Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive62

User: Bobby Awasthi reported by User:slatersteven (Result: No violation; Protected)
. : Time reported: 20:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: [Revision as of 21:00, 8 December 2007]


 * 1st revert: [Revision as of 15:08, 9 December 2007]
 * 2nd revert: [Revision as of 15:13, 9 December 2007]
 * 3rd revert: [Revision as of 15:14, 9 December 2007]
 * 4th revert: [Revision as of 15:18, 9 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: DIFFTIME

A short explanation of the incident.

Booby is aware of the 3RR rules as he has previously entred into a debat about someone else being baned for this (and has asked why others have not been baned). Moreover he edited more then just four times (about 7 in fact). Many of which are rather insultiing in their reasoning.I never intended to do this but will be unable to edit many of his revisions without violating the rule myslelf Slatersteven (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * He has not made a violation. If he makes several edits consecutively (i.e. with no other users in between), those edits only count as one revert. He has thus made only two reverts in the 24-hour period. Because of the dispute, I've protected the page for three days; please discuss the changes with him on the talk page. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:64.148.1.113 reported by User:Someguy1221 (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 23:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:13, 9 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 14:10, 9 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:18, 9 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:19, 9 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:35, 9 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: 14:20, 9 December 2007

Very long edit war without discussion over two unsourced versions of the Dan Debicella. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 24 hours. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Ratsofftoya reported by User:Someguy1221 (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 23:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:51, 9 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 12:57, 9 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:17, 9 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:19, 9 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:30, 9 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: 14:20, 9 December 2007

Very long edit war without discussion over two unsourced versions of the Dan Debicella. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 24 hours. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist reported by User:Martinphi (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 01:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:

This is not a technical 24 hour 3RR violation, but nevertheless deserves action considering the user's block log (and you would have to go see all his sock puppets to get the real effect here), history, and refusal to stop edit warring even after objections were raised on the talk page.





Finally does a mergeto:



Redirects saying no objections were made:











The user continually edit wars on many articles, but is often clever enough to count. I hope a block will caution him to build consensus. I'm making this report per WP:3RR "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of the edits are ancient. There is no WP:3RR violation here. If you have issues with the editor, the correct venue is a Request for Comments. If you suspect sockpuppetry, request a checkuser. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Plasynins reported by User:Armyguy11 (Result: Stale)
. : Armyguy11 (talk) 04:17, 10 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: 23:08, 8 December 2007

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

Sockpuppet used to circumvent 3rr violation. RFCU has been filed. . The result was a possible. 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.
 * First revert is out of time. I am deferring to another admin as to whether the "possible" result on checkuser is enough to block Yemal. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Suspected sock puppets/Plasynins was opened by this same user. It was closed shortly afterwards. See my comment there about this nonsense, I dont think editing the same page as a person once and a "possible" checkuser result is a reason to block anyone. Yemal (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason this is still open? The page in question was protected days ago and neither user has been active since then. The sockpuppet report was closed, why has this report not been???? Yemal (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It was closed with a possible being the reason. Meaning it wasn't denied that you are in fact engaging in edit warring and are not the same person. As a result you could be still be blocked or at least given a warning for 3rr vandalism. User Playasins hasn't been on and took a "wikibreak" most likely as a result of a sockpuppet account being discovered. Armyguy11 (talk) 10:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Closing as stale. Stifle (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

User:222.144.8.172 reported by User:71.250.205.204 (Result: No action)
. : Time reported: 06:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:24, 9 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 17:33, 9 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:21, 9 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:06, 9 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 05:07, 10 December 2007
 * 5th revert: 05:50, 10 December 2007
 * 6th revert: 05:55, 10 December 2007
 * 7th revert: 06:05, 10 December 2007
 * 8th revert: 06:14, 10 December 2007
 * 9th revert: 06:19, 10 December 2007

Their tit-for-tat edit warrings are keeping so fast, I couldn't give a warning but another editor already did. I also think Clerkwheelzeon violates the rule together.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 06:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC) --71.250.205.204 (talk) 06:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm not sure if this is needed. Both users are either new or ip's and I don't think they were aware of the 3RR. I warned them and there hasn't been any violations since (I would've reported them if there had been). Therefore I'm not sure if it's still necessary to bring this issue here. I'm new to the AN/3RR though, so correct me if I'm wrong so I can learn from my mistakes. Cheers, Spawn Man Review Me! 06:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * They stopped after being warned and appear to be over on the talk page for now. You're right to bring it here, but I'm not going to take any further action for now as the primary purpose of a block (preventing edit-warring) has already been achieved. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't bring it here... JSYK Spawn Man Review Me! 10:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Err... yeah, move along, nothing to see here :) Stifle (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Muscovite99 reported by User:Kulikovsky (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 21:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:33, 10 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 19:30, 10 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:38, 10 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:51, 10 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:56, 10 December 2007


 * Diff of 1st 3RR warning: 19:48, 10 December 2007
 * Diff of 2nd 3RR warning: 20:34, 10 December 2007

User:Muscovite99 pushes allegations coming from questionable sources into a biography of a living person. This seems to violate WP:BLP. He has done 4 reverts in less than 2 hours being warned twice about 3RR. Kulikovsky (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. I would suggest that you don't make so many reverts yourself though. You've made three (just under the limit), but the limit of 3 reverts per 24 hours doesn't mean you should use that limit. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Just to explain, it is not that I want to do multiple reverts, but as far as I understand, WP:BLP requires removal of poorly sourced allegations. Whether they are poorly sourced or not I hope we can establish at the discussion page of the article. Thanks again. Kulikovsky (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a brief note: the edit war in this case was actually started by User:Kulikovsky whose actions also amount to censorship and WP:Vandalism. The issue was discussed at the discussion page and Belkovsky's opinion did not enjoy any majority. The allegations are presented as such, not as facts. As those have been made in credible publications by a number of well-known persons, they noteworthy and relevant.Muscovite99 (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:V-Dash reported by User:MelicansMatkin (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 01:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User:V-Dash is currently engaged in an edit war with IP 172.216.161.58. I am unsure whether 3RR covers an edit war on a users talk page, but I thought I should report it just in case. They have reverted each other several times in the last couple of hours. As of this report, V-Dash has reverted after I posted a 3RR warning on his talk page (the warning was posted in between the 4th and 5th revert); IP 172.216.161.58 has also violated 3RR on this talk page after the warning, and that report is filed below. I also feel it prudent to note that V-Dash has been warned multiple times about 3RR, and also been blocked for a 3RR violation in the past. He also has a history of attacking other editors, and sockpuppetry. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * User's reverts were on his own talk page, which falls under WP:3RR, "reverts performed by a user within his or her own user page, user subpages, provided that such reverts do not restore copyright violations, libelous material, WP:BLP violations, or other kinds of inappropriate content enumerated in this policy or elsewhere". Dreadstar  †  05:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User:172.216.161.58 reported by User:MelicansMatkin (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 01:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

IP 172.216.161.58 is currently engaged in an edit war with User:V-Dash. I am unsure whether 3RR covers an edit war on a users talk page, but I thought I should report it just in case. They have reverted each other several times in the last couple of hours. As of this report, IP 172.216.161.58 has reverted after I posted a 3RR warning on their talk page (the warning was posted in between the 4th and 5th revert); User:V-Dash has also violated 3RR on this talk page after the warning, and that report is filed above. I also feel it prudent to mention that the IP 172.216.161.58 has currently only made edits to the talk page in question. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikiarrangementeditor reported by User:Daniel J. Leivick (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 04:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

User Wikiarrangementeditor has a habit of avoiding discusion in his short time on Wikipedia. Based on his grammer and several comments he has made I believe he does not speak English and edits using a web translator. I have tried to discuss his edits on his talk page, but the best I have received in return are poorly phrased dismissals that show a lack of understanding of the policies I have pointed him towards. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1st 3RR warning:
 * 2nd 3RR warning
 * 1st Block for 3RR
 * 3rd 3RR warning


 * Blocked for 24 hours. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User:GuTTy-YC reported by User:Seicer (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 19:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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


 * 1st revert: 14:51, 11 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:56, 11 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:07, 11 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 15:17, 11 December 2007
 * 5th revert: 15:34, 11 December 2007
 * 6th revert: 16:36, 11 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: 16:20, 11 December 2007

User persistently edit wars by inserting in uncredible sources and original research. This comment left by Gutty-Yc indicates he plans on continuing.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 19:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Similar edit war at Disculpa los malos pensamientos:
 * 1st revert: 14:26, 11 December 2007
 * 1st revert: 15:20, 11 December 2007
 * 1st revert: 15:29, 11 December 2007
 * 1st revert: 15:39, 11 December 2007
 *  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 19:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[[User:Zeraeph]] reported by Mattisse 19:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)]] (Result: 1 month)
. : Time reported: 19:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

User:Zeraeph repeatedly reverts my edits on Psychopathy - at first I did not realize what was happening. I tried to discuss it on the talk page. He reported me to ANI. I essentially cannot edit the page. (This is the first time I have reported here so I hope I am doing it right)  Mattisse  19:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

 
 * first revert
 * second revert
 * third revert (plus four more)
 * fourth revert (plus four more)
 * fifth revert
 * sixth revert
 * seventh revert (plus one more)
 * eighth revert
 * ninth revert (plus one more)
 * tenth revert
 * eleventh revert (plus more)

At first I did not realize what was happening. I tried to discuss on talk page. The other editor reported me to ANI. There I was told to discuss it with User:Zeraeph. I have lost a lot of work. Mattisse 19:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * - 1 month ‎by Mikkalai -- slakr \ talk / 07:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Sfacets reported by User:Will Beback (Result: 10 days)
. : Time reported: 02:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Previous version reverted to: 00:24, December 10, 2007
 * 1st revert: 10:55, December 11, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:25, December 11, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:07, December 11, 2007
 * 4th revert: 23:45, December 11, 2007
 * 5th revert: 00:43, December 12, 2007

Many reverts. Experienced user, who was blocked twice last month for 3RR. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * - 10 days by Blnguyen. -- slakr  \ talk / 07:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Deadlyfix reported by User:Rocksanddirt (Result:deleted)
. : Time reported: 06:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 05:44, 12 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 05:46, 12 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 05:50, 12 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 05:53, 12 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: 05:59, 12 December 2007

User Deadlyfix is trying to create a future history section and upset that we don't seem to be getting on board with it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * - John Candine is CSD-tagged G3/vandalism and reverts were removals of tags.  I went ahead and notified the user using .  User also made a personal attack on User talk:Rocksanddirt for which he's now been warned.  If editor continues you might consider reporting him has a vandal instead. -- slakr  \ talk / 07:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the user gave up, after the articles were deleted and the warnings posted. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems pointless to block now that the article has been deleted. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

User:80.180.11.90 reported by User:Brian0324 (Result: 24 hour block)
. : Time reported: 22:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_in_China&diff=177514796&oldid=177514397 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_in_China&diff=177526302&oldid=177523488
 * 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: DIFFTIME

Edit war. IP user is repeatedly deleting cited material. Brian0324 (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC) --EoL talk 02:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Kuban kazak reported by User:Hillock65
. : Time reported: 15:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 19:41, 12 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 19:45, 12 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 20:01, 12 December 2007
 * 4th revert: Current revision (12:59, 13 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: No warnings were issued as this is a seasoned and well known edit warrior with long history of blocks for revert warring

Sterile edit warring in multiple articles. This user is repeatedly deleting cited material and inserting biased and one-sided statements in articles Zaporozhian Cossacks‎, Ukrainians in Russia‎, Kuban People's Republic. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm rather disinclined to block only Kuban kazak, as both he and the reporter are edit warring (even if the latter hasn't technically violated 3RR). I'd be inclined to block neither or both (and given that both have a history of blocks, the latter seems preferable to me). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Funkynusayri reported by User:Zerida (Result:Funkynusayri blocked for 10 days, Hamada2 blocked for 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 20:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:59


 * 1st revert: 18:03
 * 2nd revert: 18.27
 * 3rd revert: 19:39
 * 4th revert: 07:01
 * 5th revert: 11:59

Started disrupting the article and trolling its talk page with the help of a puppet of a banned user a while back (include trolling my talk page ). Has since returned on a regular basis to do the same despite extensive discussion (Archive 2) and lack of consensus for his changes, warnings not to use the article's talk page as a soapbox or engage in repeated tendentious editing. — Zerida 20:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikignat reported by User:Jdcaust (Result:24h)
. : Time reported: 20:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:17


 * 1st revert: 12:14
 * 2nd revert: 13:55
 * 3rd revert: 14:17


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 14:13

Back in October, Wikignat blanked a well-sourced, but controversial part of Alan Keyes' article. He was mean-spirited and did not assume good faith on the part of the editors at the time. His points were discussed patiently and a consensus of editors (myself, Dlabtot, and JamesMLane) determined that the information should be inlcluded. Last night, he blanked it again, this time providing sources to "prove" his points. I considered the sources and wrote a compromise. He reverted the compromise. In between, Dlabtot undid his blanking and mentioned that it should be kept. JamesMLane also came by and informed Wikignat he was wrong. Wikignat tried and failed to get the page protected, so he reverted again. I warned him of the 3RR back in October and again today. I also responded to him again on the talk page. Despite this, he reverted for the third time, so I am now reporting him. --20:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Jdcaust (talk)

User:Spylab reported by User:EliasAlucard (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 23:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 2007-12-11T23:55:54


 * 1st revert: 2007-12-12T00:02:07
 * 2nd revert: 2007-12-12T19:32:12
 * 3rd revert: 2007-12-13T19:40:02
 * 4th revert: 2007-12-13T23:46:31
 * 5th revert: 2007-12-14T16:42:20

User:Spylab has been fanatically obsessed in changing the lead of the Neo-Nazism article into making it appear that neo-Nazism is an ideology, when in reality, the ideology is Nazism (neo-Nazism is the term). This is supported by the sources I've cited, and the sources User:Spylab cites (for some reason, he interprets them in a different way). So Spylab has been engaging himself in constantly reverting the changes made by me and several other users into his own POV. The article has been locked recently over this, and I think it's time to block Spylab as a warning and hopefully he will get the message not to editwar over this. EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 23:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No violation. There has to be four reverts within 24 hours to break 3RR. Stifle (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * On top of that, blocks aren't used punitively or to give someone a message, only to prevent disruption. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

User:207.195.244.52 reported by User:Lucid6191 (Result: Malformed)
. : Time reported: 01:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:57, 14 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 00:30, 14 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:37, 14 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:44, 14 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:49, 14 December 2007
 * 5th revert: 01:01, 14 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: 14 December 2007

A user is repeatedly deleting or editing sourced information and replacing it with unsourced, biased statements. It's basically an article about a controversial sports event, and there is an edit war with one side deleting sourced information and replacing it with unsourced hearsay. The user continues to edit after being warned for 3RR. Lucid6191 (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Those are oldids, not diffs. Please report using diffs. Stifle (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist reported by User:Anthon01 (Result: no violation)
. : Time reported: 18:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 03:00, December 14, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:25, December 13, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:57, December 13, 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:22, December 13, 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: [ http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

Editor keeps reverting against consensus. Anthon01 (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No violation, but there will be other sanctions coming. east. 718 at 21:50, December 14, 2007

User:Bestiege23 reported by User:Burnte (Result: Stale)
Also reporting myself for getting into it. I had reverted 3 times before I even realized it, so I'm guilty too.

User:Burnte reported by User:Burnte (Result: )
 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 23:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: I'm part of the "war", it's not appropriate for me to revert anymore.


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 13:45, 14 December 2007 (First removal by revert of domain hijacking incident, by Bestiege23)
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 19:51, 14 December 2007 (Only the very bottom I added, I don't know why this diff shows so much in green)
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 20:00, 14 December 2007 (Revert by Bestiege23)
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 21:28, 14 December 2007 (Third party re-added the relevant info)
 * 5th revert: Revision as of 21:31, 14 December 2007 (Third party was reverted by Bestiege23)
 * 6th revert: Revision as of 21:57, 14 December 2007 (Revert by Burnte, reporter)
 * 7th revert: Revision as of 22:12, 14 December 2007 (Revert by Bestiege23)
 * 8th revert: Revision as of 22:43, 14 December 2007 (Final revert by Burnte, reporter)
 * 9th revert: Revision as of 22:55, 14 December 2007 (Revert by Bestiege23)
 * 10th revert: Revision as of 23:16, 14 December 2007 (A fourth party added more info)
 * 11th revert: Current revision (23:26, 14 December 2007) Bestiege23 reverted fourth party's addition)

4chan's domain registrar account ws hacked. I added info from the 4chan status blog about this and some info about the hack. Reverted. I readded it. Reverted. Another person added it. Reverted. I re-aded it, reverted, etc. The argument is that the OWNER'S BLOG is not a reliable source. I fail to see how anyone could be more authoritative than the owner. burnte (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You can revert 3 times--- but in any way... this report is a little stale at the moment, with a day and a half gone. So... no action due to staleness. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 09:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Just a correction: 3RR is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence" nat.utoronto 09:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

User:137.99.117.74 reported by User:Commodore Sloat (Result: No action, user warned by filer)
. : Time reported: 00:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:27, 13 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 11:39, 14 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 11:50, 14 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:01, 14 December 2007 (restoring the disputed text along with a host of new disputed claims)
 * 4th revert: 16:19, 14 December 2007

Anon is inserting disputed text in a blatant attempt to POV-push the article in a completely different direction than the consensus of investigators, journalists, historians, and academics have concluded. He has been asked to stop on the talk page but so far has refused to engage in discussion at all. csloat (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Followup - this anon is also using the userid User:Chudogg; s/he appears to be a new user and has been warned. There is probably no need for a block at this time, although a warning from an admin would be helpful.  The editor has posted to the talk page since I wrote the above. csloat (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think block is not warranted at the time in agreement with your reasoning. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 09:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

User:207.67.148.57 reported by User:Lucid6191 (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 04:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:49, 15 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 00:49, 15 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:54, 15 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 00:59, 15 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 02:47, 15 December 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 00:16, 15 December 2007

A user is repeatedly deleting or editing sourced information and replacing it with unsourced, biased statements. It's basically an article about a controversial sports event, and there is an edit war with one person deleting sourced information and replacing it with unsourced hearsay, and most recently, the edits borderline on vandalism. He has been warned on his talk page multiple times by multiple people about 3RR and Vandalism, and has responded with rude comments and more edits. Lucid6191 (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * -- slakr \ talk / 13:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

User:U is for Unity reported by User:Snapper2 (Result: already blocked)
. : Time reported: 05:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:33, 14 December 2007, though continues to add content with each revert


 * 1st revert: 20:53, 14 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:21, 14 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:47, 14 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 05:09, 15 December 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:14, 14 December 2007

User continues to create article for minor fictional character despite consensus against it. They are uninterested in discussing the matter, feeling the character's importance within the series is enough to warrant an article. ~SnapperTo 05:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * by Allen3. -- slakr \ talk / 14:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

User:24.28.6.209 reported by User:Hu12 (Result:Blocked indef.)
. : Time reported: 22:33 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:44, 14 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 15:31, 15 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:42, 15 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 22:12, 15 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 22:26, 15 December 2007)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:19, 15 December 2007 --Hu12 (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a 3RR violation if the edits are reverting vandalism. My reverts were merely restoring a link, one since added to the referenced citations, that was lazily being deleted and replaced by a completely irrelevant wikipedia article rather than editing it to be a referenced citation (which I ultimately did). User:Hu12 is being less than honest here. And lazy. --24.28.6.209 (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You continued edit warring/Disruptive editing, despite the discussions, warnings and opposing consensus from editors and/or administrators on the talk page. You chose to continue reverting in pursuit of a certain WP:POINT, rather than discuss.--Hu12 (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "...blocks aren't used punitively or to give someone a message, only to prevent disruption." Huh...I didn't know that.  Did you know that, User:Hu12?  'Cuz, you seem to want to indulge in some sort of punishment for my reverting of what you know I took to be vandalism and destruction of information. So if blocking is being inappropriately bureucratic, what is an appropriate punishment for repetitively keeping Wikipedia's articles from being vandalized by dilettantes...being invited to Knol? --24.28.6.209 (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This case seems to be an attempt to impose one's own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. Wikipedia's guidelines are generally accepted among editors, such as WP:3RR and is considered a standard that users should follow. Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it. You engaged in an Edit war as a way of attempting to win a content dispute. A contentious fact does not become uncontentious by virtue of repetition.--Hu12 (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And I made the simple effort to fix the article via a referenced citation, while you -- repetitively -- insisted on using a Wikepedia article for reference that effectively had nothing to do with the content of the article. And...who's at fault here? --24.28.6.209 (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * On reviewing this submission I discovered that 24.28.6.209's previous account,, was already banned. I've blocked the fixed IP for a year. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Bksimonb reported by User:Creationcreator (Result:Page Protected)
. : Time reported: 10:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=178258775&oldid=178255713
 * 4th revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 1st revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The user is the leader of the organization is question's Internet PR team working in tandem with other BKWSU editors;,   and the banned user.

A previous sockpuppet report focusing on their meatpuppet activities was filed that documents an identical pattern of reversion to their PR version of the article. . The religious organization apparently wishes to down play in use of mediumship, channelling and possession as it also has political ambitions and exclude any references to informed, independent websites disclosing these mediumistic teachings and support victims. Creationcreator (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * has made very few edits. All of them disruptive reverts or trolling. Why does this editor find it necessary to discredit other editors on the basis of their affiliation and attack the article subject? An SSP report has been filed. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 11:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

User:67.188.133.40 reported by User:72.79.45.93 (Result: Blocked for 24 hours by Daniel Case )
. : Time reported: 11:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:42, 1 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 04:32, 15 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 02:48, 16 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 04:25, 16 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 05:32, 16 December 2007
 * 5th revert: 10:27, 16 December 2007
 * 6th revert: 11:35, 16 December 2007
 * 7th revert: 12:14, 16 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: 05:13, 16 December 2007, and 05:14, 16 December 2007

The insistent and unverified assertion "dead copy" has been a subject to make the petty edit warrings for over months. In fact, both product, pockey and pepero are produced by Lotte corp. The owners are Koreans with Korean citizenship but lives in Japan and have established their companies in both Korea and Japan. Putting aside from this matter, "dead" is not accepted in Wikipedia.

In addition, 24.23.197.195 who previously vandalized on the article is the same guy as 67.188.133.40 according to their ip address check., --72.79.45.93 (talk) 11:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I notice you too seem to have an alternate IP. However, I agree that 67's additions are WP:POV pushing, at best, though I don't quite know the term "dead-copy". The Evil Spartan (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If You implied that I'm the other anon, 76.28.138.146 and you were an administrator, check my ip. I have nothing to hide myself with an alternative ip address. The consistent vanalism should't be here anyway. --72.79.45.93 (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's confusing with the number of anonymous IP addresses, but I can definitely say that I'm not 72.79.45.93, whoever s/he may be.--76.28.138.146 (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * While Lotte does have a presence in Japan, I don't think they are affiliated with the makers of Pocky. That doesn't excuse the weasel words that have been used though.--76.28.138.146 (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 67.188.133.40's reverting is still ongoing, so I add one more his revert. I believe the editor uses open proxy. If not, how can't he care about other people's opinion at all and his possible block? --72.79.45.93 (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 67.188.133.40 made another achievment on the article. . Those sentences appear to be more than weasel words. --72.79.45.93 (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the anon for 24 hours for a 3RR violation after this was reported to AIV. Daniel Case (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/88.78.12.2 reported by User:PeeJay (Result:Blocked for 24 hours )
. : Time reported: 15:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:40, 14 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 20:52, 14 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:21, 14 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:43, 14 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 09:21, 15 December 2007
 * 5th revert: 13:46, 15 December 2007
 * 6th revert: 11:08, 16 December 2007
 * 7th revert: 12:24, 16 December 2007
 * 8th revert: 13:06, 16 December 2007
 * 9th revert: 14:51, 16 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: 14:45, 16 December 2007

The original edits were carried out by, and since then various IPs I believe to be the same person have continually reverted established users' attempts to remove that person's edit. – PeeJay 15:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Bramlet Abercrombie reported by User:John Broughton (Result: 24 hour block)
. : 3RR warning in September; time reported: 20:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC) (Actually, he's gaming the system; he and another editor aren't even bothering with edit summaries when they revert each other - just a pure edit/revert war. An admin warning about system gaming, at minimum, would be appreciated; this is nonsense. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * 24 hours (in the future please make sure you add the revert logs). - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 23:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Reyn116 reported by User:Clicketyclick (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 23:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:52, 16 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 07:52, 16 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:27, 16 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:29, 16 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:57, 16 December 2007

This person has reverted the page 4 times today and has reverted the page 5 times in total (not including the first insertion.) S/he has been copy-pasting entire articles from external websites into this page and  Thatcrazycommie, Lazyguythewerewolf, 86.154.85.164, and I have all taken issue with this and expressed the reasons why s/he should not do this. I have invited this user to discussion in order to resolve the conflict in my edit summaries, on the discussion page, and on his/her user talk page, but s/he has not responded. S/he does not even use the edit summary box to explain his/her constant reverts. This person shows no indications that s/he will do anything to discuss this and will only continue copy-pasting entire (redundant) articles from other websites into Wikipedia indefinitely, ignoring all attempts at discussion. clicketyclick yaketyyak 23:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * User wasn't warned, so I've issued a warning instead of block. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 23:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * UPDATE : User ignored your warning and reverted again, this time including an insult to those who undo his/her changes ("Sony fanboy"). Now a total of six people have told this user to stop (adding you and BillPP to the four mentioned previously.)
 * Here's the latest revert: 00:03, 17 December 2007 only 16 minutes after you gave this user a warning. clicketyclick yaketyyak 00:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * UPDATE 2: and another revert: 00:15, 17 December 2007 a mere 8 minutes after another user reversed their revert. At this point, it borders on vandalism. This person doesn't appear to be inclined to stop unless they are forced to. clicketyclick yaketyyak 00:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. Prodego  talk  00:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Flyer22 reported by User:Unwhitewasher (Result: sock blocked)
. : Time reported: 10:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:52, 16 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 11:36, 16 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 04:22, 17 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 08:03, 17 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 09:35, 17 December 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: see edit summary on 4th revert reported above. Reported user remarks demonstrating developed cynical awareness of the 3RR requirement - ie. warning requirement therefore waived per WP:3RR.

Reactive contracollaborative actions from reported user ignoring repeat invitations to bring discussions about the appropriateness and reliable sourcing of content supplied from the Encyclopaedia Brittania. Demonstration of unilateral unseemly belligerent/accusative biting in choice of edit summary content. Need we put up with any more of it from the reported user? Action please. TY & Merry Xmas Unwhitewasher (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked reporter as obvious abusive sock of banned user. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Armon reported by User:Timeshifter (Result: No Action (Revised by nat.utoronto 23:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)) 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 20:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:55, 16 December 2007.


 * 1st revert: 22:28, 16 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:43, 16 December
 * 3rd revert: 11:59, 17 December 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:43, 17 December 2007

The easy way to see the reversion is to look at the casualties infobox and the casualties section of the article before and after  the reversion. The article had been basically stable since Tiamut's version on November 30, 2007. Tewfik initiated this latest round of major blind reversions. Armon tagged along after Tewfik. On November 28, 2007 on Armon's talk page Gatoclass pointed out a previous 3RR violation by Armon concerning the casualties section of this article. Armon self-reverted that time. This time Armon made a few more edits of other articles after I left the 3RR warning on his talk page, but did not self-revert this article. Tewfik and Armon have been gaming 3RR for a long time concerning this article, and Tewfik has gotten other people blocked with his 3RR gaming. The purpose has been to obfuscate Palestinian civilian/noncombatant casualties. Almost all discussion on the article talk page since early August 2007 has been about casualties. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The individual was warned after the fact, as this is the case, I am assuming that he/she did not know about 3RR before. Therefore no action. nat.utoronto 21:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you read what I wrote? Armon was warned about 3RR a few weeks ago, and self-reverted. So he knows about 3RR. Further warnings about 3RR are a courtesy, not a requirement. Also, Armon has been editing Wikipedia since February 2006 and well knows about 3RR since he has been editing contentious Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles for a long time. Also, quoting you from a comment higher up; "3RR is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"". --Timeshifter (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Revised 24 hours nat.utoronto 23:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Could another admin have a look at this? There is an ongoing edit war. I think the admin nat.u made a mistake in reading this report, and is no longer editing today. Please see my previous comment for details. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Nat. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

User:24.255.11.149 reported by User:Strothra (Result: no violation)
. : Time reported: 23:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:41, 15 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 18:23, 16 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 11:53, 17 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 11:59, 17 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 12:07, 17 December 2007
 * 5th revert: 01:09, 18 December 2007
 * 6th revert: 13:49, 18 December 2007
 * 7th revert: 14:18, 18 December 2007

Strothra (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * User has been blocked before for violating 3RR on this article: 19:42, 9 December 2007

Hey now; I don't have a bunch of people to join me in my side of this 3RR, like you and your buddies play the WP:GAME to get what you want, even if you refuse to answer the talk page before adding unsubstantiated, unreferenced claims about Juan Carlos. I love the guy a bunch, but he's no imperial claimant, except by you, User:Michaelsanders and perhaps a few other Wikipedians. You are not the source. Bring a source, cite it as said. The article on Juan Carlos has to follow the same format as preceding monarchs of Spain. The claim that he alone is a Byzantine claimant is without citation, while neither the preceding monarch and his heir have this succession box. You can't just place this succession box in the middle of nowhere, while it is clear that the rest of the Spanish monarchs' succession boxes nowhere include the title "Byzantine Emperor", except for those few involved with Andreas Palaeologus. Look, I am a serious monarchist and sincerely believe in the Spanish monarchy. I expect serious editors and not blind fanatics who have not cited references. This issue would be best left to the talk page. Throughout all this edit warring, you have not substantiated this claim, just readded what appears to be a WP:HOAX to many of the PhD.s in history here at Wikipedia, like User:Clio the Muse, User:Xn4, User:Adam Bishop and User:John Kenney. In fact, I defer to their expertise almost constantly. You should listen to what they have to say; they know their stuff! Follow editorial convention and cite your historical sources, if you have any. As far as you've shown me, there are none to be had. I will stop removing this data if you have a source, properly in context and not distorted shamefully to serve a warped POV. So, who says that Juan Carlos is the current Byzantine claimant? In my defense of "breaking the 3RR": Talk:Philip_I_of_Castile. Michael Sanders has been continually attacking my edits without foundation. I have been forced to stave off both an absolute monarchist (Strotha) and Sanders, whose own profile page indicates his willingness to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for personalized conflict, in which he'll never give up what he believes in. Look at Sanders's block log:  Also view the talk page on Juan Carlos, where we are presently articulating the nonsense being peddled forth here: Talk:Juan_Carlos_I_of_Spain. The original discussion is here: Talk:List_of_titles_and_honours_of_the_Spanish_Crown. I even posted this dispute on the talk page of Sanders (User_talk:Michaelsanders) and he ignored it, rather than address the pertinent issue. He returned to revert warring, instead of discussion. I have been discussing this issue point for point with the great and respected minds of Wikipedia, in addition to keeping this article at a sane, citable level (although I haven't actually looked at the rest, because I'm only interested in the dubious Byzantine aspect of it). If this Strotha or Sanders can "pwn" me with knowledge of my error on the data (which I've checked and compared with respectable Wikipedians), rather than how I've acted per 3RR, then I wont ever edit these articles again! More backdrop of this discussion, which apparently nobody has picked up on: User_talk:24.255.11.149/User_talk:Tourskin/Talk:List_of_Byzantine_Emperors 24.255.11.149 (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I too (like 24.255.11.149) find the 'Byzantine Emperor' claim 'questionable'. However, being combative over it's inclusion isn't the way to go. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Strothra very recently got blocked for breaking the 3RR:  24.255.11.149 (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

More edit warring by User:Michaelsanders: Talk:Charles_V%2C_Holy_Roman_Emperor 24.255.11.149 (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

See what I mean about the hypocrisy?:  &   User:SqueakBox is another crazy editor who doesn't deserve to get "credit for fighting" against my RVV, considering his intense block log history. I'm not so bad, huh? This "lone ranger" is tired of keeping watch. Whichever administrator that has a good history background, feel free to do what you want in this situation--even if it means I go down too...I don't care anymore. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't like to see an editor leave Wikipedia on a sour note. Here's hoping he reconsiders. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The user has not yet violated WP:3RR because there are not yet four reverts within 24 hours nor is there any severely disruptive behavior. However, I have warned the user for nearly breaching WP:3RR. Kei  lana  00:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

User:John Gohde reported by User:Jim Butler (Result:24h)
. : Time reported: 04:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:25, 15 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 17:38, 16 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 19:25, 16 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 19:51, 16 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:14, 16 December 2007
 * 5th revert: 12:02, 17 December 2007

User has been blocked repeatedly in the past for 3RR and other violations, cf. block log.

User wants to classify topic (medical acupuncture) as a "manipulative therapy", but refuses requests for a source. He also told me "stop wasting my time on your nonsense".

A request: User has a history of contentious editing, having once been banned for a year. As I and other users will readily attest, his pattern of disruptive editing has continued. I think the problem here goes well beyond 5RR (!) and that perhaps a community ban of significant duration is in order. Any advice or help in implementing that would be much appreciated. Thank you. --Jim Butler(talk) 04:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User:70.68.148.228 reported by User:Daniel J. Leivick (Result:24 hours )
. : Time reported: 06:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_War_Between_the_Classes&oldid=178651202


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Continued removal of valid clean up tags, without discussion. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Kei  lana  00:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

User:76.112.23.57 reported by User:Alvestrand (Result:24 hours )
. : Time reported: 06:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:56, November 29, 2007


 * 1st revert: 07:29, December 17, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 04:16, December 18, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 06:06, December 18, 2007
 * 4th revert: 07:23, December 18, 2007

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 06:56, December 18, 2007

User reverted 3 times. I (mistakenly) blocked him for 3RR; another editor commented that it was unwise to do so while editing the page, so I unblocked and placed a warning. Now I feel someone else should look. Alvestrand (talk) 06:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Kei  lana  00:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

User:68.215.235.8 reported by User:Jeff3000 (Result:65.198.237.20 blocked 24 hours; 68.215.235.8 not blocked. )
. and : Time reported: 13:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:04, December 17, 2007


 * 1st revert: 23:32, December 17, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 07:50, December 18, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 10:31, December 18, 2007
 * 4th revert: 12:30, December 18, 2007

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:28, December 17, 2007

The anonymous user has been adding a non-notable figure to the page with self-published references. He's been constantly reverted by three users over many days, and has just passed 3RR. He's used the same IP for all but one cases. Jeff3000 (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have blocked 65.198.237.20 for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Kei  lana  00:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Qworty & User:Arzel reported by User:Mbisanz (Result: Warning)
. : Time reported: 19:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:

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

User:Arzel
 * 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: ,

Controversial article that just came out of protectiona few days ago. As a semi-involved party, felt I should report this as its a BLP and accuracy there is super-important. Mbisanz (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Also, User:Arzel started a thread on User:Qworty here, but this seems like the more appropriate place to bring this part of the dispute. Mbisanz (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't wish to get technical rather than adhering to the spirit of 3RR, which I do very much believe in, but my initial edit was not a revert, but the addition of new information that came out in today's New York Times.  I won't revert it any further, and I do apologize if I've misunderstood the guideline, but I do not believe I have violated it.  For a discussion as to whether this issue is actually BLP (it involves in fact a dead man, George Romney) please see   Thank you very much, and I appreciate everyone's input. Qworty (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is clear that this is a violation of WP:BLP as an example of WP:COAT. User Qworty has been attempting for some time to add to the  Mitt Romney article allegations of previous racist misdeeds by the Mormon Church to the MR article.  I was following guidelines under WP:BLP by which the 3RR rules does not apply.  Arzel (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just an note that Qworty's original edit (ending in id 262) was never included in this report. Arzel's revert of that edit was included as his first revert. Mbisanz (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, my original edit is part of the report. It's the first one you mention, incorrectly noted as a "revert."  The edit history shows  that I have made four edits to the article today (Dec 18).  The first edit is the addition of new information from the New York Times.  The next three edits are reverts.  I never did make a fourth revert and have no intention of doing so. Qworty (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe this has technically reached 3RR, however there is clearly edit warring going on. I also agree with comments elsewhere by Arzel regarding BLP and NPOV concerns. I am warning everyone against edit warring and have warned Qworty about BLP issues. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Struck Qworty's name, as technically he has not reverted an article 4 times in 24 hours. Please forgive my math error Mbisanz (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, Arzel should have been blocked. And I support his side in this content dispute. BLP is being taken extremely loosely in this instance, and to use it as an excuse to violate 3RR is ridiculous. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Warnings are supposed to be made before someone has violated 3RR and only if they ignore the warning and carry on reverting should they be reported. Stifle (talk) 12:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Warnings are unnecessary for established users who know better and choose to ignore it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Anietor reported by User:Xi Zhu (Result: User:Xi Zhu blocked for disruption)
. : Time reported: 20:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Multiple rollbacks.


 * All parties seem to be edit waring here, article protected by User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. henrik  • talk  20:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've blocked User:Xi Zhu for disruption, and unprotected the page. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Brian0324 reported by User:Xi Zhu (Result: User:Xi Zhu blocked for disruption)
. : Time reported: 20:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Multiple rollbacks.


 * All parties seem to be edit waring here, article protected by User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. henrik  • talk  20:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Xi Zhu blocked for disruption. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Hentai Jeff reported by User:TheFarix (Result: 7 hours)
. : Time reported: 00:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:14, December 16, 2007


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

restored some information that had been changed in March and recently removed by an anonymous IP. Since Jeff did not include any source to the removed information, I removed the restored information as original research. Jeff reverted the edit and I removed the information again and later removed the rest of the paragraph and on preceding it that was also marked as being uncited since March. Jeff then reverted both of these edits (2&3) and then proceed to tell me not no edit the article any further. By then, removed the paragraphs twice to which Jeff restored them told him not the edit the article. This editor appears to have some serious ownership issues with the article based on what is on the articles talk page and in the history of the article when the same information was previously removed as unsourced, possible original research. --Farix (Talk) 00:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 7 hours. Stifle (talk) 12:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that #3 is exempt because it is one of two consecutive edits by the same user, but four reverts are enough to warrant a block. Stifle (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Saintjust reported by User:HongQiGong (Result: Page protected)
. : Time reported: 04:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 2007-12-19T02:35:15


 * 1st revert: 2007-12-19T03:08:05
 * 2nd revert: 2007-12-19T03:56:50
 * 3rd revert: 2007-12-19T04:03:56
 * 4th revert: 2007-12-19T04:14:07


 * The diffs are long but as an example of the reversion, if you search for "Timothy M. Kelly" in the diff, you can tell that Saintjust keeps reverting to re-insert him in the article, when he was taken out at 2007-12-18T20:16:38. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The alleged first revert of mine is an expansion of the article incorporating inputs from both contesting parties, and hardly constitutes a revert to an identical version. Also the "Previous version reverted to 2007-12-19T02:35:15" is a version that HongQiGong endorses and the one he has been reverting to. Not me. --Saintjust (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3RR is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence". Both of you were edit warring, and next time I see this from both of you, I will take further actions. Pictogram voting support.svg Fully protected&#32;for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. nat.utoronto 04:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

User:68.155.120.99 reported by User:Count Silvio (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 1:09, 20 December 2007 (GMT+2)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:59, 19 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 03:16, 18 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 04:26, 19 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:59, 19 December 2007


 * The reported IP keeps removing the relevant link (refined vices) from external links of the page and is not responding on the talk page. I've also linked to the three revert rule on the talk page.
 * There have been multiple reverts by the same person over the time period the link has been there.
 * No violation here, only when four reverts are made within 24 hours is a violation generated. Stifle (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User:R. fiend reported by User:Domer48 (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 23:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

This editor has attempted to introduce WP:OR on a number of occasions, including improper synthesis of material. I have attempted to draw this editors attention to this on the talk page here but as the last edit summary they made here shows, they are not interested. I must point out, that I have had a number of encounters with this editor, and feel it only right to point this out. Here are the diff’s and. Domer48 (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Is the third diff a revert? It appears to immediately follow the edit identified as the second revert, which would seem to imply this is a self-revert or a single revert over multiple edits. In any case, I've already protected the page from editing; will leave this report up for another admin to respond. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The editor User:R. fiend already blocked User:Domer48 an editor he was in a content dispute with without even notifying User:Domer48  that he was in breach of 3RR. BigDunc (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No violation. Reverts 3 does not count as it is a revert without edit-warring (part of two consecutive edits by the same user). R. fiend's actions may require scrutiny but this is no place for that. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User:JHunterJ reported by User:Abtract (Result: Invalid)
. : 01:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

This user is an admin so should know better even without a warning!
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I was simply trying to improve MS as I have done before (it is a page that interests me for personal reasons) and I was reverted without discussion. I may well have been off on the wrong track though I think I have put the page right now ... but at not point did JHunterJ make any attempt at dialogue, preferring to revert me ... as an admin he should know better. Abtract (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Reverts were of different edits that User:Abtract was trying to foist upon Wikipedia without forming consensus (BRBRBRBR rather than WP:BRD); in particular the fourth revert was after a complete. See also Talk:MS to see how the edits are contrary to WP:MOSDAB and consensus there. This is not the first time Abtract has engaged in disruptive edits here or on other articles. Perhaps I should have protected the article earlier in the sequence... -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Response The fact that the reverts were of different edits (and they were marginally different in an attempt to improve on my previous attempt) is immaterial, as this admin should know. My edits were all in good faith and in no way intended to be "disruptive" (indeed I have never tried to be disruptive but I have been carried away occasionally with an attack of overenthusiastic "knowing I am right", which is wikistupidity I know) but I received very little guidance from JHunterJ who simply reverted with the briefest of non-helpful edit summary - note I was the first to use the talk page - it was only after his 4th revert that he had the decency to give me chapter and verse on where I was going wrong (an admin's job surely?). I have now put matters right but with a version of the page changed from that of a few days ago, an improvement I believe and in line with policy. I would have done this earlier if advised properly from the start.
 * To be honest I wouldn't have reported JHunterJ had he not been an admin but surely he should have known, and behaved, better? Abtract (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe you should take the trouble to read the edit summaries I used, such as this one on the first revert: "Disambig page style repair: (you can help!), restore Microsoft, de-bold, etc.)" which links to the dab project. You have also been repeatedly referred to WP:MOSDAB, and you are editing MS knowingly contrary to it without forming consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The supposed old version reverted to is a version after the third revert. Therefore it is not proven that the first edit quoted is actually a revert. While I have plenty of ideas as to what should and shouldn't be on the page, this noticeboard isn't for discussions. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your considered decision. Abtract (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on Pandyan Kingdom reported by User:StephenBuxton (Result: Malformed report; protected)
. Time reported: 11:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

I apologise that this isn't following the correct template. I was watching recent edits, and came upon this edit war. I have no idea which is the correct version, but there appears to be three versions that arebeing switched between, and an awful lot of name calling. The three versions are as follows


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Previous version reverted to:

Can an administrator step in and bring about peace, please? StephenBuxton (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please use the proper reporting template with diffs if you wish to report a 3RR violation. If you want to report bad behaviour or edit-warring, please use WP:ANI and if you want to request protection, use WP:RFPP. However, in order to avoid needless bureaucracy I've protected the page for a week. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User:R. fiend reported by User:Domer48 (Result: Warning)
. : Time reported: 16:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

This editor has attempted to introduce WP:OR on a number of occasions, including improper synthesis of material. I have attempted to draw this editors attention to this but as one edit summary they made here shows, they are not interested. I must point out, that I have had a number of encounters with this editor, and feel it only right to point this out. Here are the diff’s and. Ihave also had to place a report last night on a different article here. Domer48 (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Twice in one day a report made about this admin as i said earlier he blocked editors for less and my reading of 3RR is you do not actually have to have 4 edits for a block and as an admin im sure he is aware of this.BigDunc (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The guy is out of control - check out his edit summary when notified.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment There responce to me letting them know of the reports was Not very polite coming from an Admin. In furture, I will not place anything on their talk page. --Domer48 (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have placed a final warning about the civility/personal attacks on his page. I will not take action on the 3RR request, but I want it noted that R. fiend recently blocked Domer for 3RR violations, who he was in an edit war with. SirFozzie (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User:IHATEMYLIFEXXX reported by User:Zedla (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 06:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 06:10, 21 December 2007


 * 1) revert: 22:06, 20 December 2007
 * 2) revert: 22:08, 20 December 2007
 * 3) revert: 22:32, 20 December 2007
 * 4) revert: 06:10, 21 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: 22:37, 20 December 2007

User repeatedly reverts to edit identified as problematic. User was warned of 3RR well ahead of 4th revert. User may be sockpuppet Zedla (talk) 06:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for twenty-four hours, as the user is clearly edit warring. I would ask Zedla to please not use rollbacks that identify the edits as vandalism during content disputes any longer. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, flagging the edits as v was in error. Zedla (talk) 07:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Xchange reported by User:Fbagatelleblack (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 22:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

I firmly believe that User:Xchange is editing in good faith. However, his edits demonstrate a non-neutral viewpoint, are speculative, rely on random definitions for terms such as 'Large Format' include spelling mistakes, and are generally non-encyclopedic. Other editors, including myself, have tried to reason with him, but he does not appear willing to listen to and/or accept our arguments and requests that he attempt to achieve consensus. Please review this matter as time allows and make judgments according to your expertise. If you feel that I am in danger of violating WP:3RR please let me know how I should change my editing behavior in the future to avoid such danger, and understand that I will not engage in further edits on this article until admins have weighed in. Also, any suggestions as to how I should handle similar situations in the future would be much appreciated. Many thanks. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Blocked for 24 hours; encouraged to come back to the article talk page to discuss proposed edits further once the block expires. MastCell Talk 00:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Wtimrock reported by User:Djsasso (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 18:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:59, 21 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 12:04, 21 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:12, 21 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 12:23, 21 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 12:28, 21 December 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:18, 21 December 2007

User keeps removing db-bio tag. Has been warned a couple of times by me not to remove it and to add hangon tag. It appears he has had this issue in the past with afd/speedy tags based on his talk page. Djsasso (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours. MastCell Talk 00:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

=

User:QuackGuru reported by User:Anthon01 (Result: User warned)
. : Time reported: 01:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:50, December 22, 2007


 * 1st revert: 23:25, December 21, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:34, December 21, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:40, December 21, 2007
 * 4th revert: DIFFTIME

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

Continually reverting against consensus. Although he hasn't reverted a fourth time, he periodically returns and performs the same edits against consensus. I believe he is breaking the spirit of the rule. I believe there is another incident here. Anthon01 (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure why this report was even made when you said yourself that the editor in question has not reverted a fourth time. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Because the 3RR says you can be in violation even if you haven't reverted more than 3 times. Anthon01 (talk) 05:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really see a situation that needs blocking here, although Quackwatch QuackGuru really shouldn't have reverted this many times. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * While I'm not defending QuackGuru's very bold editing and edit warring, the term "consensus" is very dubious in this case, especially considering who brought this to the table and the other editor who is opposing QuackGuru. They too are edit warring, editing disruptively on multiple articles, and they have a habit of claiming a consensus when it doesn't really exist. Warnings to all parties would be more appropriate. -- Fyslee / talk 16:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Who brings it to the table doesn't matter. You are making blanket accusations without any diffs. Prove it. I had one incident several weeks ago and was blocked (I am a new user and completely misinterpreted the meaning of WP:CCC). Other than that I have not violated 3RR. There was a consensus of one section that is "Quackwatch as a source." QuackGuru repeatedly tries to change it to two sections, one called "Recognition" and the other called "Criticisms."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * User wasn't warned; warned. I wrote that disruptive editing is block-able offense too. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 06:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur with Fyslee here. See also this thread on the talk page of one of the involved users. I note that Anthon01, after filing this report, went on to 3RR by partially reverting my only edit (which was, in turn, a revert of material removed by QG). This seems to make this a questionable report and Anthon01's third series of edits now looks like part of the edit war (diff). Avb 16:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please review my diffs.


 * # http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quackwatch&diff=179481245&oldid=179472637 An edit
 * # http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quackwatch&diff=179490314&oldid=179487577 A revert with a warning.
 * # http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quackwatch&diff=179498835&oldid=179496678 An edit of new material containing an WP:OR violation. Anthon01 (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the text that QuackGuru removed "Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, PharmD, in a review published in The Consultant Pharmacist, recommends that Quackwatch implement formal peer review processes for their web site."


 * This is the text that Avb later placed on the QuackGuru Quackwatch article that I edited soon after "In a 1999 article in the The Consultant Pharmacist, Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa PharmD gave Quackwatch a positive review for two articles that discussed "natural remedies" and reported that pharmacies continued stocking such alternative remedies although unaware of their efficacy, as the profit margins were larger than for conventional drugs. Nguyen-Khoa recommended that a mirror "academic counterpoint" and a more rigorous review process be put in place to improve the website as a resource for consultant pharmacists." Although related, it was very different text.


 * I then removed a WP:OR violation edited it to this "In a 1999 article in the The Consultant Pharmacist, Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa PharmD discussed of two articles from Quackwatch of particular interest to pharmacists. The articles reported that pharmacies continued stocking alternative remedies although unaware of their efficacy, as the profit margins were larger than for conventional drugs. In discussing the site limitations, Nguyen-Khoa recommended that Quackwatch institute mirrored "academic counterpoint" and that a "giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published, a logical transition for a site that relies on so much of the accepted medical literature as its foundation." Anthon01 (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have commented on the matter on Anthon01's talk page here. Avb 17:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually the text can be found on User Talk:Levine2112 Anthon01 (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it can't: I posted my comment on your talk page. You chose to remove it, but the link above still leads to my comment since it's a diff. You may want to read this entire AN/3RR thread as you seem to have missed the link to Levine2112's talk in my first contribution above. Avb 18:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I didn't miss that. I didn't click the link to the diff on this page. My mistake. Anthon01 (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * QuackGuru is kind of a menace. . he makes the same edits against consensus from time-to-time. . . revert wars. . . does not discuss. . . skids the edge of 3RR. . . vanishes. . . then returns a week later to the same article and does the same thing. This behavior is sanctionable. . . he have been warned plenty but you would not know it. . . he deletes any warning you post on his page.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Fbil reported by User:Henrymrx (Result:protected)
. : Time reported: 03:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:40, 22 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 06:11, 21 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:46, 21 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 22:52, 21 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 01:40, 22 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: 18:49, 21 December 2007

Repeated reversions. May be the same an an anon user that was recently blocked for the same thing. User has been warned and repeatedly asked to take it to the talk page. Henrymrx (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * User has in fact violated the rule; some other editors are also edit warring. I'm using protection in this case. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Cantamagda reported by User:Dseer (Result: no vio)
. : Time reported: 18:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: [http://http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gangaji&diff=179561545&oldid=179537728


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

User Cantamagda is aware of their 3RR violations but alleges that "3RR does not apply to "unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons." Furthermore, Cantamagda has also either deleted or altered the words of other editors on the talk page, e.g., . User Cantamagda's edits show distinct bias towards the subject and deletionism towards sourced controversy.--Dseer (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This user has a red link for a talk page, how could he possibly be sufficiently warned? John Reaves 21:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * NB user name was misspelled in case filing; should have been Cantamagda instead of Catamagda. User:Cantamagda indeed was warned. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about typo. Apparent single purpose editor Cantamagda has repeatedly been warned both on edits and on their talk page about 3RR and edit warring, and the response was exactly as stated above, though controversial material is sourced.--Dseer (talk) 08:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No vio GDonato (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

User:217.43.77.43 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: no vio)
. : Time reported: 19:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Apparently random date changes, similar to diff of 16:21, December 9, 2007


 * 1st revert: 13:57, December 22, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:06, December 22, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:54, December 22, 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:01, December 22, 2007

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:04, December 22, 2007

Seems to be a systemic campaign to change the far-future dates. So far, he hasn't reverted since the warning, but this can change.... &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No vio Not reverts, GDonato (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If I'd caught him earlier, we could confirm that all of the edit sets changed 6.5 billion to 5.5 billion for the time that the sun becomes a red giant, which was also added back on December 9. Unfortunately, that change was made in the first revert set, but two days earlier, so I felt it improper to include it in the 1st revert.  But I agree that there's no vio, because he did stop after being warned.  If he continues, .... &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomer reported by User:JPG-GR (Result: nobody's getting blocked today )
. : 20:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

User has violated the 3RR rule on WBXX (FM):
 * first dif
 * second dif
 * third dif
 * fourth dif

I have repeatedly pointed out the format change of this radio station both in my edit summaries and on my talk page. He has repeatedly "templated" me. User has previously been blocked for a 3RR.

(Full-disclosure) I should also note that upon checking the edit history, I may have violated the policy myself in the process of updating the article to include the new, updated information. In this case, I lost count of the edits, and I have not reverted since my edit here, where I thought I was at 2R and haven't edited further since. If I, too, must be blocked for a period of time, I will accept that punishment. JPG-GR (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that to violate the 3RR you have to make 4 or more revisions, I stopped at 3. - NeutralHomer  T:C 20:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * dont game the system. βcommand 20:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Beta, stay out of it. JPG, your second diff, wasn't a revision.  I use TWINKLE for my revisions or I say "revert" in the edit summary.  That was a simple cut and paste.  Still 3.  Sorry. -  NeutralHomer  T:C 20:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If it looks like a duck (all the difs are identical) and quacks like a duck (you have a history of blindly reverting me), calling it "not a duck" doesn't make it not a duck. JPG-GR (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've detwinkled Neutralhomer, but nobody need get blocked here. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 20:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Moreschi. Now, here's the question - should I wait 24 hours to be safe before updating the info in the article as reflected on their website, or am I good to do so now? Thanks. JPG-GR (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * JPG, I can answer that one and it is yes. To be on the safe side though, you should wait at least 30 hours.  If you go 24 hours and 1 minute, some admins can still consider it a 3RR violation. -  NeutralHomer  T:C 20:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Gentleman, perhaps you could both stop reverting each other and use the flaming talk page, which seems to be complete virgo intacta. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 20:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Moldopodo reported by User:Ungurul (Result:Both blocked for 3RR following comments at WP:ANI)
, : Time reported: 13:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 07:18, 23 December 2007


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 11:55, 23 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: DIFFTIME
 * 3rd revert: DIFFTIME
 * 4th revert: DIFFTIME
 * 5th revert: DIFFTIME

He was blocked also on other wikipedias, like French Wikipedia for the same POV-pushing. http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=Utilisateur:Moldopodo He was blocked before also here for disruptive, edit warriors on Romanian articles. He was unblocked with condition he will not edit war again. Well, he did many times.. Ungurul (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Both blocked. Moldopodo 1 week, Ungurul 24hrs, per AN/I.Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents--Hu12 (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

User: 71.241.117.196 reported by User:Doczilla (Result: blockity blocked )
. : Time reported: 21:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:42, 22 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 23:13, 22 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 12:30, 23 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:16, 23 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 14:35, 23 December 2007
 * 5th revert: 15:20, 23 December 2007
 * 6th revert: 16:04, 23 December 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:02, 23 December 2007

Anonymous user at 71.241.117.196 keeps reinserting I Am Legend into the article List of zombie movies even though Box Office Mojo and the movie's own promotional materials do not classify it as a zombie movie. The anonymous user's opinion that it's a zombie movie is not a sufficient source for inclusion. User was warned after the fourth revert, but made a fifth revert anyway. Doczilla (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC) A sixth revert has now appeared. Doczilla (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The edit war continues:
 * 7th revert: 16:29, 23 December 2007
 * 8th revert: 16:51, 23 December 2007
 * 9th revert: 17:43, 23 December 2007

Unfortunately, this means that someone else has also committed a 3RR violation despite advice to avoid doing that, so an additional report will follow. Doczilla (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite arguably this is vandalism anyway, but it's certainly disruptive edit-warring against consensus. 31 hours. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 00:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Irishguy reported by User:Doczilla (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 01:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:

17:17, 23 December 2007
 * 1st revert: 13:36, 23 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:30, 23 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:35, 23 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:26, 23 December 2007
 * 5th revert: 16:31, 23 December 2007
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert: 18:08, 23 December 2007

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly. A more formal warning followed, after the other person in the edit war had already been blocked. 18:58, 23 December 2007
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:56, 23 December 2007

An anonymous user kept inserting a movie onto List of zombie movies. Other editors, including myself, considered that to be a bad edit. That's a difference of opinion, though, "arguably" vandalism as noted by the admin who blocked the anonymous user but not obvious vandalism per exceptions stated in the 3RR policy. I put a note in the article stating why that particular movie should not be added to the list, but I added that note after these reverts started, therefore its removal by the anoymous user was not vandalism of existing article content. Irishguy kept reverting even after I cautioned him not to make a 3RR violation. Doczilla (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Irishguy believes he was reverting vandalism, according to his comments on the talk page. I believe this is completely incorrect, and that Irishguy was edit warring with no justification. Blocks of admins are always controversial, and I frankly haven't got the time to put up with drama at this point, so I'm not willing to block without a second opinion at this point. (To anyone who says this isn't fair that admins get a free pass when another user would have been blocked: get us to the point where these blocks can be made without drama, and I'll be equally ready to make them.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Been bold, looks like a vio, 24 hours, see also WP:AN GDonato (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

User:CJCurrie reported by User:isarig (Result: Page Protected)
. : Time reported: 04:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:22, 21 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 05:10, 23 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 05:59, 23 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 03:33, 24 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 03:52, 24 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: DIFFTIME

Repeated movements of an image from one section of the article to another, over the objections of numerous editors, which come on the heels of a similar edit war (involving gaming of 3rr) to try and remove the image altogether. Isarig (talk) 04:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ''Moved, I filed a similar report as I too was watching this page at the time. That is now deleted. Note that he's been removing this image from the lead for 4 days now, and has been reverted by 7 different editors. I came in and tried to mediate a compromise but the belligerency has only continued unabated. And he's been editing for 3.5 years, and is well aware of the 3RR policy as evidenced by this and this and this. Lobojo (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm ... I've looked over the time diffs, and it appears as though I did accidentally violate the 3RR. I apologize for this; I thought that I was within my rights to carry out the last edit, but apparently I forgot the time.  I'd self-revert, but someone else has already beaten me to it.
 * I might add that the "belligerency", such that it exists, is not all on one side in this matter. There's a nasty content dispute currently taking place, and tempers are running a bit high.  (Btw, the "reverted by seven different editors" line is a complete misrepresentation.  There have been several editors involved on both sides of this content dispute.  A few days ago, I put forward a compromise text that seemed to have support from across the spectrum.  Most of the other participants have since left the discussion page; two editors have continued to oppose me.)
 * I'm not particularly impressed with the fact that I wasn't informed of this 3RR report, nor with the fact that it wasn't filed until someone else had reverted me (thereby preventing the possibility of my self-reverting), nor with the fact that I never received a warning (the "Difftime" link doesn't lead anywhere). CJCurrie (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I might also add that User:Isarig had not edited Wikipedia in six days before filing this report, and that User:Lobojo filed an identical report a few moments after (since removed). Somehow, it seems to me as though people were waiting to pounce on an accidental slip-up ...  CJCurrie (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * CJ, you know about 3RR and thus a "warning" is no needed. You are no newbie... Regardless of the heated dispute, recurrent reversions are not acceptable. As I have edited that page recently, I will not block, otherwise I would. Better, would be if you desist from an editing behavior that includes recurrent reversions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Edokter reported by User:Yukichigai (Result: Page protected)
. : Time reported: 18:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: (with note added)


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

Standard edit war over arguably unsourced information, but the user is an admin and should know better. Might have stopped if he (she?) had left it as the more neutral wording, rather than completely obliterating the paragraph. As a side note, the user has also semi-protected the page, a distinct no-no for admins, though I realize that should be handled elsewhere. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (ramble  argue  check ) 18:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The page has already been full-protected by another admin. There is some realization on User Talk:Edokter that he was wrong to edit-war and to abuse semi-protection. I don't see any rationale for a block - since the page has been protected already and there's some level of contrition, it would be merely punitive. I'll leave a note; so long as the problem doesn't recur, we can probably leave it there. MastCell Talk 22:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Happyme22 reported by User:74.73.106.239 (talk) (Result: IP user blocked, Happyme22 thanked)
. : Time reported: 19:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 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:Happyme22 is dominating the article on Nancy Reagan with what I believe to be a clear bias. He is monopolizing the iissue of the article summary and how it is presented. Further, he has posted many reverts within a reasonable time period but has not been blocked despite my bringing this to the attention of administrators. Please assist. 74.73.106.239 (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You've got to be kidding. For one thing, I only count three reverts that weren't vandalism reverts.  But more than that, I just unblocked you after you agreed to stop reverting and now you turn around want him blocked? Don't make me regret my previous decision. --B (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, I have reblocked the IP user for vandalism. --B (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

User:IronAngelAlice reported by User:John254 (Result: Warning)
. : Time reported: 20:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: complex partial reversions, all of which remove content.


 * 1st revert: 18:15, 24 December 2007 18:16, 24 December 2007 18:16, 24 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:20, 24 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:32, 24 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:42, 24 December 2007

Note that per the three-revert rule, "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." By this standard, all removals of good-faith content constitute reversions, as they reverse the actions of the editors who added the content. Moreover, IronAngelAlice has an extensive history of disruption -- see Requests for checkuser/Case/IronAngelAlice. John254 20:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm letting the wording in one of the latest edit summaries stand (and add a warning on the user's talk page). The first edit as a reversion is questionable. Going by a common sense definition, simply removing something from an article should not be considered a revert. There is no evidence here that IronAngelAlice was attempting to revert at least part of an edit (i.e. start an edit war); she was simply removing content that was added who knows how long ago. Additionally, there is not evidence of a 3RR warning before the violation. --  tariq abjotu  03:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

User:GusChiggins21 reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result: 1 week)
. : Time reported: 09:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:40, 24 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 22:08, 24 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 22:48, 24 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:31, 24 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 01:59, 25 December 2007
 * 5th revert: 02:15, 25 December 2007
 * 6th revert: 02:48, 25 December 2007
 * 7th revert: 13:09, 25 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: 00:11, 25 December 2007

Editor seems to be on an edit-war at a couple of articles, Michael Behe and Objections to evolution. In both cases, he's violated 3RR. He has not specifically reverted to the same version, the editor appears to be gaming the system by make slightly different edits with the same net effect of removing the statement. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 09:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What I see is good-faith attempts by Gus to wikify the text and find a compromise (no opinion on my part on whether it's a good one), all well explained on the talk page, and a combined effort by two users to push him over an imaginary 3RR limit. 3RR should not be abused by forming a tandem. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose it depends... I see a user with a talk page full of requests not to edit-war, who went well over 3RR (which, while it may be somewhat arbitrary, is hardly "imaginary"). 3RR is not so much about the content of one's edits, but about edit-warring as a tactic. In any case, this user was already blocked for 1 week by for disruption, so further discussion here is probably moot. MastCell Talk 22:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Totipooh reported by User:Daniel J. Leivick (Result:see below)
. : Time reported: 03:14, 26 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:

Continued removal of images from the Muhammad page despite numerous warnings tags on the article and numerous hidden warnings in the article text. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Both User:Totipooh and User:Scholarlyours are apparently SPA accounts for vandalism only; first offense for both, but these were the only edits that both made. - Totipooh blocked indef. by B Scholarlyours blocked 24 hours by Hu12 SkierRMH  ( talk ) 04:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Markalanders reported by User:Guliolopez (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 02:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:30, 27 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 00:59 27 December
 * 2nd revert: 01:01 27 December
 * 3rd revert: 01:17 27 December
 * 4th revert: 01:23 27 December
 * 5th revert: 01:26 27 December

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 and other warnings:
 * 00:44, 27 December 2007
 * 01:03, 27 December 2007
 * 01:30, 27 December 2007
 * 01:39, 27 December 2007

User:Markalanders (and several "sock puppets" ) consistently and persistently adding NN, Vanity, and other detail unrelated to the titular subject of Mark Landers article. Article happens to share user's name, and user continues to "edit war" in attempt to "repurpose" page to "List of Mark Landers around the world". Warnings go back to March of 2007. Behaviour ongoing since then. User clearly doesn't understand purpose of Wikipedia project, and has ignored all notes on own talkpage. Recommend protect of Mark Landers article until can be resolved with user. Guliolopez (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, sock or not, be sure that you, yourself, don't violate 3RR in reverting alleged sock contributions in the future. Cheers. -- slakr \ talk / 23:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

24.30.38.213, reported by Jonathan (Result:1 week)

 * Three revert rule violation on I Love New York (TV series)
 * Reverted to previous version: 21:28, December 26, 2007


 * Revert 1:
 * Revert 2:
 * Revert 3:
 * Revert 4:

Consitently re-adding unreferenced Trivia section, removed first by Yankeesrj12, then by me, then by Majorly, then ultimately by me. Thanks! Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 16:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Already blocked by for one week. It would be nice if we wouldn't rollback in content disputes in the future. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Adrianzax reported by User:Sceptre (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 18:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:38 27 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 09:30 27 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:39 27 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:23 27 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:28 27 December 2007
 * 5th revert: 17:48 27 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: 02:14 27 December 2007

Major edit warring over the past couple of days (the 3RR warning before any of the reverts is self-explanatory), contribs suggest SPA. Will (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Adrianzax was clearly engaging in the bulk of the edit warring, but Dchall1 and K. Lastochka are also edit warring. Dchall1 has in fact violated 3RR, so I've blocked him and Adrianzax for 24 hours. I will warn K. Lastochka. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

69.25.80.2 reported by User:Thinboy00 (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 21:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:07, December 27, 2007


 * 1st revert: 20:51, December 27, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:55, December 27, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:04, December 27, 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:09, December 27, 2007
 * 5th revert: 21:16, December 27, 2007

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion:
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:10, December 27, 2007

User has been reverted by multiple editors, some of whom indicated in their edit summaries that they thought the edits were vandalism. User insists that using an edit summary excuses him/her

Timestamps may be wrong, I tried to convert properly. -- Thin boy  00  @948, i.e. 21:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at the user's contribs, I see that he had brusque discussion everywhere except the article talk page. -- Thin  boy  00  @5, i.e. 23:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. -- slakr \ talk / 23:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist reported by User:Anthon01 (Result: Page protected)
. : Time reported: 21:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:45, December 27, 2007


 * 1st revert: 15:28, December 27, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:07, December 27, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 21:33, December 27, 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:37, December 27, 2007

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

ScienceApologist continually reverting against consensus. He refuses to address the issues on the talk page as he can not justify his actions there. The text that he is reverting and claims is POV pushing, is directly form the text of of a peer-review journal, a WP:RS. He reasons are unjustified and against consensus. I warned him here, but he saw it fit to remove my warning from his talk page. Anthon01 (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

He was also warned by Cool Hand Luke and removed it from his talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

An editor has reverted ScienceApologist last edit backed to the corrrect version. here. Anthon01 (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And, as expected, User:Orangemarlin jumps right in to escalate the situation. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I edited that article in the past, so I cannot enforce a block. Otherwise, I would block for one week due to past 3RR violations as well as ArbCom limitations set forth at Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Proposed_decision. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Totally nuts... See what these editors are edit-warring about... Talk:Quackwatch ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So true, but I fear that that is not the point. :-) Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * All concerned should be slapped with the WP:TROUT. But actually I think SA's version is the more neutral and the closer to what the source says, in that the other editorialises it slightly. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Who cares what is more neutral? We are not discussing content, but behavior. That is what this noticeboard is for. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I was disputing the "correct" version comment above. I've protected the article for 48 hours as there are several parties involved. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you reread the citation, you might change your opinion. The text was taken from a section titled "limitations." And SA text conflated two problems into blantant WP:OR. Anthon01 (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that there is far too much concern about exactly what constitutes a 3RR violation (Talk:Quackwatch and Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive344), rather than using the talk page to achieve a consensus. --Ronz (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You can't achieve consensus with someone who avoids the talk page when he can't get his way with reason. Anthon01 (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then pursue WP:DR. Editwarring is 'not an option, it does not work, and only helps to get you slapped with a block sooner or later. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. What form of WP:DR would you suggest? Anthon01 (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is good advice there at Dispute resolution, read it. The page is now protected, and will remain protected until you and others, can agree on how to play nice with each other. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Please seek dispute resolution or requests for comment. All other inquiries should be made on the article's talk page. -- slakr \ talk / 23:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

User:75.4.7.27 reported by User:Daniel J. Leivick (Result: 24 hrs)
. : Time reported: 02:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nissan_GT-R&diff=180532402&oldid=180531269
 * 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:

Repeated addition of controversial label during discussion despite being asked not to make changes and being warned of the 3RR rule numerous times. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

✅ Done 24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Bacteriophage reported by User:Brusegadi (Result:no vio)
. : Time reported: 05:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: as of 20:09, 27 December 2007


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 20:09, 27 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 04:42, 28 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 04:55, 28 December 2007
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 05:01, 28 December 2007
 * 5th revert: 05:23, 28 December 2007

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly. That particular paragraph has been targeted by different users lately. I suspect socks involved but too soon to prove so going with what we can do. Brusegadi (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: Revision as of 04:59, 28 December 2007
 * Second warn 05:06, 28 December 2007
 * The last two edits listed here aren't reverts, nor, so far as I can tell, do they have the effect of reverting to a previous version, so no vio. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Huaiwei reported by User:Coloane (Result: no block, users warned)
. : Time reported: 09:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC) Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

Action is required for prevention of editwar posed by Huaiwei. He is an experienced editor and openly breaks 3RR rules.Coloane (talk) 09:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * See . The above user has chosen to ignore reasoning in edit summaries and talkpages, wikiwars concurrently in another article, and has received warnings by multiple users for his actions, yet persists in wikiwarring.--Huaiwei (talk) 09:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In his edit war with Huaiwei on Singapore Changi Airport, Coloane has also broken 3RR. This report is yet another of Coloane's attempts to bait Huaiwei. Coloane previously made an anti-Singaporean personal attack, calling Singaporeans "semi-handicapped", during a discussion with Huaiwei; my warning to him was met with a trollish response. When troublemakers like Russavia, Instantnood (now banned) and Coloane leave Huaiwei alone, he is an excellent and dedicated editor. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The 1st edit is not my revert. I didn't ignore Huaiwei's comment and I gave him response in the talk page of Singapore.  I already apologized for my comment made in 2007 Southeast Asian Games, so it is quite irrlevent to mention this matter.  However, for Changi International Airport, Huaiwei clearly reverted more than 3 times, it is a fact, isn't it?  for me I updated the information/reference in that article from 2006 to 2007. Coloane (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The 1st edit is not my revert. All the 4 diffs I provided were of reverts made by you to Singapore Changi Airport. I already apologized for my comment... Diff of apology, please. What do you think of my suggested compromise? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three reverts or four is not the only determination of policy violation. Gaming the system counts as well. I hope this serves as a final warning to you not to think that you can simply restrict yourself to three reverts a day on a sustained basis. There is a talkpage to hammer out differences in detail. Use it.--Huaiwei (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just wonder who is the person really good at playing games according to so-called Gaming the System that you mentioned here? at least for one to add updated information or reference in that article is playing games, isn't it?  the one who was adding the old information/reference and misleading people is not playing game, is it?Coloane (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you may wish to read WP:3RR in greater detail before commenting further. I hope I have reasoned correctly that someone who makes nominations here would have been reasonably well-versed in relevant policies.--Huaiwei (talk) 11:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your coaching; I knew you were just being thoughtful. However I strongly recommend that you should read that 3RR policy by heart since you are the one who were blocked by someone many times before.  What do you think? Coloane (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was blocked several times before after a two-year-long tussle with a single user, who has since been permanently banned from wikipedia. That user happens to originate from a locality which seems to be of keen interest to you. I hope this is merely a case of coincidence.--Huaiwei (talk) 12:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know which guy you are talking about. I guess it is the user: Instantnood or someone. I can tell you that I am not the one you speculated, honestly speaking.  Period!!  I am a mixed-breed Portuguese-Chinese boy here, and also I am not interested in Hong Kong issue, although I know Hong Kong just like my hands. Coloane (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Huaiwei was referring to banned user Instantnood, who kept POV-pushing and edit-warring on articles pertaining to Hong Kong and Singapore. He is not the only one who observed similarities between you and Instantnood. Despite being an excellent editor, Huaiwei has a very short fuse. If others leave him alone and stop baiting him, he will not get into edit wars. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've warned both users to stop. Keeping an eye on this. --Michael Billington (talk) 10:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Michael; it's appreciated. It's also instructive to examine Coloane's initial contributions as a new editor and to take into account his difficulties with English as a secondary language and using talk pages to discuss controversial edits before they are made rather than post facto.  A l i c e  ✉ 11:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your hypocritic comment here. As a Portuguese guy of myself, I don't care your comment trying to attack my ability in English indeed as I don't need to speak and write in my career.  Keep it on your own and make sure you are not unemployed in 2008 even you are a native English speaker.  Good Luck! Coloane (talk) 11:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you would examine my own contribution record, Coloane, you might be able to deduce that English is not my own mother tongue too. (You might also deduce something from my contributions to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_cuisine&action=history, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Portugal_%281415-1542%29&action=history , http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kristang_language&action=history, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurasians_in_Singapore&action=history , http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Community_of_Portuguese_Language_Countries&action=history , etc). My purpose was not to criticise your lack of facility with English, but rather to give an explanation for your poor record of interaction with your fellow editors. Please feel free to strike both this riposte and the original comment that prompted Coloane's response as irrelevant in this forum.  A l i c e  ✉  12:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for at least acknowledging your linguistic handicap. While we do not discriminate against anyone for this, everyone would be far happier if all can at least have a good understanding of policies, as well as the factual contents under dispute before engaging in wikiwarring. If in doubt, there is always a talkpage, where misunderstandings would have been cleared up before hand, linguistic misinterpretations or otherwise.--Huaiwei (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Huaiwei, I don't think "handicap" was an appropriate word to use, unless it was meant to be a reference to Coloane's "semi-handicapped" comment. As a non-native speaker of English myself, I agree that linguistic difficulties are a common source of miscommunication. All of us should be careful to avoid such miscommunication and be willing to resolve misunderstandings on the talk page. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I must admit I could not get that comment out of my head for now, so my apologies if I sound too crude. ;) English is not a "native language" for the vast majority of Singaporeans, so I think we can understand the problems faced by others in a similar situation. That said, I have low tolerance towards those who choose to be obstinate, refuse to use appropriate discussion avenues adequately, use abusive language, and then attempt to excuse themselves by claiming low proficiency in the language. A genuine user who finds his edits corrected would normally double check before his next action, especially if he is aware of his own language limitations. I hope this will become the norm in subsequent engagements with Coloane.--Huaiwei (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

User:81.7.98.250 reported by user:M.K (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 09:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 2007-12-27T09:54:15 restored in Lithuanian reconstructed by linguists in 20th century and similar
 * 2nd revert: 2007-12-27T10:15:31 restored in Lithuanian reconstructed by linguists in 20th century and similar
 * 3rd revert: 2007-12-27T11:34:48 restored in Lithuanian reconstructed by linguists in 20th century and similar
 * 4th revert: 2007-12-28T08:59:56 restored in Lithuanian reconstructed by linguists in 20th century and similar


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 2007-12-07T14:12:11

IP anon is perfectly aware of WP policies as diffs indicate, however he choose to continue revert warring, despite that multiply contributors on talk stated that pursuing particular info is incorrect. While this is not the first warring by anon despite by community consensus. M.K. (talk) 09:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * -- slakr \ talk / 18:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Kober reported by User:Pocopocopocopoco (Result: warned)
. : Time reported: 15:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous versions reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 05:28, 28 December 2007


 * Previous version 1: 02:07, 28 December 2007


 * 2nd revert: 14:57, 28 December 2007


 * Previous version 2: 14:53, 28 December 2007


 * 3rd revert: 15:04, 28 December 2007


 * Previous version 3: 15:04, 28 December 2007


 * 4th revert: 15:10, 28 December 2007


 * Previous version 4: 15:08, 28 December 2007


 * Kober is not a new user as he has been around for years. I was not able to warn him on time as his reverts were really quick.

This came from the heels of an RFC which I had thought had resolved a contentious issue, there were no responses to my last statement on the RFC so I had thought that we were all in agreement. I let the RFC run it's course until the template was removed by the bot. Kober had 1 month to respond to both my own statements and the neutral parties statements but he did not give an adequate response. Despite all of this, he simply hits the revert button once the RFC is completed. You may notice that one of his reverts say RV spam. Please do not be swayed by this as that blog is an expert blog and it is completely reasonable to add expert blogs to external links. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If he hasn't yet been warned, I figure it might be a good idea to drop him a quick warning, as I've now done (you'd be surprised how many people don't know about various policies). If he continues, feel free to update this accordingly. -- slakr \ talk / 18:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You might also wish to have a look at the page's history. I did not know that reverting external linkspams was subjected to sanctions. Thanks,--KoberTalk 19:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

IMHO and that of User:Gregalton, Kober has also broken 3RR today at socialized medicine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauskalainen (talk • contribs) 23:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What? Have you even looked at the socialized medicine page history? Please be careful in your accusations, especially when they are patently false. I've NEVER edited that article. --KoberTalk 05:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like a confusion with User:Kborer AliveFreeHappy (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

user:Kober Reverting continues (Result: both blocked 24 hours)
Despite a warning from an admin. 

5th revert: 05:18, 29 December 2007

Previous version: 05:16, 29 December 2007 See previous four reverts above. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't lie, Pocopo. I have not reverted anyting, but just added a (fact) tag.. It is obvious that you are trying to have the well-established editor discredited and banned. --KoberTalk 05:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You reverted my fact tag. And I like I said to Slakr (the admin). I don't want you banned, all I want is you to make an effort to go through the proper mediation steps just like I tried to do. Instead all you do is hit the revert button. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but it was you who incited a new edit war after a month of silence. You prompted me to violate a 3RR by adding a spam link and removing a verifiable info. You have yourself violated it several times, btw.. So please be careful in your accusations.--KoberTalk 05:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not true, I waited for the completion of the RFC. I did not violate 3RR at any time, you just kept reverting my additions. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not true. You removed my addition to which I provided a plenty of sources. Then you went ahead and readded a spamlink to a controversial blog which had long been removed.--KoberTalk 05:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Clearly there needs to be a cool-off period for both editors, as now both have simply edit warred back and forth. Please consider dispute resolution when your blocks expire.  I should also note that the current version of the page is not an endorsement of either version. -- slakr  \ talk / 09:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Zeraeph reported by User:Mattisse (Result: no action, malformed report)
. : Time reported: 20:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: (I am not sure what version this means)

(I tried to understand DIFFTIME but I do not understand what I am supposed to be doing. Please help -- is time started: 17:27, 28 December 2007 - time of Zeraeph's first edit on Psychopathy today?


 * first revert
 * second revert
 * third revert
 * fourth revert
 * fifth revert
 * sixth revert
 * seventh revert
 * eighth refert
 * ninth revert


 * 10th revert
 * 11th revert
 * 12th revert
 * 13th revert
 * 14 revert
 * 15 revert
 * 16th revert
 * 17th revert
 * 16th revert
 * 17th revert
 * 18th revert
 * 19th 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

User:Zeraeph received a 28 day block which she served and it  was lifted today, a few hours ago.

User:Zeraeph's 28 day block was for this same behavior on the same article Psychopathy, at least in part. Her answer to my article page post was in the same vein as before -- she is right, I am wrong and she does not have to discuss or compromise or come to consensus on changes. She is concentrating on my edits without consulting or trying to compromise or explain to me. She has moved and rearranged reference citations I put there, as well as misrepresented their meanings. Although she has rearranged and removed my citations and and changed or removed my wording, she will not discuss anything related to the content of the articlefwith me, other to state in edit summary that I was wrong, or other disparaging remarks about my edits in the edit summaries. I was warned the last time this happened by User:Viriditas not to contact Zeraeph on her talk page. Mattisse 20:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Malformed request. No 3RR violation immediately apparent from history. Please see the other reports on this page as examples on how to provide a correct report. Sandstein (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Rollosmokes reported by User:JimWae (Result: 48 h)
. : Time reported: 20:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 09:38, 2007 December 24


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 05:26, 2007 December 28
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 05:29, 2007 December 28 marked as MINOR
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 07:26, 2007 December 28
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 07:56, 2007 December 28 includes removal of tags pointing out problem areas
 * 5th revert: Revision as of 07:57, 2007 December 28 MORE tag removal
 * 6th revert: Revision as of 07:58, 2007 December 28 MARKED AS MINOR - includes TAG REMOVAL
 * 7th revert: Revision as of 13:58, 2007 December 28 MAKED AS MINOR -- REMOVING different tags I had inserted in intervening time
 * 8th revert: Current revision (21:50, 2007 December 28) - removal of different templates -- Fact & accuracy templates

User is NOT a new user - but I did point out WP:3RR rule to him earlier - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rollosmokes&diff=prev&oldid=180576075 Revision as of 08:11, 2007 December 28

User keeps inserting unsourced information that is most demonstrably wrong - County & Borough NOT co-terminous "with consolidation" in 1898 - boundaries not the same until 1899 when Nassau County was formed. User keeps adding unsourced info that parts that voted against were not consolidated AND that parts of Nassau voted against. I have added 3 references to article indicating Flushing voted against but was still consolidated. Extensive search cannot find ANY source that says parts that became Nassau ever even took a ballot. User also adds unsourced claim that parts of a town of Hempstead were split at the same time. User is using user-talk pages to point out MY supposed inadequacies & why I should quit editing the article - not replying on article talk pages & not addressing issues raised there. User is unco-operative & appears to not even be reading discussion

I have raised issues on 3 talk pages. I have tried alternative ways of saying things in the article - Rollosmokes just reverts them. --JimWae (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

User is also apparently enforcing a policy that refs have to go to end of sentence - I cannot find any such style guide on wikipedia & I am sure many articles do not follow that "style". He keeps moving them and, in doing so, it appears as if a contentious point he wants to keep in is being referenced when it is actaully an earlier point in the sentence --JimWae (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This is no endorsement of JimWae's conduct and edits to the same article. Sandstein (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Carl.bunderson reported by User:Padmanii (Result: Page protected)
. : Time reported: 21:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:57, 24 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 07:53, 27 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 07:58, 27 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 08:20, 27 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 08:28, 27 December 2007
 * 5th revert: 22:55, 27 December 2007
 * 6th revert: 22:59, 27 December 2007
 * 7th revert: 23:09, 27 December 2007


 * This user is not new, he is very experienced and already aware of the 3RR violation. However, a warning was given after his 4th revert but he continued up to 7 reverts.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 08:32, 27 December 2007

This user has been asked to stop edit warring and to stop removing sourced content. But he has insisted on removing sourced content and then violated the 3RR rule and continued edit warring even after he was warned. Padmanii (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Violated 3RR, as did others, but the article has now been fully protected. Sandstein (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Bacteriophage reported by User:Raymond arritt (Result: Indefblocked as sock by )
. : Time reported: 21:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

This one may not look at first glance like a revert, but see also here and here Again this may not look at first like a revert, but see e.g., here
 * 1st revert: 04:37, 28 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 04:51, 28 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 06:51, 28 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 21:06, 28 December 2007

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

User:Bacteriophage is a persistent edit warrior across a range of global warming related articles. He comes along every day or two and makes more-or-less the same set of reverts. Usually he is careful not to technically violate 3RR but I think he miscounted this time. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sandstein (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Imad marie reported by User:Arrow740 (Result: Both blocked 24 h)
. : Time reported: 21:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:07, 27 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 21:56, 27 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 08:47, 28 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 09:38, 28 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 15:52, 28 December 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 08:12, 27 December 2007

The user reverts to keep the paragraph starting with "critics have dubbed this belief..." out of the article. Arrow740 (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sandstein (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)