Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive61

User:Porcupine reported by Sambure (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC) (Result: no action)
. : Time reported: 15:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


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

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

A short explanation of the incident. Sambure (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Both of you violated 3RR umptymillion times, in this spat. Just quit reverting, discussion on AN/I will handle it. – Luna Santin  (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Declined. east. 718 at 15:25, November 22, 2007
 * Oh, and you forgot to fill in THE ENTIRE REPORT too. :( Stifle (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Duggy 1138 reported by User:Orderinchaos (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 21:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Diffs:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

User enforcing bogus policy on talk page and fighting with pretty much all establishged contributors within a Wikiproject to which the article belongs. Editor has no prior editing history on Australian political topics. Orderinchaos 21:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24 hours. Neran e i   (talk)  23:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Mikmik2953 reported by User:Hamada2 (Result:24hrs )
. : Time reported: 02:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 23:53
 * 2nd revert: 00:38
 * 3rd revert: 00:43
 * 4th revert: 05:27

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:

Entering very poorly written parts to the article making it of poor quality without discussion or agreement from others after being asked to discuss this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mikmik2953&diff=172983532&oldid=172503995. This could be the same user too Hamada2 (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The user had clearly engaged in an edit war and violated 3RR after being warned. TSO1D (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This revert war is very silly. Adapt the information to the rest of the article, unless you dispute the content itself. Bad grammar is not generally the case for blocking (although yes, 3RR is). Is this a content dispute, or a revert war over the elements of style? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 03:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Josh Allain reported by User:Peter Fleet (Result: 72 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 01:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:43, 18 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:25, 23 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 13:28, 23 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:54, 23 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:22, 23 November 2007
 * 5th revert: 22:33, 23 November 2007

Comment User has been repeating the same vandalism to the Jimi Hendrix article over the past few days. Despite numerous warnings for vandalism and 3RR the user continues to ignore all warnings. The user has a previous block history for both vandalism and 3RR violation and his talk page shows a long history off vandalism and edit warring. Peter Fleet (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 72 hours. east. 718 at 02:05, November 24, 2007

User:Sambure reported by User:Alaexis (Result:Page protection is lifted now; User:Sambure is blocked for 24 hours. )
. : Time reported: 13:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:08, 24 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 12:33, 24 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 13:07, 24 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 13:31, 24 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 13:34, 24 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: 13:33 (in the edit summary)

The user disputes mentioning certain facts in the article. He was shown several reliable sources confirming these claims, yet he continued to remove these sources from the article. Alæxis¿question? 13:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As one can see here I asked first on talk page to provide official sources. I gave time them to provide them. They failed to provide official sources, then I removed the content lines. Instead, he used as a provocation not to provide sources and to engage in edit war with me. Then he reported me here. Wikipedia can't let false statements that are not backed up by reliable sources. I provided the official link from Constitution of Moldova, taken from Presidency of Moldova web site.Sambure talk 13:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the poor quality of his sources, they are taken from a website, e-democracy, they are old, because the previous laws have been ammendated in 2003. I provided the official, reliable, verifiable source taken from the site of Presidency of Moldova. What better official source can one ask? And please, this is to the one who reported me here, stop lying because people will see the way you lie at the talk page and by diffs. Sambure talk 13:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The page is fully protected pending further analysis of the dispute. JodyBtalk 14:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The page protection is lifted. User:Sambure is blocked for 3RR and edit-warring for 24 hours. Others are warned not to edit war. JodyBtalk 14:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Mussav reported by User:07fan (Result:24 hours each)
. : Time reported: 19:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:41, 17 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 07:20, 24 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:07, 24 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:07, 24 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:41, 24 November 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 18:12, 24 November 2007

User:Mussav has repeatedly reverted the Mesopotamia page to remove the line "and western part of Iran", even though it is a  sourced text and backed by several reliable sources. The user was warned three times about removal of sourced information, and 3RR, but simply ignored the warnings and kept reverting the page over and over. 07fan (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Both Mussav and 07fan have five reverts on this article today. Mussav's talk page comment "I hope you face your guilt" is unacceptable, but other than that I find it difficult to tell reporter and reportee apart in terms of behaviour. 24 hours for each. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Nicolerichiefan reported by Eatcacti (Result:72 hours)
. : Time reported: 03:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:19, November 22, 2007


 * 1st revert: 14:29, November 24, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15:11, November 24, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:27, November 24, 2007
 * 4th revert: 22:21, November 24, 2007

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 16:31, November 24, 2007

Niceolerichiefan keeps changing the order in call-out order table. I have asked the user to discuss changes on the talk page or at least provide an edit summary explaining, but (s)he will not. Eatcacti (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 72 hours by Luna Santin. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

User:70.173.169.72 reported by User:Lazytiger (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 07:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:15, 25 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 22:34, 24 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:39, 24 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 22:41, 24 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:15, 25 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: 23:37, 24 November 2007

Anonymous editor keeps reverting back to an advertising-laden version that s/he added earlier. Editor is insistent on plagiarizing Rand McNally's catalog and simply does not understand NPOV. Edit summaries also indicate bizarre ignorance of grammar and Wikipedia's purpose.—Lazytiger (Talk | Contribs) 07:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours for edit warring (and the edits were remarkably close to spam, but let's leave that aside for now). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Sparrowman980 reported by User:Huaiwei (Result: 72 hours)
. : Time reported: 14:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:28, 20 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 03:07, 22 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 06:16, 22 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 09:38, 22 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:02, 22 November 2007

Second nomination against User:Sparrowman980 in a space of less than two weeks. As before, user insists on reverting to his preferred version despite discussions on-going in the talkpage which he fail to participate in despite repeated calls to do so.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a bit of a lag between the violation and now, but I've blocked him for 72 hours anyway, due to the recent history of revert-warring on the article. There is also a possibility that his recent absence is due only to the Thanksgiving weekend. --  tariq abjotu  14:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I gave him some lag time since his violation in the hope that he may redeem himself or something without having to nominate him immediately each time he revert-wars. Unfortunately, nothing has happened since his last revert, hence this belated nomination.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Patriotmissile reported by User:Sennen_goroshi (Result: page protected)
. : Time reported: 15:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

15:19, 25 November 2007

02:45, 25 November 2007

01:16, 25 November 2007

20:07, 24 November 2007


 * Previous version reverted to: 06:46, 24 November 2007

The reverts were the result of a content conflict that should have been resolved by discussion, not by edit-warring.

The 3RR has been discussed on Patriotmissile's talk page within the last 24hours, and the editor has been editing wikipedia for about 6 months, so there is no reason to think that he was unaware of the 3RR.

from his talk page: '''Not all of the sources he added were of questionable verifiability. Though all the edits I saw were very POV. Perhaps now you can engage in dialogue with him about editing. Good luck. Please place another report at WP:AN/I if his edits are disruptive. Report to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR if he violates the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Please continue to involve other edits and to seek consensus as you have done. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)'''
 * Page protected until the nationalist edit warriors find peace with each other. We really need a Macedonia-style arbitration to shut down the East Asian conflicts. east. 718 at 16:09, November 25, 2007


 * Regardless of what User:Sennen_goroshi claimed, I had no idea what 3RR actually stands for. I didn't even know that it is an acronym of 3 repeared revert (?). By the way, it was the User:Sennen_goroshi who reverted the content before the status where disputes have settled down by administrators in the South Korea article. And that's the reason why I converted it to the point where disputes were settled down by administrators. Please check who is talking truth. As can been seen from various remaining channels, including user talk:sennen goroshi, and his previous contributions, anyone can easily tell what he has done to the articles-related to South Korea.


 * User:Sennen_goroshi and his seemingly colleagues, user:Jjk82 and user:Keyngez has made myriad disruptive revisions on only the South Korea-related articles here in Wikipedia. I think deduced from their selection of id and words they said, they are seemingly Japanese people who hate South Korea. I also found the User:Sennen_goroshi has abused other Korean user. i do believe administrators will make fair decision for a better wikipedia and for ultimate spirit of free upload in Wikipedia.Patriotmissile (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sennen goroshi's false accusation
First off, Patriotmissile has not violated 3RR. The reason why Sennen goroshi files this report because of his obvious anti-Korean sentiment and like this [] and hatred feelings against me.

Judging by the above comments along with series of reports regarding his problematic edits, Sennen shows himself that he is not suitable person to contribute to Wikipedia. But he's ironically warned other people on the other side to which Sennen always conflicts.

He's never cared about the articles in which Patriotmissile and User:Jjk82 has engaged. I spotted User:Jjk82's disruptive behaviors yesterday. After closely checking on the references and links which User:Jjk82 provided and inserted on the almost 8 articles, I realized that most of them are duplicated bogus links. The seemingly external links turned out inner false wiki links which also JjK82 inserted and are not related to the main articles. Therefore, I reverted his edits and gave him warnings as other editors did to him. Today, Sennen was shadowing my edits so reverted some of my edits to User:Jjk82without any consensus to provoke me as he always does to me.

I believe Sennen goroshi is using my comment on Patriotmissle as a base to accuse of Patriotmissile violating the 3RR rule. Sadly for Sennen's attempt, by the time I left the comments on Patriotmissle, I didn't fully check on the revisions between User:Jjk82's and Patriotmissle's on the South Korean articles. Therefore, I left the wrong notice to calm down him faithfully dedicating to the articles. I have to apology to Patriotmissle for my wrong notice on the 3RR. Even if the Sennen goroshi's own rule and wish were applied to him, there should be mentioned along with User:Jjk82's disruptive edits at first. The editor was warned several times and even uploaded fake images of Seoul like image:Spaceball.gif. Anyone can check what User:Jjk82 and User:Sennen goroshi have done to the Korean related articles with their own issues on anti-Korean sentiments.

The report is even not in the required method. What an irony the person with serious Incivility issue and POV has been warning to everyone as if he were an admins. Please see closely to the case and the accuser's contribution history. The problem is that Sennen goroshi had been banned for his incivility and 3RR violation, but he doesn't even listen to other people's opinions and civil notices. He simply reverted the edits on his talk page, , , , but he's been overusing the civility card on contradictory to his behaviors. ,, ,

This is also references for better understanding. Sadly, Senne has been reported several times regarding his civility issue like leaking personal info and vandalizing for his revenge, but he's barely escaped from punishment. 

For the constructive Wikipedia, I think the disruptive behaviors of him should not be condoned any futhure. And '''Patriotmissile, please accept my apology to you. Thanks. --Appletrees (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Appletrees, I think you don;t even have to apologize to me. I know you are a nice person and excellent Wikiuser. Please let's try to have horrible users disappeared as they deserve from Wikipedia.Patriotmissile (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I will assume the above comment about "horrible users" does not refer to me. But in general, feel free to refer to edits as "horrible" ..well perhaps it would be more civil to refer to them as incorrect, but please don't use such terms to refer to users, "misinformed" might be a more civil term to use.Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

User:RodentofDeath reported by User:Edgarde (Result:Watching)
. : Time reported: 19:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 2007-11-24T10:30:04


 * 1st revert: 2007-11-24T20:34:06 + 2007-11-24T20:58:04 (combined)
 * 2nd revert: 2007-11-25T18:07:40
 * 3rd revert: 2007-11-25T18:58:56
 * 4th revert: 2007-11-25T19:10:24

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 2007-11-25T19:03:24

RodentofDeath moves denials by Philippine officials into top of lede section, part of a pattern of deleting or buring any suggestion that there may be a problem in Angeles City. Reverting 3 other users (2007-11-25T18:54:29, 2007-11-24T10:38:05, 2007-11-22T17:13:20). Specious edit summaries. Discussed on article talk page.

As I'm maxxed out on other edits, it would be nice if someone reverted back to 2007-11-25T18:20:19. edg ☺ ☭ 19:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * user is apparently claiming edits are reverts.RodentofDeath (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See reply to report below. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Edgarde reported by User:RodentofDeath (Result:Watching)
. : Time reported: 20:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 19:01, 25 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:54, 25 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:20, 25 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 03:27, 25 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:

Edgarde, along with another editor, is intent of running a smear campaign on a city in the Philippines. The Senate of the Philippines along with other law enforcement agencies have investigated these claims and found nothing. They ask for anyone with solid information to come forward. Despite this, a small number of people are trying to represent the fringe position that Angeles City is filled with pedophiles and sex slaves. Any attempt to put the actual verifiable facts from the governments of the Philippines and the UK above their fringe position is reverted. When material irrelevant to Human Trafficking in Angeles is removed it is also reverted back in. Edgarde is now soliciting help to revert to his POV. RodentofDeath (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Both sides are edit warring. Edgrade seems to me to have broken 3RR, while RodentofDeath doesn't seem to have technically done so, but is still clearly edit warring. I'd really rather see us pursue dispute resolution than have to give blocks, so I'm just going to watch the article. I will block any user who continues the edit war. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If dispute resolution is already being pursued, can you be persuaded to give blocks now? Here 'tis: Requests for comment/RodentofDeath. Have also requested peer review on the article, tho the article is changing radically so it won't amount to much. I'd request WP:30 or something, but considering recent Talk page discussion, RodentofDeath won't abide by any agreement. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that both parties are edit warring, I could hardly be fair in blocking only one party. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not make it a double? / edg ☺ ☭ 21:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, are you asking that both of you be blocked? TSO1D (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand the need to be fair. WP:DR is a joke with RodentofDeath; he flaunts non-cooperation. And other editors will fix the article &mdash; even if RodentofDeath were blocked, I couldn't fix it anyway. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * lets hope the friends you are asking to "fix" the article (i.e. insert misleading and false information while burying the facts) discuss the edits before inserting errors AGAIN. 3 months and nobody at all had a problem with the article until errors were re-introduced into it. RodentofDeath (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Rodent: you should really save this for Requests for comment/RodentofDeath. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

User:68.5.250.146 reported by User:Athaenara (Result: No violation; Page protected)
. : Time reported: 00:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 01:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2nd revert: 01:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC) attempted to add duplicate link as a reference
 * (01:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC) self-reverted failed attempt)


 * 3rd revert: 16:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4th revert: 23:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The user has repeatedly linked a blog entry in the external links section. The 2nd diff above was an attempt to also add a duplicate of the external link as an inline citation.

Please note that user, previously blocked for this type of thing, has used the 68.5.250.146 IP reported above to post (here), as well as the IP (here).

This biography of a living person recently came off a month of semi-protection which had been imposed because of similar edits. — Athaenara ✉  00:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 68.5.250.146 has not made a violation. All three edits 1:43 and 1:46 on Nov. 25 were made in straight succession without a different editor in between, and so count only as one revert. Nevertheless, I've protected the page for three days to stop the edit war. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Hereward77 reported by User:The Dragon of Bosnia (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 01:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:00, 25 November 2007


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 23:26, 25 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 00:25, 26 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 00:33, 26 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:38, 26 November 2007
 * 5th revert:01:00, 26 November 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning:00:53

The user is not ready for cooperation. He keeps reverting few articles such as The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war, Fikret Abdić (more than 5 reverts), Army of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He keeps including unrelaible (propaganda) sources and removing other user's edits, and sources such as International court conclusion which is relaible per WP:RS. He was warned by few other users such as User:Sam Blacketer and User:Grandy Grandy. I also suggested him to read WP:SOAP reminding him that Wikipedia is not political battleground, but it didn't help. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked 24h. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Simon D M reported by User:Sfacets (Result:Article protected)
. : Time reported: 17:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st Revert: 11:29, 25 November 2007
 * 2nd Revert: 11:43, 25 November 2007
 * 3rd Revert:12:02, 25 November 2007
 * 4th Revert: 12:06, 26 November 2007
 * 5th Revert:13:01, 26 November 2007
 * 6th Revert: 16:01, 26 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: Not a new user.

User continuously reverts to a previous version made before hours of work were invested in improving the article and consistently ignores requests to discuss the edits. User then proceeded to vandalize this reporting editor's talk page by posting mass bogus/fake warning templates (this also despite requests to stop) - displaying a new level of disruptive behaviour. S facets 17:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Simon D M (Respondent) reverted to last version by an administrator before the page was ransacked: mass removal of sourced material, replacement of neutral wording with POV wording and reorganisation of page by Complainant along lines for which there is no consensus. All the warnings were deserved and this can be proven, starting with provocative linking to off-site harrassment by Complainant's co-religionists of Respondent here. See the talk page for the supposed unwillingness to discuss, Respondent has discussed endlessly with Complaiant who has asserted the right to push his POV without supporting evidence. The page has been locked in the reverted state providing an opportunity for dispute resolution. Respondent has suggested mediation. --Simon D M (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The article has been protected, so no blocks. I warn Simon D M not to game the three-revert rule. Sfacets also needs to be careful not to edit war. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

User:24.107.238.16 reported by User:Dijxtra (Result: Blocked, 10 hours)
. : Time reported: 19:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:07, 25 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 23:57, 25 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:58, 26 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 03:00, 26 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:29, 26 November 2007

User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me moved quotes from this page to wikiquotes. Anonymous reverted that and then User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me and myself reverted him a couple of times. We both are admins, but I'd like to see some other admin take care of this. Dijxtra (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Anthøny 20:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Alandholder reported by User:Yaf (Result: No violation. No action. )
. : Time reported: 20:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:06, 26 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 15:06, 26 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:21, 26 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:52, 26 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:12, 26 November 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:54, 16 November 2007)

Continues to insert OR despite what other editors say and what WP rules require, claiming that there is no reliable source available. Yaf (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Kkrystian reported by User:Ekantik (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 21:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 20.29, 26 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 12.11, 26 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15.29, 26 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18.20, 26 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 20.29, 26 November 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20.55 (as I just discovered the 4th violation).

Kkrystian has been engaging in edit-warring on the article and related articles for some time now. This particular incident relates to the remoal of reliably sourced information about the article subject's personal behaviour, which Kkrystian disagrees with on account of his personal devotion to the subject in his real life. Potential conflict-of-interest issue here.

I also informed this user to discuss his changes on the talk-page (diff1, diff2, but user ignores requests for discussion and continues to revert back to his preferred version, removing reliably-sourced information. Other editors have also expressed dissatisfaction with the user's behaviour (diff1, diff2). - Ekantik talk 21:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The 3RR warning is supposed to come before the violation. The purpose of that is to ensure that the editor is aware of the three-revert rule when s/he violates it. However, I'm not convinced that Kkrystian, having been an editor for over a year, is unaware of the three-revert rule. --  tariq abjotu  23:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Elhector reported by William M. Connolley (talk) (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 22:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: all reverts clearly marked as such so not necessary


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

Sorry I didn't put the times but they are all within 1h of each other.

Warning: Not needed: see edit comment ''Ignoring WP:3RR per WP:IGNORE & WP:BOLD as removal of this discussion from the talk page is borderline vandalism. I'm willing to take the block on this if necessary''

User has apparently decided that they are able to ignore 3RR - see edit comments and. This is in the context of "discussion" being spammed onto 2 pages William M. Connolley (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

See-also William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for twenty-four hours, per the evidence above. --  tariq abjotu  23:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

User:TharkunColl reported by User:G2bambino (Result:page protected )
. : Time reported: 00:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 00:16, 27 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:20, 27 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:41, 27 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:48, 27 November 2007

This took place after the user said he would respect the decision made, though he did not agree with it. He now is taking this on as a personal crusade. --G2bambino (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I second these charges - TharkunColl went back on his word & made disruptive edits. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is clear that multiple users are guilty of edit warring here. Though technically Thark violated 3RR, I will not impose a block since the page has already been protected against moves and blocks are not meant to be punitive but to prevent further edit warring. Finally I would like to say that no consensus had been reached for the move, as others have pointed out, a simple majority is not the same as consensus. Please continue to discuss the issue instead of acting without consensus. TSO1D (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If I may comment as an observer, I see this (the antics of these two) in my watchlist all of the time and I have been driven to rarely or never edit at the pages in which it happens. I think that's testament to enough is enough. Charles 20:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Kkrystian reported by User:Redtigerxyz (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 06:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

The editor User:Kkrystian is editing Wikipedia since 13:08, 11 October 2006. Thus is not new to wikipedia.

The editor has removed the info as s/he feels it is "SUBJECTIVE(POV)". The editor has removed the same sourced information before. etc. as early as. The editor has been edit warring with User:Andries on the same issue. The removal of the sourced matter is a violation of WP:NPOV too.

Also See:Talk:Sai_Baba_of_Shirdi and Talk:Sai_Baba_of_Shirdi.

Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours by Tariqabjotu. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Yinyanglightningthrash reported by User:Someguy0830 (Result:24 hours each)
. : Time reported: 11:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:19, November 24, 2007


 * 1st revert: 03:16, November 27, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 03:27, November 27, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 03:46, November 27, 2007
 * 4th revert: 03:57, November 27, 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 03:52, November 27, 2007

This user keeps readding bolded acronyms for systems releases when they only differ by one date. I asked him to add it in the article as prose, but he insists he's right. Similarly, asking for a comparison article got nothing, and he openly expresses that he'll revert war in the last diff. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 11:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Both reporter and reportee have been edit-warring. 24 hours for each. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Breathtaker reported by Dr who1975 (Result: No action)
. : Time reported: 18:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:19, 26 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 05:19, 27 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:07, 27 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:16, 27 November 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:53, 27 November 2007


 * Description: Seems deteremined to remove the Gothic Rock genre from the band page for the Cruxshadows, the data has been there for months and I even cited itfor him.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No technical violation; I count only two reverts at the Cruxshadows article. Disengages from edit warring after second revert. No action warranted at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Dr_who1975 reported by User:Breathtaker (result: no action)
. : Time reported: 11:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 15:26, 27 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:50, 27 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:22, 27 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:26, 27 November 2007

The user ignores stylistic elements of a music genre and added POV to the article. --Breathtaker (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * However, this user provided citations to back up the assertion. This report is a tit-for-tat after the above report and, looking at diffs, is the more groundless of the two. I see no need for action to Dr who1975 at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Avfnx reported by User:CubanoDios (Result:Blocked for 72 hours )
. : Time reported: 19:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:29, 27 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 18:35, 27 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:42, 27 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:52, 27 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:59, 27 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: 18:48, 27 November 2007

Outside of this 3rr violation, whic by the way is the second on record http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Avfnx I believe he is using a sockpuppet which is user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dominiman   CubanoDios (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the sock claim, it may be a good idea to open a case at WP:SSP and present any evidence there as I cannot tell straight off from looking at both user's contributions. Thanks.  Tbo 157   (talk)  19:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Danaullman reported by User:Raymond arritt (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 05:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: (different reverts; no single prior version)

Notes below added by blocking administrator.


 * 1st revert: 02:22, 28 November 2007
 * Note: Reversion of
 * 2nd revert: 04:58, 28 November 2007
 * Note: Reversion of
 * 3rd revert: 05:29, 28 November 2007
 * Note: Reversion of
 * 4th revert: 05:35, 28 November 2007
 * Note: Reversion of

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: Not a new user; has been on Wikipedia since May 2006.

Persistent reversion of relevant content. Almost all of the reverted content is from impeccably reliable sources, such as The Lancet and Mayo Clinic Proceedings.Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for twenty-four hours. &mdash; madman bum and angel 06:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User:71.164.190.66 reported by User:24.160.178.38 (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 07:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 06:30, 27 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 02:25, 28 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 04:33, 28 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 06:01, 28 November 2007
 * 5th revert: 07:14, 28 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: 03:43, 28 November 2007

User is repeatedly deleting sourced material and replacing it with bolded personal opinions, and has ignored two or three requests to stop. 24.160.178.38 (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

24 hour 3RR/disruption block. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Breathtaker reported by User:Theplanetsaturn (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 10:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:19, 26 November 2007


 * 1nd revert: 17:07, 27 November 2007
 * 2rd revert: 18:16, 27 November 2007
 * 3th revert: 23:08, 27 November 2007
 * 4nd revert: 08:20, 28 November 2007
 * 5rd revert: 09:32, 28 November 2007
 * 6th revert: 09:39, 28 November 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:53, 27 November 2007

The user removes sourced and relevant description of bands genre, and based on comments is clearly editing from POV. He has been warned and as he retaliated against another user with a warning on this very page, is clearly well aware of the rules.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User: 84.69.241.65 reported by User:Astruc (Result: duplicate / already blocked)
. Time reported: 17:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: Nov. 28 6:37
 * 2nd revert: Nov 28 15:41
 * 3rd revert: Nov 28 16:58
 * 4th revert: Nov 28 17:00
 * 5th revert: Nov 28 17:06

I warned this editor about the 3RR rule this morning.

I believe that this person is now editing under a sock-puppet account name Toes+umbrellas chacha BTW, I strongly recommend limiting edits to this article only to editors with accounts. This article often gets reverted by people who don't have accounts with Wiki.Astruc (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User: Toes+umbrellas chacha reported by User:Astruc (Result: indef block (vandal/troll only account))
. Time reported:17:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: Nov 28, 17:11
 * 2nd revert: Nov 28, 17:18
 * 3rd revert: Nov 28, 17:22
 * 4th revert: Nov 28, 17:28
 * 5th revert: Nov 28, 17:31

I warned this editor about the 3RR rule on his/her Talk page.

Earlier, I filed a 3RR report on User 84.69.241.65. I believe this is the same editor as Toes+umbrellas chacha.

BTW, I strongly recommend limiting edits to this article only to editors with accounts. This article often gets reverted by people who don't have accounts with Wiki. Astruc (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User:84.69.241.65 reported by User:Bart133 (Result: 1 week anon block)
. : Time reported: 17:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:37, 27 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 23:37, 27 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 08:41, 28 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 09:58, 28 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 10:00, 28 November 2007

Keeps removing a "biased" quote from the introduction, against consensus. Bart133 (t) (c) 17:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I also submitted a 3RR report on 84.69.241.65 earlier today. I believe this person is a sock-puppet for User:Toes+umbrellas chacha. This editor is involved in an edit war. Astruc (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Rackabello AND User:Cheeser1 reported by User:Scoutersig (Result: 31 hours each)
. : Time reported: 17:50, 28 November 2007 17:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Reversion history: Reversion History
 * 8 Edits on 28 November
 * 19 out of last 50 edits by either of the two editors

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

Two editors are involved in an edit war, with one calling the campaign "propaganda" and the other "advertisement." &mdash;ScouterSig 17:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User:DreamOfJeannie reported by User:Beh-nam (Result: 24 hours for both)
. : Time reported: 17:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 28 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:06, 28 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 13:06, 28 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 13:25, 28 November 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 13:26, 28 November 2007

This user is making some really silly edits on this article, I tried reasoning with him or her on their talk page and gave her a warning to either talk things over first but the user kept reverting. Behnam (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Beh-nam reported by User:DreamOfJeannie (Result: 24 hours for both)
. : Time reported: 18:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 28 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 16:58, 28 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:09, 28 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:20, 28 November 2007
 * 4th revert: DIFFTIME

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:24, 28 November 2007

Beh-nam reverts all my edits concerning Dari in Afghanistan aricles. I don't understand this user. Today he hastily stated that I would be a sock puppet. And now he tries to get me blocked via this page. But it is himself who violates the rules. There are also other articles in which he reverted my edits all the time (and where I did not revert until now): Kapisa Province, Ghazni Province, Nuristan Province, Bamiyan Province. This is vandalism by Beh-nam (editwars) and also defamation as sock puppet.

See also my discussion where I explained to him why "Dari" is correct and not Persian. Dari is the Afghanistan Persian. and not Iran's. I think Beh-nam makes political motivated edits. DreamOfJeannie (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Kemal2 reported by User:AdrianTM (Result: Second violation, 48 hours.)
. : Time reported: 04:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 28 November


 * 1st revert: 18:21, 28 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:01, 28 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:19, 28 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 23:06, 28 November 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:23, 28 November 2007

user:Kemal2 was already blocked for a 3RR on the same article, moreover the user seems to be a single issue user who edits only to push a specific POV in only that article against the consensus. I warned the user of 3RR and he acknoledged that by responding in my talk page, however he reverted one more time. AdrianTM (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Tkguy reported by User:Christopher Mann McKay (Result: 24 hour block )
. : Time reported: 04:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 07:55, 28 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:03, 28 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:28, 28 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:32, 28 November 2007
 * 5th revert: 20:47, 28 November 2007
 * 6th revert: 20:52, 28 November 2007
 * 7th revert: 20:57, 28 November 2007

After reverting 5 times on the same article on the same day, I notified the user of this violation (20:51, 28 November 2007 diff), the user then strangely responded to me (20:56, 28 November 2007 diff and 21:03, 28 November 2007 diff) and continued to revert the article.


 * Please note that I obviously am new to wikipedia in the way I sign my posts and my formatting and please note that the page in question is the Asian Fetish page. Also there's a person by the handle User:Kaitenbushi who seems to be taking turns with User:Christopher Mann McKay to eliminate any materials they do not agree with from the Asian Fetish page and claiming that there are no material to support this material when there are many references on the page and many other pages on wikipedia that relates to Asian Fetish.


 * I believe I was purposely trapped into this 3rr rule which I was not familiar with. Also User:Christopher Mann McKay was sited for not updating the Campus Watch (a American pro-Israel neoconservative think tank) page in a constructive manner on 15:35, 28 November 2007.


 * The following is a schedule of all the reverts that User:Kaitenbushi and User:Christopher Mann McKay did today. I would not be surprised if these two are the same person, which I would imagine is a way to skirt the rules.


 * 1st revert: 01:07, 29 November 2007 by User:Kaitenbushi
 * 2nd revert: 03:21, 29 November 2007 by User:Christopher Mann McKay
 * 3rd revert: 03:29, 29 November 2007 by User:Kaitenbushi
 * 4th revert: 03:47, 29 November 2007 by User:Christopher Mann McKay
 * 5th revert: 03:49, 29 November 2007 by User:Kaitenbushi


 * I apologize to the wikipedia community for not understanding the rules and will reframe from repeatedly reverting the content of the Asian Fetish page. Sorry if I am going against the etiquettes by posting my comment here. Once again I am new to this.


 * Tkguy (talk) 05:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Unbiaseduser reported by User:Slakr (Result: 48 hour block)
. : Time reported: 06:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 03:35, 29 November 2007 (all reverts on that date)
 * 2nd revert: 06:08
 * 3rd revert: 06:23
 * 4th revert: 06:25
 * 5th revert: 06:29
 * 6th revert: 06:31
 * 7th revert: 06:51


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 06:27 29 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Fox (talk • contribs) 06:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Already warned. -- slakr \ talk / 06:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I gave 48h for violation of WP:OWN, WP:AGF, and WP:3RR. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 15:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Bandurist reported by User:Kuban kazak (Result: page protected)
. : Time reported: 13:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:51, 24 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 19:28, 26 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 01:33, 27 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:19, 27 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:46, 28 November 2007
 * 5th revert: 17:16, 28 November 2007
 * 6th revert: 12:35, 29 November 2007
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:39, 29 November 2007

The incident is that the article is titled based on WP:NC, Bandurist over the past few weeks made several attempts to "ukrainise" the page version without consensus, although the discussion is in process he does follow advice to cease edit warring. Previously he tried to Fork the article by eliminating the redirect. In a similar dispute on Balachka, after the article was locked he created a WP:POVFORK on Cossack Ukrainian. He continues to use personal attacks against me, and numerously ignored my pleas for diplomacy. Now I know that its timeframe is outside the 24hout requirement for WP:3RR, but in any case I request that the article be locked, and/or Bandurist be given a formal warning to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:FAITH, it be better to have that than him blocked. Whichever is best, just get him to stop revert warring. Kuban Cossack 13:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There was clearly edit warring going on, but remember that for a 3RR violation to have taken place, the reverts bust be within 24 hours of each other. TSO1D (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Allstarecho and User:Bender235 reported by User:HiDrNick (Result:24h for both)

 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Time reported: 23:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 13:48, 29 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15:29, 29 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:44, 29 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 22:31, 29 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 14:05, 29 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 15:29, 29 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:33, 29 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:54, 29 November 2007

Both users are aware of the three-revert rule. WP:LAME edit war over the year that a football coach started coaching in an infobox. &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 23:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There's an error in the report, as one of the reverts listed for Bender235 is actually an edit by Allstarecho. But this does not change the fact that both sides are clearly edit warring. 24 hours for both. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou reported by User:Eleland (Result: One week of full protection)

 * 1st revert: 00:39 29 November
 * 2nd revert: 00:57 29 November
 * 3rd revert: 16:24 29 November
 * 4th revert:16:28 29 November

User is well-aware of 3rr rule, see User talk:Jaakobou, User talk:146.115.58.152, and previous 3RR block. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 01:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Article protected for one week by . &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 01:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Saintjust reported by User:774townsclear (Result:no vio)
. : Time reported: 03:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Disrupitve edit. PUSH POV Troll. Put on a self made article. omit normal article from source, and only negative contents remain. Certainly Push POV Troll. and 3th source is not relation with Traditional Dance. just comedy dance in theater. article said "no one blame similar Traditional dance, but Why blame our dance?" (it means that comdey dance is NOT traditional dance, but he edited that it was traditional dance) He distort the meaning, too. I request to remove this Pushing POV troll. 774townsclear (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The alleged 1st revert isn't a revert to any previous version of the article. In fact, I have incorporated your input into the article: "It was performed to criticize the Korean nobility (Yangban)...." The alleged 2nd revert isn't a revert, either. I only added more info on the literal meaning of the term: "lit. the dance of the handicapped." The third and forth were reverts. As for the last accusation, there is a modern, more comedical version of the dance (that has caused the controversy) as well as a version that is more genuine to the tradition (and seems to be more accepted). Just because it is modern and comedical doesn't mean it's not "Byung shin chum." --Saintjust (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * no. before 4th edit. you did not incoporate "It was performed to criticize the Korean nobility (Yangban)...."(this article is still wrong) whatever you say, you omitting normal article and only negative contents remain since first edit. and your incorporated edit is wrong, too. They did not Korean nobility (Yangban) by depicting them as the handicapped persons. your incoporated edit are still wrong content,too.
 * Whatever you say, you omiting normal article & only negative contents remain. Push POV trolling. 774townsclear (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Second edit given isn't a revert, so no technical vio. I do caution both parties, especially Saintjust, not to participate in any kind of edit warring, regardless of whether you technically violate the three-revert rule. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

User:70.108.126.66 reported by User:Yllosubmarine (Result:warnings)
. : Time reported: 03:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Although the individual has been spoken to, they have repeatedly reverted the article back to an inferior version after I had told them that the article is correctly formatted with new citation tags and formatting as per the MOS. I had also repeatedly explained (via edit summary, article talk page, and their talk page, the issues with the image and why it cannot be placed on this article in particular, and have been ignored. I'm on my third revert and refuse to go any further.  Could someone also restore the article to its better version?  Thank you.  María ( habla  con migo ) 03:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither side has technically violated 3RR, as no three reverts fall into a 24-hour period, but both are clearly edit warring. This needs to stop. I'm watchlisting this article, and if either side reverts again, I will block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

User:AWilcoxson reported by User:dchall1 (Result: no violation)
. : Time reported: 03:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

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

Anon has repeatedly removed sourced paragraph from Milosevic article. He claims that the material violates NPOV and despite several editors restoring the paragraph he continues to remove it. First edits were made by 216.162.196.155 who seems to be the same as AWilcoxson. This is a single-purpose account devoted to Milosevic. Dchall1 (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No vio. east. 718 at 07:13, November 30, 2007

User:Pray4hovind reported by User:Johnpseudo (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 04:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:14, 30 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 01:56, 30 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 04:00, 30 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 04:13, 30 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 04:23, 30 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: 04:15, 30 November 2007

Continual attempts to add inappropriate external links to Kent Hovind despite warnings and explanations of policy. johnpseudo 04:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 24 hours. <small style="background:#fff;border:#daa520 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">east<big style="color:#090">. 718 at 07:15, November 30, 2007

User:Milanmm reported by User:Hobartimus (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 04:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 16:57 November 28 2007 This could be considered an edit but contains a large content removal which is ("The undoing of the actions of another user")
 * 2nd revert: 21:13 November 28 2007
 * 3rd revert: 02:58 November 29 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:03 November 29 2007
 * 5th revert: 14:53 November 29 2007
 * 6th revert: 17:32 November 29 2007 placed a POV tag again after it was removed, here is the identical earlier edit  at 14:59 to which he reverted


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:44

This is not a new user rather a very old one who made first edit on september 14 2006, more than a year ago. The account was pretty active for about a week until september 22 than it became completely dead, only to return a day ago to cause trouble. The main activity of the account seems to be deleting a whole subsection of the Kingdom of Hungary article, which is simply a summary of content of the Kingdom of Hungary 1920-1944 article. Other activities include pretty heavy trolling/personal attacks against multiple(3) people who reverted his edits. Based on the oddities with this account (being a inactive for a year than jumping right in, revert warring beyond 3RR, heavy trolling, massive deletions) something is definitely up. Hobartimus (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 24 hours. <small style="background:#fff;border:#4682b4 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">east<big style="color:#090">. 718 at 07:17, November 30, 2007

User:86.132.133.177 reported by User:Webwarlock (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 15:12, 30 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:

User 86.132.133.177 (a new user as far as I can tell) has repeatedly vandalized the BloodRayne, BloodRayne 2 and BloodRayne (series) articles. Reverting my attemps to remove unsourced, non-neutral point of view statements. I did not know about the 3-revert rule till now. Web Warlock 15:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Artbulla reported by User:Warlordjohncarter (Result: No Violation)
. : Time reported: 18:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:43, 27 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 05:14 29 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 02:44 30 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:21 30 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: 16:13 30 November 2007

Virtually single purpose account with extreme COI insists on reinserting statements which are neither sourced, referenced, or NPOV in article about himself and the church he founded. John Carter 18:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * er the timestamps on the above diffs show 3 edits spread across 36 hours. This isn't a violation of the 3RR. Unless there is more to this then you have already reported then try disputer resolution. Spartaz Humbug! 19:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Maurice27 reported by User:Xtv (Result:no action)
. : Time reported: 14:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:13, 27 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 21:04, 27 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:21, 28 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 02:39, 28 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:21, 28 November 2007


 * No warning needed, at least one of the 8 times Maurice27 has been blocked (06:29, 10 April 2007) is explicitly because of 3RR violation.

Maurice27 added Globalizecountry template to the article. Then there was a discussion in talk page until 10 November 2007 (UTC). SMP disagreed with the inclusion of the template. After 10 days without any answer, he proposed to remove the template. After 7 more days without answer, he removed the template. Then Maurice27 reverted the action. The discussion was opened againg, but then Maurice27 didn't accept the current status quo (as the people who deffended to remove the template did when we discussed it for the first time), and he reverted 4 times.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 14:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I remember that block. LaraLove recently blocked Maurice for this vio, but unblocked after seeing that he hadn't edited for a while . I'm going to watch this article to see that the edit war doesn't restart. Also going to warn Casaforra, who has been edit warring with Maurice27 (not technically violating 3RR, but that hardly matters). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Heimstern. That's was exactly what I was going to explain. That I wasn't the only one to break that rule. Curiously, Xtv forgot to mention Casaforra's 4 reverts here. It would be very helpful if any admin explains if I'm right in adding the Globalizecountry tag as explained by me here --Maurice27 16:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Casaforra didn't break the 3RR, therefore I didn't report him. However I find appropiate that he is warned (not blocked, he has never broken 3RR and he has never been warned). Moreover I insist: when Maurice27 added the template, nobody took it out, we discussed in talk page but he disappeared. After 17 days without answer, the template was removed. Then he started the war. I think in this case he shoud have respected the status quo and discuss before adding the template again, as we did when he added. I just ask the same respect to us, as we had with him when he added the template, but we know with Maurice27 this is not possible... Btw, I think it's quite funny to unblock a user after 8 blocks and who has already been blocked because 3RR with the reason "Hasn't edited in 20 hours". Funny because during this 20 hours nobody reverted his actions. Of course he couldn't continue the war if Casaforra had stoped to avoid edit warring and the article was exactly as he liked! Anyway, the important thing is to solve the problem. So, let's find a solution in talk page...--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 22:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me remark that Casaforra, who strictly didn't break 3RR (I know this doesen't mean he doesn't deserve to be blocked) has been blocked for one week. And this was his first time engaged in an edit war. Here there is more information.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 15:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

User:71.123.17.215 reported by User:Lyrl (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 01:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:52, 20 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 17:12, 28 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 02:24, 29 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:53, 29 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:26, 30 November 2007
 * 5th revert (partial revert): 12:31, 30 November 2007


 * Necessary for newer users:
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 23:47, 29 November 2007

An anonymous IP added historical information to the pill article, disputed by a long-term editor of the article. The editing style of this IP is very similar to a previous dispute in the pill article (see Talk:Combined oral contraceptive pill/Archive 1). A different IP has been revert warring to maintain their preferred version and refusing to engage on the talk page. LyrlTalk C 01:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * N.B. Additional partial reverts after warning at and   SkierRMH  ( talk ) 06:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

User:RMHED reported by User:John254 (Result:Blocked for 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 04:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

All edits remove the "Online activity" paragraph


 * 1st revert: 00:22, 1 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:27, 1 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:30, 1 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:37, 1 December 2007

Note that RMHED incorrectly claims that their first edit is not a reversion. However, Three-revert rule states that "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." Persuant to this definition, RMHED's first edit constitutes a reversion, since it removes content added by other editors. Additionally, RMHED has expressly stated their intention to engage in additional disruptive edit warring on this article: "I'll carry on reverting after 24 hours if I deem it right to do so." . John254 04:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Sfacets reported by User:Will Beback (Result: Stale)
. : Time reported: 12:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:02, November 30, 2007


 * 1st revert: 06:21, December 1, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 11:12, December 1, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 11:38, December 1, 2007
 * 4th revert: 11:49, December 1, 2007


 * Sfacets is an experienced user who has been blocked before for 3RR and has made numerous 3RR complaints against other editors.
 * Sfacets leans heavily on the revert/undo key. Yesterday, I was about to report him for a 3RR violation on an article. I didn't, out of charity, but today, after his continued reliance on reverting, I think it's time to ask for a remedial block.
 * In this case, there is a user (Simon D M (SDM)), with whom Sfacets is in an edit dispute (and also a deep-seated, off-wiki, huge battleground opponent of his religious group-type dispute too). SDM placed a well-deserved NPOV editing tag on the userpage of a new user who is apparently also inclined to favor "pro-group" edits. Sfacets broke the 3RR by deleting that warning four times. When I posted a message on his talk page asking him to desist from deleting the warning again he deleted my post from his talk page without giving any response or explanation, and reverted yet again. That fits the definition of revert-warring.
 * Because this is a clear case of a 3RR violation with intent, by an editor who complains about 3RR violations by others and who has been revert warring repeatedly, I think this incident calls for a longer block. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 12:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The last 2 reverts are comments on the tag/warning. The fourth revert was restoring his own comment prompted by Will Beback removing it. I don't really see this as being straightforward enough violation to justify any kind of block, although I agree that Sfacts' block log is a thing of horror and we clearly have some problems with the editor. I just don't think a marginal 3RR report is the way to deal with this. I wonder whether a wider discussion at ANI or a RFC might be a better way forward. Left open in case another admin sees this differently. Spartaz Humbug! 17:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Closing as stale, although I agree with Spartaz. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * On top of that, Sfacets is recently off a block from December 2nd by User:Mikkalai for general incivility, so a further block wouldn't serve any useful purpose. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Andyvphil reported by User:RolandR (Result:72 hours)
. : Time reported: 21:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 09:13, 1 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:32, 1 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:34, 1 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:38, 1 December 2007

Constantly removing citation inserted and re-inserted by several other editors, without discussion (as requested) on the article's talk page. RolandR 21:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 72 hours by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. Sam Blacketer 14:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As was RolandR and Nishidani, both with only two reverts. (I had three, since RolandR's first claimed revert was not one.) Seems Cavalry thinks this page is "utterly useless" and has implemented his own "edit war reporting board" . He says it's a "proposed policy", but it seems to have gone live, and even without a posting there it seems he has begun implementing his policy that "[e]dit warring needs to be stamped on as soon as it comes up" by distributing "72 hour blocks all round", without waiting for such formalities as a consensus on increasing the penalty for a 3RR that is neither a "repeated or aggravated violation" (or actually a violation at all) from 24 hours to 72. Can someone suggest where this should be discussed? Andyvphil 02:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Cav has replied on my userpage; I invite others' attention. Andyvphil 11:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User:87.122.6.197 reported by User:Theplanetsaturn (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 03:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:55, 29 November 2007


 * 1nd revert: 16:12, 1 December 2007
 * 2rd revert: 17:41, 1 December 2007
 * 3th revert: 00:51, 2 December 2007
 * 4nd revert: 03:17, 2 December 2007

Judging by choice of edits and terminology used, this user appears to be the currently banned user http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:87.122.32.205&oldid=174992260 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Breathtaker.Theplanetsaturn 03:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 87.122.6.197 has been blocked for 24 hours by Stormie. However, identification with the other IP and with certainly passes the duck test. I'm inclined to reset and extend Breathtaker's block, and will do further checking. Sam Blacketer 14:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikiarrangementeditor reported by User:Willirennen (Result:24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 04:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:53, 2 December 2007


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

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 03:53, 2 December 2007

Edit warring over its car classification, plus this user appears to be using a translator to contribute to the discussion page, there nobody has a clue what he is saying. Willirennen 04:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A clear case of disruptive reverting that goes way over what can be tolerated. Because the user is new and English is clearly not their first language I have kept the block at 24 hours; if the user returns and continues disruption, then further warnings may have to be given. (I suspect their first language may be German) I can't say I'm impressed with the choice of username though perhaps it scrapes acceptability. Sam Blacketer 14:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

User:X3210 reported by User:Jeffpw (Result:24h)
. : Time reported: 09:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 06:51, 26 November 2007 VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 04:55, 2 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 09:43, 2 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 09:48, 2 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 09:56, 2 December 2007

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 10:03, 2 December 2007

User objects to the term openly gay in the lead of article, and continually removes it, even though it is sourced. User has since reverted twice more, in spite of being warned. He simply blkanked the warning from his userpage. He is not a new user, and discussions on the talk page have not changed this behavior. Jeffpw 09:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Both have been blocked for edit warring. Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  09:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeffpw has been unblocked - I do not consider his block reasonable and will be seeking further explanation from Nat for his decision in this case. WjBscribe 13:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This doesn't look like a reasonable block here. The user was removing WP:BLP violations through reverting, a process which is exempt from WP:EW blocks. I think Nat has simply seen four reverts and blocked, without actually analysing it; perhaps we need to point it out to him? <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny 20:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Shsilver reported by User:Guest9999 (Result: Blocked, 20 hours)
. : Time reported: 16:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 17:18, 1 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:58, 1 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 13:23, 2 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 15:16, 2 December 2007

No warning was given however user is experienced with over 8500 edits and 5 years of service and should know the rules.

Following the continuing discussion here and here an edit war of sorts seems to have started regarding currently unsourced material within the article and has resulted in four edits within 24 hours from this user. Please note that no warning was issued - the user is experienced - and that I am also been involved in the "conflict" (bias?). Guest9999 16:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Three revert doesn't apply because a) changes were made by other editors User:SarekOfVulcan in between my changes (00:01, 2 December 2007), which I did not revert.  Furthermore, the first revert was reverting someone who |deleted the entire page (Vandalism) and put a forward message on it while a merge discussion was taking place.
 * A case could be made that by Guest9999 blanking significant portions of the article, when the tag would have achieved better results, Guest9999 was vandalizing the article and therefore 3RR wouldn't apply.  If it does apply, then Guest9999 also reverted the article three times within 24 hours and should also be sanctioned. Shsilver 16:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * All edits that I made were with the intention of improving the encyclopaedia and I do not think they can be considered vandalism. Everything removed was unsourced information. Guest9999 17:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)]]


 * I'm not seeing a violation of the 3RR. Unless I have misread, #3 & #4 are different edits from #1 & #2 and I don't see the same information being removed. Spartaz Humbug! 17:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * From WP:3RR - relevant part put in bold by me."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'." Guest9999 18:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)]]
 * <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny 20:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Jingiby reported by User:Fatmanonthehorse (Result: Blocked, 31 hours)
. : Time reported: 18:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:44, 2 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 17:01, 2 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:22, 2 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 17:37, 2 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:52, 2 December 2007


 * This user is removing sourced Britannica information from this page and replacing it with info from fringe websites. I have changed my edits many times as a compromise to prevent him from reverting the article, but he is ignoring my edits and reverting anyway. He was blocked for reverting before as well Fatmanonthehorse 18:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you Fatmanonthehorse are reverting my Britannica sourced statements, manipulating the article and non-stop cunning! Regards! Jingby 18:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny 20:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

User:ShuttleBox reported by User:Enviroboy (Result: Caution issued, user added to admin watchlist)
. : Time reported: 21:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:49, 28 September 2007


 * 1st revert: 07:01, 1 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 07:13, 1 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 07:21, 1 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 01:56, 2 December 2007
 * 5th revert: 19:17, 2 December 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 02:01, 2 December 2007

The fifth revert was done after I posted the 3RR warning. It is outside the 24h period since the first revert. There is a discussion happening on the talk page and on Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton. Although the other editors involved have attempted to contact ShuttleBox, he/she remains unresponsive and continues the edit war. ShuttleBox also seems to be editing Ron Paul with a similar pattern. ~ Enviroboy TalkContribs - 21:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Ron Paul edit seemed reasonable and the EdSum seemed plausible. I concur on the Clinton article. Am AGF for the moment, but that could change. I have left a cautionary comment on the user's page, and have added the user to my watchlist.Manning 10:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User:87.122.27.101 reported by User:Theplanetsaturn (Result:24 hours + 1 month for sockmaster)
. : Time reported: 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Previous version reverted to: 01:55, 29 November 2007


 * 1nd revert: 18:00, 2 December 2007
 * 2rd revert: 22:54, 2 December 2007
 * 3th revert: 23:19, 2 December 2007
 * 4nd revert: 23:33, 2 December 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 23:27, 2 December 2007

Judging by choice of edits and terminology used, this user appears to be the currently banned user http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:87.122.32.205&oldid=174992260, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:87.122.6.197 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Breathtaker.Theplanetsaturn 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 87.122.6.197 has been blocked for 24 hours by Spellcast. After two lots of sockpuppetry both ending in revert wars, I am going to extend Breathtaker's block to one month. This is clearly an ongoing problem and I wonder if semi-protection of Breathtaker's favourite articles may be done? I'm reluctant to do this if anon IPs often make useful additions to them. Sam Blacketer 11:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Turtlescrubber reported by User:The Evil Spartan (Result: Protected)
. : Time reported: 05:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:56, December 1, 2007


 * 1st revert: 11:21, December 1, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:03, December 2, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:37, December 2, 2007
 * 4th revert: 01:20, December 2, 2007

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: None needed, long time user

Though the article is currently protected, this is a long-time user who knows better, and breaking 3RR with the knowledge in order to get a hand up on an article that's about to be protected (see article history and talk page) should be discouraged. Neutral on content of edits. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the page is protected, there's nothing further to be done. The purpose of 3RR blocks is to prevent edit warring, which can't happen in the presence of page protection. Stifle (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that by refusing to block for 3RR now, we are encouraging edit warring in the future. I have often seen users who are experienced edit war with such a policy in mind, and then get away with it, and I find it altogether quite possible that this is what happened in this situation. The Evil Spartan 23:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Taking to your talk page, this noticeboard is not for discussions. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User:124.191.92.25 reported by User:Eleland (Result: Admin reviewed - comments left at article talk page)
. : Time reported: 12:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:30, 3 December 2007 (1st revert was in two steps to get to that revision)

12:01, 3 December 2007
 * 1st revert: 07:46, 3 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 09:41, 3 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 10:11, 3 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 10:19, 3 December 2007
 * 5th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 10:30, 3 December 2007

User is continually re-inserting misinterpreted & dubiously sourced criticisms into this BLP. His contributions on the talk page have been disruptive (,, et al) and every single one of his edits is related to adding criticism of Ed O'Loughlin. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 12:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Admin Action An analysis of the article was conducted and numerous NPOV concerns highlighted. Contributors invited to work towards consensus and be civil. Article is on my watchlist. Manning 13:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User:142.68.12.176 reported by User:Victoriagirl (Result: Semi-protected)
. : Time reported: 18:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:19, 2 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 03:11, 3 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 03:37, 3 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:58, 3 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:05, 3 December 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:19, 3 December 2007

The history of these reverts actually dates back to 01:20, 30 November 2007 when the user returned edits recently provided by. Citing WP:BLP, I have edited most of the reverts made since that time ( editd one revert). As yet, has provided not source for his additions. Victoriagirl 18:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The user has since reverted for a fifth time (at 19:01, 3 December 2007) within a 24-hour period.Victoriagirl 19:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Semi-protected. Stifle (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User:TStolper1W reported by User:Michaelbusch (Result: Blocked)
. : Time reported: 22:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:02


 * 1st revert: 19:33
 * 2nd revert: 20:57
 * 3rd revert: 21:12
 * 4th revert: 21:13
 * 5th revert: 22:02

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: 21:39

User is removing criticism from Randell Mills and hydrino theory, and has no other edits. Ignored my warnings for deletion, and I reported the account to intervention against vandalism. User:Dlohcierekim decided it was more of a content dispute, which I disagree with (the matter has been posted on WP:ANI). However, TStolpher1W has continued to edit the article after the 3RR warning. Michaelbusch 22:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * User blocked by User:Ioeth. Michaelbusch 22:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Charles reported by User:DWC LR (Result: Warned)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 16:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC) *Previous version reverted to: 09:24, 15 August 2007
 * 1st revert: 03:10, 4 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:07, 4 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:13, 4 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:25, 4 December 2007

In this user's opinion the Royal Family consists of "the king, the queen and five princesses. That's it." (from an edit summary) and continues to push his pov regarding the Romanian Royal Family in violation of WP:NPOV on this and another template. - dwc lr 16:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have posted on the talk page regarding the issue. Please also see the comments of editors at Talk:Romanian Royal Family, the recent edit summaries of other editors at Romanian Royal Family (noting violations of WP:DUE and other objections to DWC LR's opinions) and the edit summaries of another editor who agrees with me and others at Template:House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. This is a matter I am trying to discuss diplomatically, but trust me, it is difficult. Charles 17:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it's very difficult dealing with people who do their utmost to push their pov - dwc lr 17:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha! It's well-known and sourced that the Gotha you fervently defended isn't worth the paper it is printed on. Same here as then, this is an issue of you being cornered by objections to your edits. I supported my stance on the Mecklenburg issue and now this, and other attack-reports, and ones to come in the future are an issue of incivility. You can only corner a lion so many times before he bites, so please cease this nonsense DWC LR, and lets get on with editing, noting full well the opinions of other editors and the sources in the Romanian issue. Charles 17:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why did remove another editor requests for citation when he was trying top make the Russian articles neutral. Block this person so they can read WP:NPOV - dwc lr 17:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No warning was given prior to this report, so I am issuing one now to both parties. Stifle (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:NeutralBosnian reported by User:Ronz (Result: 8 hours for reporter and reportee)
. : Time reported: 18:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:30, 4 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 10:07, 4 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 11:50, 4 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:39, 4 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:28, 4 December 2007
 * 5th revert: 18:01, 4 December 2007

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:14, 4 December 2007

The article is fully protected because of edit-warring over multiple disputes. The editor is using the talk page as a forum to promote his viewpoints in violation of WP:TALK, WP:SOAP, and WP:BATTLE, and has been warned about this. Editor is edit-warring over legitimate discussions aimed at reaching consensus on some of the information under dispute for which the article was protected. While this is a new editor, he's a WP:SPA that has ignored previous warnings and attempts at dispute resolution. I hope an admin will consider Requests for arbitration/Macedonia, as this is a similar type of disruption (a long-standing historical, national, and ethnic dispute). Ronz 18:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have tried to reason with Ronz and have given up. Ronz has repeatedly Spammed and Vandalised Wikipedia pages which I tried to retrieve. I suggest Admin action on this. Please see Wikiquette_alerts and Talk:Bosniaks. NeutralBosnian 18:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking through Ronz' contributions, it is plain to see that he has neevr spammed or vandalised. Furthermore, there is no evidence of NeutralBosnian (who clearly isn't neutral) ever trying to "reason" with Ronz. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Edit-warring on a talk page? Poor form. NeutralBosnian has not been in trouble before, but Ronz has also broken the 3RR and so they get 8 hours each. Stifle (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleland reported by User:Jaakobou (Result: Protected)
. : Time reported: 20:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version of text reverted to:
 * He came under criticism after announcing very high estimates of Palestinian deaths which were subsequently lowered.[4] Israeli representatives also initially over-estimated the numbers killed.

no-wiki editing text:
 * He came under criticism after announcing very high estimates of Palestinian deaths which were subsequently lowered. Israeli representatives also initially over-estimated the numbers killed.


 * 1st revert: 22:31, 3 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:59, 4 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:39, 4 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:17, 4 December 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: not a new user but was still given a warning which he read.

User has been unable to provide sources for his equating the actions of article's subject (palestinian) with those of his opponents (israelis) request diff, yet he continues to revert the equation into the article while making WP:CIV and WP:NPA breaches.


 * "Are you being consciously disruptive, or just ignorant?" 30 November 2007
 * "rv: not your blog, jaakobou" 17:15, 2 December 2007
 * "rv insertion of blog-style "criticisms" culled from random websites (including a hate site) and tendentious summary" 22:31, 3 December 2007
 * "to illustrate your preferred partisan narrative" 22:41, 3 December 2007
 * "I don't have to address it because it was an abysmally stupid question." 15:31, 4 December 2007
 * "not your claptrap" 16:17, 4 December 2007


 * Comment by Ynhockey: Eleland continues to revert-war in the same article, with numerous reverts (of different edits or parts thereof though, I must admit) and clearly violates WP:3RR now:
 * 4 December, 15:39
 * 4 December, 19:17
 * 4 December, 23:46

-- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 3RR notice posted by  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  20:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm uncertain whether the violation is exempted by WP:BLP, but there are other users involved as well so I am protecting the page. Stifle (talk) 12:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to post on a dead case (which was handled correctly), and I know this isn't a place for debate, but I wanted to point out something:
 * Above, Jaakobou quotes my text re: "Israeli representatives also initially over-estimated the numbers killed", adding "User has been unable to provide sources for his equating the actions of article's subject (palestinian) with those of his opponents (israelis)". Besides the fact that my text doesn't do this, Jaakobou sliced off my reference . This source is a retrospective on Israel's media strategy in Jenin. The author is an IDF reserve Captain who had close direct knowledge of the events. He writes:

With Palestinian leaders clamouring "massacre" on all the news networks, pressure mounted on the IDF to give its own assessment of Palestinian casualties. The result was a ‘guess-timate’ offered by field commanders based on the intensity of the fighting. While our office was saying around 150 Palestinians were killed, I heard very senior generals say up to 200, and the press quoted Defence officials with numbers ranging as high as 250. These figures made the Palestinian claims of 500 dead seem within the bounds of plausibility.
 * Furthermore, I have repeatedly explained this to Jaakobou on the talk page: see Talk:Saeb Erekat. Either he simply did not read anything I wrote (possible) or he deliberately "juiced up" his 3RR report with conscious falsehoods (likely, I'm afraid).


 * Also, the timestamps given by Ynhockey don't match the edits. The first two are already referenced by Jaakobou and the third consists of me removing a category which was already included only a few lines above; see . It's also interesting that Ynhockey showed up on Saeb Erekat all of a sudden to revert me after Jaakobou had used his last revert, although I guess it's possible that he noticed this 3RR report and followed it to the article in the space of nine minutes. They're both Israelis from the Tel Aviv metropolitan area, too, and Ynhockey is an IDF military policeman, but that's surely just my paranoia talking. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 20:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Page protected, this report is closed. Please take your discussions elsewhere. Stifle (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Osli73 reported by User:The Dragon of Bosnia (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 22:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:49, 3 December 2007


 * 1st revert:Revision as of 10:25, 4 December 2007
 * 2nd revert:Revision as of 10:26, 4 December 2007
 * 3rd revert:Revision as of 10:59, 4 December 2007
 * 4th revert:Revision as of 15:25, 4 December 2007
 * 5th revert: 0:15, 5 December 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: Revision as of 11:09, 4 December 2007

Osli73 is a user with a long block log. He was blocked many times not just because of his edit wars, but also because of "Sockpuppeteering and directly violating his arbcom probation and revert parole" as you can see in his block log. Now he created redundant article Bosnian Mujahideen based on WP:NOT and WP:OR sources, in order to move edit war from ona article to another, although there is already article with more precise and official name 7th Muslim Brigade, based on relaible sources, such as Intenrational court findings. His reverts are well known not just on this article but on others. I think it is finally time to block him for a longer time. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply from osli73: The Dragon of Bosnia and Grandy Grandy have taken up a campaign against the article Bosnian Mujahideen, repeatedly deleting the article and any links to it elsewhere. I have initiated Mediation as well as requested the assitance of numerous admins to help resolve the conflict. Despite this, The Dragon of Bosnia and Grandy Grandy insists on keeping up what I can only deem to be coordinated 'attacks' on the article. I would very much appreciate assistance on mediating on this article.Osli73 (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I think Osli73 should improve the existing articles, but creating a new article with the same topic and false terms in order to move edit war from the existing article to the new one isn't a good way for Wikipedia as it is WP:NOT content based on propaganda. As you can see he informed other users to join him in the edit war in a very subtile way: , , etc.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Dragon of Bosnia (talk • contribs) 07:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The sources are not relaible per WP:RS (political forum site, broken links and mailing lists are not relaible sources).

Let's go from the beginning:
 * Nettime mailing list - Post by Drazen Pantic on Tue, 9 Oct 2001 couldn't be verified as the link to the article is broken - Page Not Found. And it doesn't contain the term Bosnian Mujahideen. According to WP:Verifiability: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." which isn't the case here, to quote: "Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views."


 * [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1164071/posts This is an example of WP:NOT content] as it is a political forum, actually The Premier Conservative News Forum. On their site you can find what it is about: "Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!". According to WP:NOT this shouldn't be here.


 * This report doesn't contain the term Osli73 is using. It just contains: "foreign mujahideen fighters", and there is already article about foreign soldiers: The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war.


 * The Hadzihasanovic verdict Osli73 quoted actually discards all his claims about foreign fighters (that they were controlled by Bosnian army, but he didn't include the rest of the quote in the article.) I will quote it here: "However, the Trial Chamber could not establish that the Accused Hadzihasanovic or the Accused Kubura gave any orders to the Mujahedin and that those orders were implemented. Moreover, in the 3000 or so documents the Trial Chamber has analyzed, there is no combat report from the Mujahedin to the Accused, nor any other document which indicates that the Mujahedin were answerable to the Accused. However, in their combat reports, the commanders of the 3rd Corps units often complained of the undisciplined behaviour of the Mujahedin during joint combat operations. The Trial Chamber also notes that prior to 13 August 1993, the 3rd Corps war diaries hardly mention the Mujahedin."

Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours, and I am going to place Osli73 and other users on notice of the recent ArbCom case. Stifle (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Toadstool1969 reported by User:Masem (Result: Stale)
. : Time reported: 01:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:15, December 4, 2007


 * 1st revert: 20:35, December 4, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:42, December 4, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 22:46, December 4, 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:06, December 5, 2007
 * 5th revert: 00:46, December 5, 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: 00:21, December 5, 2007
 * Also 00:26, December 5, 2007

Jeff Gerstmann has been in the news over the weekend as he was fired from his rather predominate position at Gamestop after 10 yrs with a lot of speculation but both Gamestop and parent company CNET have stated they can't state the reasons for the firing, just that it wasn't for the speculation. As such, with WP:BLP, trying to keep the amount of info in such articles accurate and not wildly speculative or going beyond bibliographical information is difficult.

User:Toadstool1969 added additional information this morning that at myself and User:Spectre believe far exceed what should be stated for Gerstmann at this time (either it's newsworthy but not notable, or that it has BLP problems - it is not that this information is bad, but Gerstmann's page is not an appropriate location for it). The user did 4 reverts back to his edits, and while has explained his position on the talk page, continued to perform the reverts. I left his a personalized 3RR warning (above) after his 4th (so did Spectre), but he made the 5th revert after that message. Technically I would be at fault for also not mentioning that User:Spectre has also done 4 reverts in 24 hrs (to revert 4 of the 5 Toadstool reverts) but this, I believe, follows the 3RR guideline that information on WP:BLP should be kept free of speculative and potentially harming information, and thus Spectre should not be cited for this. M<font size="-3">ASEM 01:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if it did not harm Gerstmann, Toadstool's reversions included several unsourced statements about Eidos' actions, which I think falls under BLP (as companies can sue as well as public individuals). And while it's not a 3RR failsafe, there was too much weight on one action anyway. Will (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that at least two reverts are exempted by BLP. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, read that incorrectly. Could someone else look at this? Stifle (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If I am to have been considered in violation of the 3RR rule, then fine. It will be my first such violation as I learn the rules of the road on Wikipedia. However, I completely disagree with Sceptre's asked for protections under BLP. I read it and don't find anything I did to be outside of the guidelines. Further, it looks like Sceptre is a long-standing member of Wikipedia and I don't think he should be given any special consideration over newer members. His argument that some of his reverts should not be considered violations don't seem to jive with the guidelines. Either we are both in violation or neither of us are in violation.--Toadstool1969 (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Closed as stale; No action four four days, dispute more or less over. Will (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Michaelbusch reported by User:Seicer (Result: strong warning)
and. : Time reported: 06:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:49, 4 December 2007
 * 3RR notice: 03:27, 5 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seicer (talk • contribs)


 * 1st revert: 18:18, 4 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:06, 4 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:39, 4 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:53, 4 December 2007

Also revert warring at Hydrino theory:
 * 1st revert: 16:39, 3 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:59, 3 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:13, 3 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:32, 3 December 2007
 * 5th revert: 18:58, 3 December 2007
 * 6th revert: 18:59, 3 December 2007
 * 7th revert: 19:25, 3 December 2007
 * 8th revert: 19:30, 3 December 2007
 * 9th revert: 16:37, 4 December 2007

Uninvolved editor who stumbled upon this at Wikiquette. Michaelbusch is engaging in petty revert war and is removing well cited information and misinterpreting citations. User has so far failed to engage in meaningful discussion.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 06:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd thought I'd remembered to count, but now I see that I may have run over - depending on what is counted and what is not. I'm afraid I don't understand Pcarbonn's statements, however, and note that he seems unduly partial to various forms of pseudoscience - in particular hydrino theory and cold fusion.  I have been trying to enforce WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and generally ensure that scientific validity isn't compromised - I've talked to Pcarbonn about this at great length and he refuses to accept policy.  Please see the full discussions at Talk:Hydrino theory and Talk:cold fusion and let me know if I have exceeded acceptable bounds.  I recuse myself from editing until this is decided. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a bit old. The idea of 3RR is to prevent edit warring, so reports should be made promptly. I am not going to block Michaelbusch on his undertaking to stop and a strong warning that only simple vandalism is 3RR-exempt. Stifle (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Osli73 reported by User:The Dragon of Bosnia (Result: User already blocked)
. : Time reported: 11:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:05, 3 December 2007


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 08:16, 4 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 10:33, 4 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 16:16, 4 December 200
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 00:20, 5 December 2007
 * 5th revert:09:53, 5 December 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: Revision as of 11:09, 4 December 2007

Osli73, user who was blocked 6 times continues to revert articles and to fabricate new claims, terms, names etc. He also tried to involve other users in his edit wars. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Already blocked in a previous report. Stifle (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Ostiferia reported by User:Tocino (Result: Warned)
. : Time reported: 18:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:35, 29 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 19:12, 28 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 08:24, 29 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 10:35, 29 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:52, 29 November 2007
 * 5th revert: 16:41, 2 December 2007
 * 6th revert: 17:17, 2 December 2007
 * 7th revert: 12:25, 5 December 2007
 * 8th revert: 12:31, 5 December 2007
 * 9th revert: 17:31, 5 December 2007
 * 10th revert: 17:55, 5 December 2007

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 10:35, 29 November 2007

On the List of countries by Human Development Index article one editor keeps changing Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast despite Côte d'Ivoire being the anme of the article for the nation of Côte d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast. It's user: Ostiferia who keeps reverting others who put the correct name on the list. Take a look at how many times he's reverted and its not just me he's reverted he's reverted other users too. He's says on the Human Development Index talk page that he thinks the decision to name the article of the Côte d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast nation to Côte d'Ivoire is wrong, so I told him to go to the Côte d'Ivoire talk page to discuss why it should be changed to Ivory Coast, but if you look at his edit history he has yet to do this. I also said that if he reverted again that I would report him to admins, yet he reverted again. Can someone stop this rebel editor? --Tocino 18:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have decided to warn the users as it is more of an edit war and neither have been warned on this matter. I will monitor the two users and block if necessary.  Tbo 157   (talk)  19:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it looks like Ostiferia gets his way because the article currently has the Côte d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast nation listed as Ivory Coast (Côte d'Ivoire) which is a re-direct. As I said it's not just me who he's reverted, he's reverted at least two other editors on this matter. He's using this article as a proxy for his fight against Côte d'Ivoire. I don't think he should get his way on this one. If he does then I can go to all of the articles that link to Burma and change it to Myanmar as I think the decision to move Myanmar to Burma was ridiculous. But do I take my frustration out on other articles? No. I don't understand why Ostiferia is allowed to do this. He's reverted 10 times. --unsigned comment added by Tocino (talk • contribs) 20:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You have also reverted over 3 times in the article. You claimed to be reverting vandalism but the edits you reverted was not vandalism.  In this case you changed Ivory Coast to Côte d'Ivoire.  This was reverted by User:Ostiferia who disagreed.  This process continued with no third party input and so I consider this to be an edit war between you and User:Ostiferia.  You have also reverted edits in other articles such as Hillsborough Disaster.  Therefore I warned both of you and advised you to gain more input on the matter to try and gain a consensus.  I may be wrong but you may have also reported User:Ostiferia to keep your preferred version of the article which would be a violation of WP;Point. Both of you may be blocked if this edit warring continues.  Ideally no one should make changes relevant to anything in question.  It should be discussed and a consensus should be achieved. Thanks.  Tbo 157   (talk)  22:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've made a little investigation and found out:
 * Neither Ostiferia's nor Tocino's reverts have been vandalism - as you've correctly said.
 * Neither Ostiferia nor Tocino have violated the 3RR, since neither of them have made more than 3 reverts within 24 hours (the 7th and 8th edits of Ostiferia's can't be regarded as two reverts since the version that preceded the 8th edit of Ostiferia's was the 7th edit made by Ostiferia himself).
 * Both Ostiferia and Tocino have been (legitimately) reverting more than one editor with regard to the same matter (Ostiferia has been reverting Tocino and Polaron, while Tocino has been reverting Ostiferia and Manstorius).
 * Both Ostiferia and Tocino have a good reasoning for either one's position.
 * I have suggested a compromise in my last version of the article. Meanwhile, this compromise is kept by both sides.
 * Manstorius (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, but one thing.... Ivory Coast is a re-direct to Côte d'Ivoire, so because of this the compromise should be Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast). --Tocino 00:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * After having reviewed your important comment - I realized that my compromise was really insufficient - because it prefers Ivory Coast more than Côte d'Ivoire, i.e. it prefers Ostiferia's legitimate reasoning - more than your legitimate reasoing; However, your suggestion is insufficient too, because it prefers Côte d'Ivoire more than Ivory Coast, i.e. it prefers your legitimate reasoing - more than Ostiferia's legitimate reasoning. So, let's think together about a better compromise, such one which prefers nobody's position more than the other's position. You are invited to suggest such a better compromise in the talk page, and let's let Ostiferia as well suggest a compromise in the talk page, and we'll hopefully reach a common decision within 1-2 days. In order to avoid edit-war - the status-quo should meanwhile be kept - untill both sides accept your (or Ostiferia's) following compromise, unless one of you succeeds to convince the other party to accept one's original position. Manstorius (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This report is closed. Please discontinue the discussion here and take it somewhere else, e.g. Talk:List of countries by Human Development Index. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User:75.44.146.95 reported by User:Josh the Nerd (Result:Already blocked)
. : Time reported: 22:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:02, 5 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 15:59, 5 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:01, 5 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:02, 5 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:03, 5 December 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:43, 5 December 2007

This anonymous user repeatedly reverts the removal of original research. Josh (talk | contribs) 22:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked by Bencherlite SkierRMH  ( talk ) 05:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User:JRW reported by 76.27.147.32 (Result: No warning given)
. : Time reported: 02:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

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

Continued revertion. 76.27.147.32 (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * NOTE: JRW is a new user and no warning was given before the violation. MilesAgain (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User:89.100.137.71 reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result: blocked at AIV)
. : Time reported: 14:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:10, 4 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 22:09, 5 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:44, 5 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:49, 5 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 13:52, 6 December 2007
 * 5th revert: 17:34, 6 December 2007
 * 6th revert: 17:46, 6 December 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warnings: 23:58, 5 December 2007 14:51, 6 December 2007

Editor is edit warring adding disputed information about the age of a soldier. Editor has previously used other IPs such as, and made charming comments such as this. One Night In Hackney 303  14:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * IP was blocked for 24 hours effective 17:54 UTC on 6 December 2007 as a result of a report at WP:AIV. While 3RR was a factor, the block was also due to misconduct on other users' user pages and on the article talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Artlondon reported by User:Sevenneed (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 18:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: Not a new user; has been on Wikipedia since a year ago.

Persistent reversion of relevant content. Content removed include references to legitimate sources such as peer-reviewed articles BMC Journal and an article by Alex Usher, Vice President of the Educational Policy Institute in USA Sevenneed (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The report was malformed but I have fixed some of it. However there is no violation of the 3RR here; the user has three reverts and has stopped. This seems like a content dispute for which you need to encourage more discussion and bring in outsiders by a third opinion request or a request for comments. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

User:64.247.224.24 reported by User:ScienceApologist (Result:Blocked at WP:ANI )
. : Time reported: 19:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:42, 5 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 15:16, 5 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 07:55, 6 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 09:11, 6 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 12:11, 6 December 2007
 * 5th revert: 12:35, 6 December 2007

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:15, 6 December 2007

User has a definite personal stake in references listed at Cold fusion since he is the librarian in charge of LENR-CANR.org. He seems to be totally unrepentant about his reverting as witnessed from this and this. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: Things have gotten worse. I have reported this user to The incident noticeboard. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Falls under a broader catagory so he has been blocked for Disruptive editing /24 hour . --Hu12 (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Neutral Bosnian reported by User:osli73 (Result: indef block)
. : Time reported: 15:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:20, 3 December 2007


 * 1nd revert: 14:44, 3 December 2007
 * 2rd revert: 10:16, 4 December 2007
 * 3th revert: 11:24, 6 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:02, 7 December 2007
 * 5th revert: 12:17, 7 December 2007
 * 6th revert: 13:19, 7 December 2007

User:Neutral Bosnian keeps reverting "8,000 men and boys" to "8,000 population" sometimes adding "(441 children)" although the sources all use the first wording. Osli73 (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Indef-blocked as abusive sockpuppet, see checkuser case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Bardhylius reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: Not a 3RR issue)
. : Time reported: 16:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:29 24 Nov >


 * 1st revert: 22:45 4 Dec
 * 2nd revert: 16:11 5 Dec
 * 3rd revert: 14:46 6 Dec
 * 4th revert: 20:42 6 Dec
 * 5th revert: 16:15 7 Dec


 * Not a new user, was blocked for edit-warring before.

Gaming the system by slow revert warring just below 3RR over several days. Latest edit summary indicates intention of continuing with these tactics. Parallel revert war on Skanderbeg. Nationalist POV-pushing (user is self-declared "fierce nationalist" according to their user page.) Recent Arbcom ruling in the Macedonia case is applicable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a 3RR violation. Taking the accusations of gaming the system into account I am issuing a warning and putting the editor on notice of the ArbCom remedy. Further breaches of same should then go to WP:AE. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Floyd Davidson reported by Jeffpw (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 17:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Version reverted to: 23:06 Dec 6
 * 1st reversion: 07:03, Dec 7
 * 2nd reversion: 14:39, Dec. 7
 * 3rd reversion: 15:19, Dec. 7
 * 4th reversion: 16:05 Dec 7
 * 5th reversion: 16:55, Dec 7
 * Editor warned after 4th reversion:

User refuses to allow the fact that Barrow, Alaska was used as the setting for the film 30 Days of Night to be in the article. Continues to pare the fact down to one sentence and place it below the navigation template at the bottom of the page. Sourcing the material makes no difference, and he has said on his talk page that he will continue to revert war. Jeffpw (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I can only see 4 reversions (I'm going with the 1st reversion as the version reverted to) but there seems to be a clear WP:3RR breach after a due warning. Edit warring is not an acceptable way to resolve disputes. I think a block appropriate in this case. WjBscribe 17:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

User:70.43.182.102 reported by User:Whoville (Result: semi-protected)
. : Time reported: 01:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:26, 7 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 12:43, 7 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 13:07, 7 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:32, 7 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:26, 7 December 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:09, 7 December 2007

Repeatedly inserts POV criticism of grammar in children's song without citation. Has become belligerent when asked to seek consensus on article's talk page and use NPOV:
 * What I wrote is verifiable fact, and inextricably linked to any pertinent discussion of Choo Choo Soul. Removing it makes no sense whatsoever and is flat out deceptive. You can block me from this computer, but you cannot block me from any of the other 500 computers I have full access to. This isn't edit warring, this is a matter of biased selective censoring of relevant information to a subject and is utterly asinine. I am going to repost my edit once again.

&#151;Whoville (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Either #1 or #2 is not a revert, depending on how you consider it, therefore there is, strictly speaking, no violation. However bearing in mind the IP's threats and so on, I am going to semi-protect the page for a week. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User:PhGustaf reported by User:Craigtalbert (Result: 6 hours)
. : Time reported: 06:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:44, 8 December 2007


 * 1st revert 20:47, 7 December 2007
 * 2nd revert 21:20, 7 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 03:44, 8 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 04:42, 8 December 2007
 * 5th revert: 04:55, 8 December 2007


 * As evident by the edit comments, user knows about the three revert rule and doesn't care that he's breaking it.

This material has been discussed on the talk page. User is revert despite on going discussion. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * User shows no interest in discussion or anything other than sterile reverting. However this appears to have been the first time he has come to admin attention and gets 6 hours. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User:BruceGrubb reported by User:Slakr (Result: 8 hours)
. : Time reported: 22:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC


 * 1) 02:55,  8 December 2007 (compare) (edit summary: "Personal views have no place in an encylopia artice only FACTs.  Stop vandalizing the article carl.")
 * 2) 08:56,  8 December 2007 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 176507070 by Anietor (talk)")
 * 3) 09:24,  8 December 2007 (compare) (edit summary: "FACTS not your personal views.")
 * 4) 11:43,  8 December 2007 (compare) (edit summary: "All reliable references including the Encyclopedia Britannica call Gnostism and Mormonism Christian.  The *referenced* FACTS are agains you and every other peopne who removes this.")
 * 5) 13:58,  8 December 2007 (compare) (edit summary: "There is NO single Church of Christanity.  It is cited and stop messing with the FACTS.")

Already warned.

— slakr \ talk / 22:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * BruceGrubb gets 8 hours for a first 3RR breach, and Slakr may deserve a barnstar for the effort put into the report. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Plasynins reported by User:Armyguy11 (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 23:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:55, 21 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 22:39, 8 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:08, 8 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:01, 8 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 04:59, 3 December 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: 22:44, 8 December 2007

removal of infobox that was already in discussion. user is new to article and conensus has not been reached. ussion. user is new to article and conensus has not been reached. user has a strong history of reverting and undoing the work of others. Armyguy11 (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I just stumbled upon this, and it appears both users went past 3RR. History shows User:Armyguy11 and a different user had the same argument a few weeks ago. I would suggest full protection for awhile. Yemal (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * simply go to my user history. I did not violate 3rr at all. I was waiting for a reply on the talk page from other users and user:Plasynins starts removing the content without going into the talk page.  You yourself have reverted the inserted userbox.   which is similar to the one that can found in the holocaust article. The rationale being that it is contained in the article, but similar information is contained in the holocaust article yet the infobox that hasn't been removed. Armyguy11 (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I see a marked similarity in the edits of user:Yemel and user:playsins edits. The amount of undid's in their edits and the disappearance of user Playsins and the sudden emergence of user Yemel to take his place seems to be a bit more than coincidence. Armyguy11 (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You're accusing me of being his sockpuppet now?? Because we both use the undo button? Ok, I'm staying out of this now. Keep up reverting if you want. Yemal (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha, are you serious Armyguy? I should be the one reporting you. Actually both of us have 3 reverts each on these over 24 hours. And while the User Yemal is obviously not me (we have no history of editing the same articles, using "undo" is weak evidence), the IP who reverted me was clearly you. Anyway the history is clear, I reverted 3 times, no violation. Plasynins (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * yes you dissappeared and yemal showed up and reverts. how convenient! Armyguy11 (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Um... the four reverts have to take place within a 24-hour period, not one a week ago and the rest yesterday. Revert #4 is from December 3rd. No violation and please don't argue your cases here. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Plasynins reported by User:Armyguy11 (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 23:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:23, 6 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 02:55, 7 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:59, 8 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 22:09, 8 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 22:36, 8 December 2007
 * 5th revert: DIFFTIME

22:44, 8 December 2007
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

removal of infobox that was already in discussion. user is new to article and conensus has not been reached. user has a strong history of reverting and undoing the work of others. Armyguy11 (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No violation here either, reverts 1 and 4 are more than 24 hours apart. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:81.154.205.12 reported by User:Seicer (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 00:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:58, 8 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 20:36, 8 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:45, 8 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:53, 8 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:56, 8 December 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: 20:43, 8 December 2007

User has insisted on an edit war, adding in unsourced, unverified and original research material into the article despite consensus on the talk page and at WP:ANI. This comment ensures that his edits will be solely to disrupt.

There have been six reverts today alone, and similar IPs have been installing the same text repeatedly.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24h by .  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The page has since been semi-protected. However, Jéské Couriano made five reverts in a few hours on the same page and is blocked for 8 hours. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC) I missed that Kafziel warned Jéské before I got to this, so it would be interfering in another admin's actions for me to issue a further punishment. I have unblocked him. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:PIRRO BURRI reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: Blocked 2 weeks )
. : Time reported: 12:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:03, 9 Dec


 * 1st revert: 11:11, 8 Dec
 * 2nd revert: 11:44, 8 Dec
 * 3rd revert: 12:06, 8 Dec
 * 4th revert: 12:29, 8 Dec

Not a new user, was blocked for edit-warring before.

nationalist single-purpose troll with a history of disrupting a small set of Albania-related articles with clueless talkpage rants and uncoherent edits against consensus for many months. Possibly a reincarnation of previously banned anon user "Dodona", who had the same profile. Macedonia Arbcom decision is applicable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)