a mistake, blocking you doesn't make any sense at this point. However, from the history of the article a petty edit war is ongoing, so I've tuned up the protection level. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 09:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:121.218.73.9 reported by User:Docta247 (Result:31 hours)
. : Time reported: 09:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:49, 6 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 19:45, 7 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:24, 7 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 05:42, 8 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 06:56, 8 November 2007
 * 5th revert: 08:25, 8 November 2007
 * 6th revert: 09:15, 8 November 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: 08:52, 8 November 2007

User has pushed his POV additions for a few days and refuses to discuss them on the talk page despite several requests. Docta247 09:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Clear case; new user but lack of communication on article or own user talk page means slightly longer block is warranted. I've given him 31 hours to reconsider his editing approach; let's hope the block shows that we are serious. Sam Blacketer 15:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)