Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive63

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.

note: Previously this complaint was declined because according to that admin others violated it too. But, this user Carl.bunderson violated it first. Please reconsider, because he is a veteran user and was well aware of it and instead broke the rule and set the bad example to the other editors. 00:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Malformed 3-RRR
Sorry but the other submissions do not give a clue. If the fact that after being blocked for 28 days for 3-RRR on that same article, the user makes 19 edits on the same article, removing all the work in the meantime, plus refuses to discuss anything on the article talk page, removing all my edits, is not enough for a 3_RRR, then I will not try it again. Just for techies and not writers, I guess. Mattisse 23:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

User:75.7.235.53 reported by User:CZmarlin (Result: 24 hours )
. : Time reported: 04:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 21:10, December 28, 2007
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 22:11, December 28, 2007 (revision warning in edit summary by another contributor)
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 22:44, December 28, 2007 (notice of 3RR in edit summary))
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 23:20, December 28, 2007

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 00:06, December 29, 2007 on user's page

The debate continues on the classification of this new vehicle. Is it a "supercar" or not. CZmarlin (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Zeraeph reported by User:Mattisse - resubmission - (Result:no action, malformed)
. : Time reported: 20:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC) PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS REQUEST - i HAVE TRIED TO FOLLOW ALL RULES EVEN THE ONES YOU DO NOT TELL PEOPLE ABOUT
 * Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|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?

I submitted a 3-RRR complaint today: ---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 17.20 December 28
 * second revert -Revision as of 17:41, 28 December 2007
 * third revert - Revision as of 17:43, 28 December 2007
 * fourth revert -Revision as of 17:46, 28 December 2007
 * fifth revert - Revision as of 17:47, 28 December 2007
 * sixth revert -Revision as of 17:55, 28 December 2007
 * seventh revert - Revision as of 17:56, 28 December 2007
 * eighth refert - Revision as of 17:58, 28 December 2007
 * ninth revert - Revision as of 17:59, 28 December 2007


 * 10th revert - Revision as of 18:00, 28 December 2007
 * 11th revert - Revision as of 18:07, 28 December 2007
 * 12th revert - Revision as of 18:12, 28 December 2007
 * 13th revert  - Revision as of 18:14, 28 December 2007
 * 14 revert  - Revision as of 18:16, 28 December 2007
 * 15 revert  -Revision as of 18:17, 28 December 2007
 * 16th revert - Revision as of 18:22, 28 December 2007
 * 17th revert  - Revision as of 19:17, 28 December 2007
 * 16th revert - Revision as of 19:20, 28 December 2007
 * 17th revert - Revision as of 19:22, 28 December 2007
 * 18th revert  - Revision as of 19:26, 28 December 2007
 * 19th revert  - Current revision (19:43, 28 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

User:Zeraeph received a 28 day block FFOR 3-RRR ON THE SAME ARTICLE which she served. WITH IN MINUTES SHE WAS BACK DOING THE SAME THING. SHE IS KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THE 3-RRR. THIS IS A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE IF YOU DO NOT DO SOMETHING.

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)
 * PLEASE RECONSIDER MY REQUEST

I looked carefully at the other reports and I cannot figure out what you want! Mattisse 23:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying again. Please consider my request. Pretty hopeless, hun? wikipedia is not for the likes of me. Regards, Mattisse  04:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 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) MINUTES BEFORE SHE HAD COMPLETED A 28 DAU BLOCK FOR THE SAME EXACT BEHAVIOR ON THE SAME ARTICLE. 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

If I had made 19 contested edits without discussion or consensus in the space of two hours, having just come off a 28 day block for doing the same thing, I know I would have received a block. In this case, nothing happened. One person explained that if you do 19 in a row, then that is considered only one edit. Is this true. I would have interrupted the editting with one of my own but I did not want to get the 3-RRR. I guess I should take the rules more casually. Mattisse 05:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Matisse, this report is still malformed. For one thing, consecutive edits are nearly always treated as one edit for the purpose of counting reverts. Secondly, I can't really see what's so hard about this. I'm no techie, either (look at the history of this page and you'll see it took me three edits to put the sample report back on bottom), and I've never had trouble with it. The point of these reports is to make it abundantly clear to admins how the user has violated 3RR. As this report fails to do that, I have no reason to act on it. Sorry. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Mattisse, I've looked at the history of the article pretty thoroughly and there simply doesn't seem to be a 3RR violation here. That's probably the reason you're having such a hard time filling out a report properly. Each of you have made a number of changes to the article, but they seem to be attempts at constructive editing rather than simple reverts. The only thing I see is a very minor content-related edit war in which both of you are equally at fault. If you have a disagreement about the content, this isn't the place to discuss it or seek support for your opinion. Take it to a talk page&mdash;either the article's talk page or one of your user talk pages&mdash;and discuss the problem with Zeraeph. Kafziel Talk 17:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The user Z is now enganged in discussion with Admins, and a block might interrupt the conversation so a block might be interrupted. Maybe this event should be set aside, and if the editor does another 3RR then report the new event.  People have offered on User talk to help with a report, so you could just wait for a new violation to report.  Admins in present discussion on Admin board would find it interesting for a violation to happen during the discussion.  -- SEWilco (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Josquius (Result:malformed)
User created page Those Dancing Days. Tagged as speedy for non-notability by another editor. This user removed the tag, instead of using the hangon tag. I reverted it, but he continues to remove it instead of following proper procedure. Warned on his talk page: he ignores the warning. See history here. EuroSong talk 14:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. I removed the tag only once as I felt it was added way too fast and completely without just cause, I was planning to make the article far bigger today but it seems that wouldn't be a wise move. With the first re-addition of the tag I realised it wasn't just someone being overly busy and tagging every single new page as for deletion so I added hangon. The first thing to appear on my talk page after the speedy deletion notice was the information that this had been added to the notice board, no warnings or anything of the sort.--Josquius (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems now that part of my further edits have meant the original maker of the tag has also decided it makes the band notable. I've grown a bit sick of wikipedia for the day though to add much more yet.--Josquius (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please format this report properly per the example below, including diffs of the reverts. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou reported by User:Bless_sins (Result: 84 hours)
. : 19:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

The user has made two sets of reverts. In set 1 the user made one revert, in set 2 the user made 3 reverts, to a total of 4 reverts in 24 hours. WP:3rr says "An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted."

Set 1.
 * Previous version reverted to: 16:18, 28 December 2007
 * 1st revert: 10:51, 29 December 2007
 * The user removed a category that Timeshifter added. In the edit summary the user admits the edit is a revert.

Set 2.
 * Previous version reverted to: 13:25, 29 December 2007

In each of the reverts the user is removing "Collective punishment, the punishment of an innocent Palestinian 'for an offence he or she has not personally committed.'" and replacing it with "Collective punishment, Amnesti International stated that, while the Israeli authorities contend destroyed structures were used or could be used by Palestinian armed groups to shoot or launch attacks against Israelis, such demolitions are often also manifestly carried out in retaliation for Palestinian attacks and therefore represent a form of collective punishment."
 * 2nd revert: 14:31, 29 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:57, 29 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:57, 29 December 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:22, 29 December 2007
 * This warning was given after Jaakobou made 3 reverts in 24 hours, but before his fourth revert. The warning has a link to WP:3rr as well. Jaakobou read this warning and responded to it before making the fourth revert.
 * Please note: in this diff, the user him/herself alleges another user of violating WP:3rr.

All 4 reverts are on December 29, thus within a 24 hour period.Bless sins (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * He is actually up to 4 reverts on the "Amnesti" text alone (13:25 29 December) making this an even clearer violation (5 reverts in total). &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 19:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is the previous version he/she reverted to, as stated in the request.Bless sins (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

comment - i believe Eleland has misunderstood that two different issues are not a single compilable issue. As for violations, if anything, Eleland has violated WP:CIV and WP:NPA while being uninvolved on talk and disruptive on the article's history. This after he's been asked to stop this type of behavior.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  20:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note this is the noticeboard for violations of the 3rr rule. If eleland is disruptive, you should take it to WP:ANI (or a more appropriate place).Bless sins (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please also note that Jaakobou has been blocked for 3rr violations before. Check out the user's block log.Bless sins (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with both Bless sins's report and with Jaakobou's comment. The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an electric fence, and Eleland is most certainly edit warring, even though he hasn't exceeded three reverts in 24 hours. I am not willing to block only one party here: only to block both or neither. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I have spoken to jaakobou and he's willing to settle this edit war in a civil manner on the article's talk page, rather than continue this nonsense. The question is whether Eleland, who is well-known for countless bad faith assumptions and personal attacks, can do the same. If he agrees, then I don't think there's a need to block anyone just yet. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, considering the first edit given was not a revert per se, but the original insertion of this information, you could say that jaakobou hasn't actually violated the dry rule of WP:3RR, although both parties are guilty of edit-warring. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is offtopic, but there's a difference between assuming bad faith and concluding that somebody is just not a productive editor. Essentially all of Jaakobou's edits fall into one of two categories:
 * Adding contentious, unsourced or inappropriately sourced, and awkwardly written "pro-Israel" information to articles about that country
 * Reverting edits on articles about that country, often edits which repair the damage caused by #1.


 * No matter how hard one tries to reach him, Jaakobou remains aloof to the ideas of reliable sources, neutral point of view, and consensus building. When he bothers to explain his actions, it's generally in the form of "This version is better," or "More NPOV this way," with no indication that he has even read the statements made by others. Actually, he doesn't seem to read a lot of things, including the edits which he reverts and the sources which he cites. Obviously, this leads to an exasperated reaction. Jaakobou then seizes on this reaction with cries of WP:CIV and WP:NPA, allowing him to further evade discussion.
 * I do not know whether this reflects a conscious strategy on Jaakobou's part, but for the purposes of improving the project, I really don't think it matters. Sooner or later, he has to be dealt with. And it starts with taking WP:3RR seriously; there is a disturbing trend whereby Jaakobou slips through 3RR, or is unblocked, on seemingly ad hoc reasoning. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 20:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that if you replace 'jaakobou' with 'Eleland' in your post, the statements would still pretty much be correct (with a few tweaks). Please don't take this as a personal attack against you, just know that not all Wikipedians consider jaakobou a 'problem that has to be dealt with'. So far it seems to me like you are the one deleting jaakobou's sincere and civil comments from your talk page, not vice versa, and assuming bad faith. If you laid back a little and agreed to look at jaakobou as an equal, maybe there wouldn't be nearly as many edit wars between you two. Just for the records, I can show you at least one instance where you have made a very insulting bad-faith assumption against me (so it's not just jaakobou). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for eighty-four hours, for edit-warring across multiple articles. I see a pattern of edit-warring behavior – at House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian, Second Intifada, Islam: What the West Needs to Know, and, to a lesser degree, at other articles – that simply needs to stop. --  tariq abjotu  21:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - just for the record, I don't think it's appropriate that an administrator highly involved in Israel and Palestine-related articles should make a decision in this case. It should be an impartial admin. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. Tariqabjotu has a history of using his admin tools in a partisan manner on Islam-related articles. He has even acted as a proxy for banned editor User:His excellency. He has also blocked my with three reverts when I was reverting a sock of that same banned user. For a small part of the story see . Someone should post on AN/I. Arrow740 (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is absolute garbage – and that's putting it nicely. You're bitter about a block that happened nearly six months ago and I see you're back at ANI again complaining about a block because you didn't hit four reverts, demonstrating, once again, that you have a poor grasp of the spirit of WP:3RR and WP:EW. So, now you have decided to not just resurface the six-month-old block (which is juvenile enough) but outright lie about the incident and my overall record. Proxy for a banned editor? A history of using admin tools in a partisan manner? Oh, for God's sake, give it a rest. You obviously have little to no regard for the truth when it comes to my actions on Wikipedia and are interested only in validating your pre-conceived fairy tale that I act as some sort of Muslim defender. Enough is enough; go bait elsewhere. --  tariq abjotu  08:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have both regard for the truth and diffs. HE posted on your talk defamatory statements about administrator BInguyen, and you posted the same comments on BInguyen's talk page over 10 minutes later. This block of Jaakobou is the last straw. We'll see what the wider community thinks of your actions. Arrow740 (talk) 09:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tariqabjotu blocked a well-known (and well-appreciated, I might add) Palestinian editor Tiamut for 5 days for edit warring. See Tiamut's block log. So Tariqabjotu seems to be blocking both "sides" in this topic area. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh please... give me a break. --  tariq abjotu  21:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I wonder if you would say the same if an admin like Jayjg or SlimVirgin would block a pro-Palestinian editor while ignoring the pro-Israeli, after an edit war. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's quite an unhelpful comment to make, Jayjg and SlimVirgin are not involved with the issue here, if you are genuinely concerned about a conflict of interest, I would ask that you take the issue to WP:ANI to canvass for further opinions from uninvolved parties on the block, instead of making such comments here. That way, if the block is unwarranted or unfair, it might stand a chance of being overturned, if it's endorsed by other users, then we know the decision was correct. Nick (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Traditional unionist reported by User:Domer48 (Result:both blocked)
. : Time reported: 16:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:00, 29 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 18:07, 29 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 18:20, 29 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:26, 29 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 19:26, 29 December 2007

This user has been asked to stop edit warring and introducing content which reflects their stated POV. The name was used before partition, and they want it to reflect todays political condition. This is only the latest series of reverts, 16:00, 18 December 2007, 18:56, 21 December 2007. This is addressed per WP:IMOS, and they know it.
 * I dispute that I am guilty of damaging wikipedia - certainly I am not guilty to the extent that the reporting user is on this matter. I stand my by rationaleTraditional unionist (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The name was devised before partition, that is before Northern Ireland  existed, and you what to change the context as if it had always been there. I never said you were damaging wikipedia, I'm saying you breached the 3rr and stand my your rationale (POV). By breaching the policies, you damaging wikipedia, and just to make a point.--Domer48 (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. My rationale is that it is more useful to state that what the situation is now, rather at a date we do not know, which you are assuming was before 1921. This is not the first time that 2 or more nationalist editors have considently seen me fall outside the rules while they stay within themTraditional unionist (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Both editors are edit warring, even though only one has exceeded the arbitrary limit of three reverts in 24 hours. Furthermore, both clearly know better, as they've both been blocked for this in the past. Blocking both for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You fall outside the rules because dispite this report, you are doing the same right now on a different article. Please stop, I've asked you already. --Domer48 (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * On the troubles article, I've been reverting changes made while a discussion is ongoing about it on the talk page. I have made edits to this article which I stand over, that you have not adequately argued your reasons for reverting.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

User:128.253.139.187 reported by User:Mwalcoff (Result:malformed)
. : Time reported: 02:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

User has three times reverted my clean-up of the history section of American football. After the second revert, I used his user talk page to invite him to discuss on the article talk page. Instead, he reverted for the third time.

Previous version reverted to :

-- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please provide diffs for each revert. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Diff 1, 19:20 Dec. 29
 * Diff 2, 19:25 Dec. 29
 * Diff 3, 20:08 Dec. 29 -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

User:74.75.129.239 reported by User:Master of Puppets (Result: IP blocked 3 months)
. : Time reported: 16:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:07, 29 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 19:57, 29 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:12, 29 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 20:18, 29 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 20:25, 29 December 2007


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:19, 29 December 2007

The user has continually re-added the same information to the Walt Disney Classics article without any reason placed on the talk page; rather, cryptic pop culture references are all that were used to justify.12 Master of Puppets Care to share?  02:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The IP seems to be used by to evade his block. Sandstein (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

User:CompScientist reported by User:Daniel J. Leivick (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 16:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * 1st revert: Revision as of 07:26, December 29, 2007
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 18:48, December 29, 2007
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 22:30, December 29, 2007
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 22:51, December 29, 2007
 * 5th revert: Revision as of 23:02, December 29, 2007
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: (22:51, December 29, 2007)

Continued addition of material that violates WP:NPOV despite what looks like consensus on the talk page.--Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Added 5th revert by User:CompScientist to the article — CZmarlin (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the clearest cases of edit warring I've seen. 24 hours. Also warning Daniel J. Leivick, who also edit warred, albeit less. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

User:TharkunColl reported by User:Deacon of Pndapetzim (Result:No violation; users warned)
. : Time reported: 16:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:20, December 28, 2007 (Deletion of content)


 * 1st revert: 14:49, December 30, 2007
 * 2nd revert: 16:15, December 30, 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:20, December 30, 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:22, December 30, 2007

Comment: A highly unamiable user, who edits confrontationally, and lawyers to 3RR as here  and here but avoids discussion pages. Doubly frustrating because he is not the type of user who operates under any relationship between knowledge and editorial bombasticness. You'll notice the very lovely comments along similar lines he made to another user a short while ago [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Canadian_monarchs&diff=prev&oldid=172597969 HERE IS NO FUCKING CITE - IT LEADS NOWHERE. YOU HAVE NOW HAD YOUR 2ND REVERT, AND THIS IS MINE]. I can't see how any conversation with this user will go anywhere unless he changes or is made to change his manner of conducting himself. Really the kind of user who drives good users away whilst himself contributing almost nothing. I'm listing him under WP:3RR This can include ... deleting content, which was why his first edit is a revert. I'm not sure how widely such an interpretation of WP:3RR is held here, but it is available from the wording. It's typical for revert warriors to be caught by bad 3RR lawyering, but even if his lawyering is sound here, I think that is rather beside the point. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't. I made an edit. Then I reverted 3 times after that. The first one was not a revert (I have myself in the past been informed that this is the rule when I tried to complain about someone else). TharkunColl (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, if I go an find the diff where the Pictish kings were first included, then it's four reverts independent of one's interpretation of that part of 3RR. Also, bear in mind that 3RR is not an entitlement. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, because they were added a long, long time ago. By you in fact, using a sockpuppet - something I didn't know till I just checked. Do you deny this? TharkunColl (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Tharkun, don't you get tired of this kind of attitude? BTW, if one has one's username changed/moved by Changing username it does not mean the old name is a sockpuppet. What exact malicious activities were you imagining? My old name editing a year ago in its present, while connecting to the future and editing under its future name? Or were you thinking more along the lines of intertemporal vote stacking? ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well it doesn't matter, those edits are very old. I was editing the article to bring it into line with historical fact rather than romantic nationalism. TharkunColl (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh really? Well, the template's talk page is still waiting for you to discuss these "historical fact"s. Why not, instead of contantly revert warring, actually communicate what you think these historical facts are. If you don't commicate after all, no-one knows what you think, and you don't know what anyone else thinks. As you will find out when you do engage in discussion of this, your edits are actually historically bad and based on misunderstanding. But in order to find this out for yourself, you'll need to take that first brave discussionary step into the unknown ... Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That "short" (not really) statement was accepted and the resultant edits have been implemented since the summer of 2006. That was the start of the discussion. You've ... a year a half later ... reverted it and said nothing. From you, we've had nothing. Why is that? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * For such a major re-writing of history, it should be you who goes first, and you should put your case in great detail. I shall then respond. TharkunColl (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You are assuming I am ignorant of history. If you want to add the Pictish kings - and it was you (under a different name) who added them in the first place, then you must justify such a major re-writing of accepted history. Your previous short statement from ages ago did nothing of the sort. So go on then, start the discussion. TharkunColl (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You both seem to have missed the part at the top where it says do not continue disputes on this page. All this arguing should have been done before you ended up here. I'm denying this for the time being as there is no technical violation, but I'm inclined to block both parties and will probably do so if the edit war continues. I strongly suggest you take your dispute to the article's talk page, and stop reverting each other until it's settled. Kafziel Talk 16:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that was one of the many points you seem to have missed. The topic has been brought up on the talk page. Apparently it's just not long enough to be worthy of a response, and revert warring remains preferable. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, nothing has been brought up on the talk page. It is a red link. Kafziel Talk 17:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope. That's up there your fictional accusation about foul language. See Template_talk:Scottish_Monarchs. Just for your information, talk pages on templates are formed as Template_talk: not Talk:Template . Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My mistake; the report was mal-formed. But regardless of that... are you suggesting that a statement by a sockpuppet six months ago constitutes discussion on your part? Kafziel Talk 17:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Erm ... it wasn't a sockpuppet, as you would have learned if you had read this. Sorry, can we have another admin here? This one is having a bad day. I don't think any fair person would fail to understand if I'm a little of-put by false and clumsy accusations of foul language and sock puppetry, as well as three reading errors. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's another admin. I fully endorse the statement by Kafziel, who does not appear to have a bad day at all, and I will block any editor who continues this dispute on this page. Move over to the template talk page, please. Sandstein (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Adrianzax reported by User:Bogdangiusca (Result:Blocked 48 hours)
. : Time reported: 16:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:38, 29 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 10:15, 30 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 10:26, 30 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 10:39, 30 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:05, 30 December 2007

A revert war on placing a disambiguation notice on the top of the Romanians article. Adrianzax is aware of the 3RR policy and has been blocked before for revert-warring. bogdan (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * User was just blocked for 3RR three days ago; now blocked 48 hours. Kafziel Talk 17:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Simion Eugen-Andrei, Bucharest, Romania reported by User:Smashville (Result: already blocked)
. : Time reported: 16:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:25, 30 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 17:38, 30 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 17:55, 30 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 18:19, 30 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:26, 30 December 2007

Basically, he moved a name to the top of the list. Someone (in good faith) undid his revision it to keep it in alphabetical order. He reordered it back to the top. The edit summaries explained this. The last edit summary proves that this user is reading the explanations in the previous edit summaries. I did add a template to his page, but - considering he's been on WP longer than I have, I don't believe he's a "newer" user. --SmashvilleBONK! 18:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like he was blocked before I finished the notice. --SmashvilleBONK! 18:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No action necessary. Sandstein (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

User:SqueakBox reported by User:Bulbous (Result: Malformed report)
. : Time reported: 16:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

After a lengthy discussion of the edit on the talk page, a version which is almost verbatim from the Washington Post was decided upon. This user has personal beliefs that run contrary to the properly sourced and worded edit, and continues to revert it. He has been warned about 3RR and continues to persist. Bulbous (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR prohibits more than three reverts per page per 24 h. This report cites only three alleged reverts and is, accordingly, not actionable. Sandstein (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Joseph_B reported by User:Quizimodo (Result: warned)
. : Time reported: 01:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

et al.


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This user, for more than a year, has been promulgating a unique and unsupported theory regarding the origin of the name Canada, both at the aforementioned and related articles (e.g., Canada). He alone supports it, with a number of users calling this editor to account over this lengthy period of time (e.g., glance at talk page; also consult my last comment on his talk page, in a section inaugurated 7 months ago by another editor about the same topic), and he has continuously insinuated this perspective and removed legitimate references (e.g., from the Canadian government) that contradict his perspective and with no consensus whatsoever. This user also seems to not know what 'vandalism' means, per accusation in his last edit summary, since my restoration of content was explained repeatedly and previously. Enough said. Quizimodo (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Since he might not check the talk page of the article, I left a warning on his talk page. If he continues, feel free to update this page as needed. -- slakr \ talk / 05:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

-- slakr \ talk / 05:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Transitguru reported by User:Spinningspark (Result: already blocked )
. : Time reported: 16:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:17, 22 October 2007


 * 1st revert: 23:40, 18 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 04:26, 22 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 05:14, 29 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 17:17, 30 December 2007

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:46, 29 December 2007

User is only here to promote his own travel website. I have also reported him for his username which is identical to his website name. User has done no useful activity since joining Wikipedia, only spam on a limited number of travel sites. All attempts to communicate with the user; on his talk page and on the article talk page have met with no response. Although he is not doing this often enough to technically break the 3RR rule and I did not send him a proper template, he does have several spam warnings. I don't think any more time should be wasted with this one.

per user name violation. If he returns under a different nickname, let us know. Keep in mind, however, that this noticeboard is for violations of the three revert rule (which only deals with reverts within the last 24 hours or so), and not any other types of abuse. Consider reporting further abuse to WP:ANI or WP:AIV. Cheers. -- slakr \ talk / 05:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I reported him several places as I was not sure which was most appropriate (or would get the fastest action). My lack of experience. Spinningspark (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Tkguy reported by User:Crotalus horridus (Result: page fully protected)
. : Time reported: 16:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Complex reverting and gaming of the three-revert rule. Virtually every one of his edits is disruptive.


 * 1st revert: 03:57 &mdash; revert to
 * 2nd revert: 02:00 &mdash; revert to
 * 3rd revert: 00:45 &mdash; revert to
 * 4th revert: 20:28 &mdash; revert to
 * 5th revert: 08:08 &mdash; revert to

Many of these are complex and/or partial reverts. I warned him and he ignored me, instead continuing to spew insults on the article talk page. He has been blocked for this before, and unblocked early when he pleaded ignorance. His knowledge of policies seems to be tailored for whatever is most convenient at the moment. He has made few or no edits outside the subject of Asian sexuality. Since he has been warned before, he should be blocked for more than 24 hours. Consideration should be given to an indefinite block as a disruptive single-purpose account. *** Crotalus *** 04:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is gross misinterpretation of what happened. I don't believe this guy started editing the Asian fetish page until today and he deleted half the content and whatever lines that were left. The result of every agreement made on the talk page was wiped out by this guy. Tkguy (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

-- slakr \ talk / 05:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User:StuartDD reported by User:RambutanKing (result: page protected)
. : Time reported: 20:38, 31 December 2007 StuartDD (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st Revert|
 * 2nd Revert|
 * 3rd Revert|
 * 4th Revert| —Preceding unsigned comment added by RambutanKing (talk • contribs) 21:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Please provide diffs for each revert. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a quick note on this User:RambutanKing is adding unsourced information to the page in question. The editor has been asked to provide a source on both the talk page for the article and on their talk page and has refused, so far, to do so. User:StuartDD has simply been conscientious in trying to protect the integrity of the page. MarnetteD | Talk 21:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * {edit conflict}Can I just point out that all of them were reverting material that was added without relaible sources (see my report here) DESPITE warnings - and RambutanKing has also broken this rule. 1, 2. 3, 4 Stuart  DD  contributions 21:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like both have broken 3RR. Note that WP:3RR provides for only a few specific exemptions, none of which apply in this case. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A quick look at this will show that User:RambutanKing has reverted four times also and has yet to provide a source for their edit. MarnetteD | Talk 21:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't understand how reverting material that violates wikipedia policy is not covered here. As I was trying to maintain wiki, doesn't this come under WP:IGNORE? Stuart  DD  contributions 21:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

– It looks like several people have been adding unsourced stuff over the last few days. The user name of the reporter is also suspicious, because I explicitly remember reporting someone named "Rambutan" (or similar) for repeated 3RR on Doctor Who pages a while back. It definitely could be coincidence, though. If someone else wants to look further into it, it might be a good idea *shrug*. Cheers =) -- slakr \ talk / 21:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Rambutan - changed to User:Porcupine (see change of name log). It is unlikely that there is a connection as Porcupine knows about WP:V and WP:RS, and reverts edits that have no source.  Stuart  DD  contributions 21:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Although User:Porcupine does have a lot of edits to Dr Who articles so there could be a link of sorts... Whitstable (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but like I said, Porcupine reverts edits with no source (as can be seen with a quick glance at those contributions), so is unlikely to appear as a user who doesn't seem to care about sources. Stuart  DD  contributions 21:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was about to clarify - a link of sorts as in this could be a user trying to disparage Porcupine? Either way, here is not the place but there could be something more going on that simple adding without source Whitstable (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User:VanBrigglePottery reported by User:Duchamps_comb (Result:User blocked for other reasons)
. : 22:41, 31 December 2007 StuartDD (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st Revert|
 * 2nd Revert|
 * 3rd Revert|
 * 4th Revert|

--Duchamps_comb MFA 04:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No violation. WP:3RR requires more than three reverts per 24 hours. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Added another revert, please look again. --Duchamps_comb MFA 05:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The user has been blocked by Rlevse for reasons unrelated to 3RR. --B (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Helodriver reported by User:Kjoonlee (Result: Both blocked for 8 hours)
. : Time reported: 03:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 2008-01-01T03:47:23


 * 1st revert: 2008-01-01T03:52:14
 * 2nd revert: 2008-01-01T03:57:28
 * 3rd revert: 2008-01-01T04:08:09
 * 4th revert: 2008-01-01T04:25:44
 * 5th revert: 2008-01-01T04:28:59

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: 2008-01-01T04:23:57

Addition of non-notable unverifiable data, which is also actually an external copyvio. --Kjoonlee 03:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Both parties have violated 3RR, and then some. Accordingly both parties are blocked for 8 hours. Work out your differences cooperatively please. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please take a closer look at the edits he was reverting. They were flagrant vandalism. It was some guy playing a joke on someone named "Daniels".  Look at the (now deleted) images the other user uploaded.  They are obvious photoshops/attack images. We should be thanking people who revert vandalism, not blocking them. --B (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Huwjones7 reported by User:Warren (Result: 24 hours)
and. : Time reported: 16:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:59, January 1, 2008


 * 1st revert: 14:32, January 1, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:07, January 1, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:15, January 1, 2008
 * 4th revert: 16:25, January 1, 200

User has also inserted the exact same text into Mac OS X twice: 14:30, January 1, 2008 and 16:30, January 1, 2008 and Finder (software) once, 16:35, January 1, 2008, after multiple warnings on their talk page.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 16:20, January 1, 2008

Note that this a single-purpose account; the user has made no other edits but seems to have enough understanding of Wikipedia to carry on with this. -/- Warren 20:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the Huwjones7 account for 24 hours for persistent insertion of unsourced and biased original research into Macintosh related articles. This user is clearly pushing a specific agenda, as Warren notes. Gwernol 20:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:BlueValour reported by User:Duchamps_comb (Result: Not a violation)
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on

--Duchamps_comb MFA 22:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1st Revert:03:29, 31 December 2007
 * 2nd Revert:00:14, 1 January
 * 3rd Revert:20:27, 1 January 2008
 * Note that the 3RR forbids more than three reverts in 24 hours, not three. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a violation, only one revert and even if all three of the diffs were reverts, they were not within a 24 hour period. --B (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Avidius reported by User:ILike2BeAnonymous (Result:No violation )
. : Time reported: 16:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 18:19, 30 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 21:35, 31 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 23:23, 31 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 00:38, 1 January 2008

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 (see below; note left on their "talk" page)

A short explanation of the incident.

Simple; editor has repeatedly removed material from the article, even after being warned (on their "talk" page) about 3RR. Particularly galling is the fact that they never bother to leave a single word of explanation for their edits (in edit summary or elsewhere).

To their credit, editor did respond on my "talk" page after I left a note on theirs, but did not stop reverting. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The user has not reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours, as far as this report shows; please contact me if he/she has reverted more in 24 hours. Keilana talk(recall) 14:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Kamujin reported by User:98.204.112.111 (Result:24 hours )
. : Time reported: 04:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Enderle&diff=181500600&oldid=181487052
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Enderle&diff=181510250&oldid=181509790
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Enderle&diff=181523954&oldid=181520481
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Enderle&diff=181525239&oldid=181524540


 * Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kamujin&oldid=181520686

Inserting own interpretation and critique of a cited source, blind revert removing constructive edits, punctuation edits and vandalism reverts. 98.204.112.111 (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24 hours for edit-warring. Take it to the talk page, please. Keilana talk(recall) 14:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Zenwhat reported by User:Vision_Thing (Result: Not a violation, user warned)
. : Time reported:20:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:32, 30 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 14:08, 31 December 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:28, 31 December 2007
 * 3rd revert: 15:52, 31 December 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:46, 31 December 2007

Since he has given this edit summary on one of his reverts it is obvious he knows about 3RR. Also, given his edit history and comments on the talk, he is now signed in 69.138.16.202 who has been warned about 3RR before and who has been revert warring for a while on this article (11 reverts in article's 50 revision history). -- Vision Thing -- 20:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to expess my support and agreement for this notification. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a violation. One of those reverts was reverting an antivandalism bot, which could not be described as edit warring. I will leave a warning on the user's talk page. --B (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR does not apply to vandalism. Since they're going to make this an issue, I will open an arbitration case. Please see the discussion on the talkpage. I reported the actions of the above users for violating WP:FRINGE and openly acknowledged the fact that I have reverted more than three times on the fringe theories noticeboard. . Per WP:IAR, I will defend my actions. To start off, the article Debt-based monetary system was a POV fork of Fractional-reserve banking created and primarily maintained by Karmaisking, a confirmed sockpuppeteer. This vandal has continued to violate WP:FRINGE, with support from, and. All of them are Libertarians who are sympathetic or adhere to the fringe theory involved and have thus stifled constructive edits to the article by me and others. They have stifled improvement of the article through continually reverting any substantial removal of Karmaisking's vandalism, while doing nothing to remove it themselves. They do minor copyediting of the article and say "Oh, Karma's edits are bad," on the talk page, but whenever anyone attempts to remove Karma's nonsense, they revert, claiming we need a drawn-out debate. RFC was attempted in the past. In a past AfD discussion on this article, the article was only kept based upon the assumption that it would improve over time. It didn't. In fact, it got a lot worse because it was expanded by Karma with even more nonsense and inappropriate citations. For this reason, it is clear by now that the only way the article is going to go anywhere is with a full re-write.

I have strongly invited Vision Thing, Sm8900, and Carolmooredc to re-include material from Karma's version in with mine. They have refused and in fact none of them can specifically name what was wrongfully removed. They simply put forth a vague appeal to consensus, while not specifying the fact that Karma's edits should be completely disregarded for being vandalism and in bad faith.

Normally, I would find an approach of "gradual improvement through discussion" to be reasonable and appropriate. However, given the circumstances and the people involved, it is absurd to argue at this point. My actions are fully consistent with the 3RR and, in any case, WP:IAR was created for precisely this kind of situation, where an individual good-faith editor needs to completely disregard wikilawyering and get the article fixed. Zenwhat (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know a thing about this topic. But 3RR only has narrow exceptions.  If there is a legitimate problem with the article, you can open a request for comment or use some other aspect of the dispute resolution process to fix it.  --B (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * RFC has been tried in the past. You can see the tag on the article's talk page. Dispute resolution doesn't seem appropriate since the conflicting parties above won't specifically explain what the dispute is (why my re-write was bad) and also since the article was created and primarily maintained by Karma, who has since been banned for using sockpuppets to push fringe theories about monetary theory. If they can explain what's actually wrong with my version of the article and then want to go to mediation, we can do that. Zenwhat (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a venue for discussion. Open an RFC, use the talk page, or bring ongoing user conduct issues to WP:ANI. This report is closed. Stifle (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:UpDown reported by User:Collectonian (Result:Problem seems to be worked out )
. : Time reported: 02:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:34, 1 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 01:57
 * 2nd revert: 02:08
 * 3rd revert: 02:11
 * 4th revert: 02:20

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: 02:18

I originally tagged this article as needing missing footnotes, having too short an intro, and needing expert attention from the TV project on December 24th. UpDown reverted on the 25th. I retagged as the issues were not addressed. He reverted less than two minutes later. I put them back again. He removed again on the 27th. He finally actually addressed some of the issues and removed the tags. I put back the expert tag (still had issues there), and a ref-improve since its sourced from only three sources at 15:48, 1 January 2008. It is then that the current cycle of reverting by UpDown really began, along with borderline uncivil remarks in his edit summaries that include calling me a stalker. After his second revert, he started a discussion on the talk page Talk:Executive Stress. I explained, in more detail, why the article was tagged as such, but he again removed them and refused to listen, repeating his early remarks and calling my expectations unrealistic and basically saying "if you don't like it, fix it yourself." He also left a message on my talk page saying the need for expert attention is unrealistic, even after I explained it helps a project see an article does need attention, even if its mostly just clean up work. I have not undid his last revision since that would then have me also violating 3RR, and will defer instead here.
 * The fourth revert took away the ref request because you questioned where the airdates came from. I added a ref, so removed the ref request. More refs are not possible for this article.Expert attention is not needed, any reordering (to my eyes, its in right order) etc should be done by Collectonian if he is thinks it necessary. I apologise for breaking 3RR, but I did it because the articles does not need the tags, as explained on talk. However, I will go and revert my edit now, as it broke 3RR. But I firmly believe the tags are not needed.--UpDown (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I just ask why time reported says "Time reported: 16:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)". Thats not when it was reported?--UpDown (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing that.--UpDown (talk) 08:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, two things have happened. First, you have both violated 3RR. Second, the problem seems to have been resolved on the talk page, please contact me if either of you disagree. Consider this a warning, UpDown, and Collectonian has already been warned. Keilana talk(recall) 14:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, did you mean that the other way around? UpDown is the one who has already been warned, not me, but will attempt to be more careful in the future. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Carl.bunderson reported by User:65.94.218.24 (Result: Not a violation, reverting edits of a banned user)
. : Time reported: 16:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:29, 2 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 23:32, 2 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 23:39, 2 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 00:24, 3 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 00:35, 3 January 2008
 * 5th revert: 00:43, 3 January 2008
 * 6th revert: 01:10, 3 January 2008

User:Carl.bunderson was reported for a 7RR violation a few days ago for the same edit on the same article (see here). Even after being warned about it before hand, he was forgiven that time for his 7RVs. Yet, today he has resumed edit warring on the same article with the same edit and has broken the 3RR. Also he removes the same sourced content over and over again as can be seen here. Since he is removing sourced content and broken the 3RR rule twice the past week, a temporary block might help him change his ways.
 * I'm inclined to hold off on this one pending a checkuser to determine if and  are a reincarnation of the banned user //.  Looking at the article history, that seems to be Carl's thinking when he made these reverts. Reverting edits by a banned user while banned is exempt from 3RR limitations. --B (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And in this case, you are correct, yes. It's also pretty evidence from the edits and the edit summaries - A l is o n  ❤ 02:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been reverting vandalism. Afghanistan has experienced repeat vandalism on this demonym matter. If you see the talkg page, consensus is reached, maintained for about a week, then new socks turn up and start screwing with it again, and refuse to use talk page. In the face of that, I prefer to revert repeatedly rather than allow what looks to me like vandalism. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries - reverting edits of a banned user is exempt from 3RR limitations. In fact, since this section was created by a banned user, if you want to, you can just blank it. --B (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Thanks, Alison. It looks like the user has already been blocked. This user also edited this page from .  Can the whole range be blocked?  Whois says the range is  65.92.0.0/14, but I'm a bit nervous to block a whole ISP. --B (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend against rangeblocking at this time, as there would be too much collateral damage. Maybe run the question by User:Dmcdevit, as he's good at that sort of thing and may be able to help - A l is o n  ❤ 05:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:G2bambino reported by User:Lonewolf BC (Result:Both users blocked - 24 hours )
. : Time reported: 02:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:24, 31 December 2007 (See also details of individual reverts.)

Note: For greater clarity, the 2nd and 4th reverts are each given as two separate but consecutive edits.


 * 1st revert: 02:47, 2 January 2008 (full revert)
 * 2nd revert: 15:55, 2 January 2008 (full revert)
 * 2nd revert: 15:58, 2 January 2008 (still a revert in substance and, technically, w.r.t "Biological")
 * 3rd revert: 21:56, 2 January 2008 (full revert to version of 15:58)
 * 4th revert: 00:43, 3 January 2008 (revert to 21:56 (and earlier) w.r.t. "Biological" and "Non-biological")
 * 4th revert: 01:13, 3 January 2008 (revert to 21:56 (and earlier) w.r.t. "Biological" and to 15:55 (and earlier) w.r.t. "Psychological")

User G2bambino has been multiply warned and blocked in the past for 3rr violations, and was warned again, before making this report.

The disagreement is about G2bambino's edits to long-stable section titles. Please note, also, G's using edit-summaries for personal attack, flatly denying the need for consensus for an opposed edit, and ignoring of entreaties (by edit-summary) to take the disagreement to the talkpage. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've blocked both users for 24 hours - they're quite cleary in conflict with each other and this is completely disruptive.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  02:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Absolon reported by User:Thejerm (Result: no violation)
. : Time reported: 18:00, 2 January 2008
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: | 13:48, 2 January 2008


 * 1st revert: | 15:54, 2 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: | 16:50, 2 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: | 17:17, 2 January 2008
 * 4th revert: | 17:20, 2 January 2008

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:Absolon asks for a peer review for the Savannah State University article here. Today I proceeded to clean up a few sections but each time I change something I am reverted. The last area I tried to clean up was the the athletic infobox which is duplicate information found in the Savannah State University article, Savannah State University infobox, and Savannah State Tigers. After undoing the information once and writting a rational of my edits on the talk page |here I am reverted again. This time I am also notified on my talk page to "cease from removing it (see the 3 revert rule if you are confused) until you find the appropriate Wikipedia policy statement or have an neutral authority to adjudicate" (emphasis mine). This user is not assuming good faith, and following WP:OWN because he insist another party make the decision.
 * Here are the reverts I count:, and . This is not a revert. User has made 3 reverts, and I will warn him about 3RR. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * On top of that, the report included previous versions and not diffs, so it is extremely difficult to determine which are reverts. Please use diffs in future. Stifle (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Pedro Gonnet reported by User:Dbratton (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 17:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:45, 3 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 08:18, 3 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 09:35, 3 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 09:48, 3 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 14:32, 3 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Not issued, this is an experienced user who himself warned those he was edit warring with about 3RR prior to his own violation. Clearly aware of the policy.

Disagreement over usage of the term 'captive' or 'hostage' on an otherwise relatively quiet page. RfC was issued which got moderate response and (very) arguable consensus. Changes that were made to the article based on this RfC have been reverted and re-reverted multiple times, and intervention appears necessary to stop the disruption to otherwise valid edits. Please note that while the user reported here is a clear case of 3RR violation, there are others reverting at the page who may also qualify under a more in-depth investigation. Daniel C/T+ 17:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. --B (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Squash Racket reported by User:Svetovid (Result: no violation)
. : Time reported: 23:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 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. Also, for future reference, please format the request correctly, as instructed at the bottom of this page. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Tigeroo reported by User:Arrow740 (Result: 2 weeks)
. : Time reported: 23:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 5:14, 3 January 2008 He reverted this edit of mine, calling it vandalism, he removed a massive amount of sourced content from the concensus version, but said he was reverting vandalism.
 * 2nd revert: 07:27, 3 January 2008 Undid my new addition here
 * 3rd revert: 08:29, 3 January 2008 Undid my new addition here
 * 4th revert: 16:52, 3 January 2008 Removed my new additions from these diffs.
 * 5th revert: 23:31, 3 January 2008 Now using an IP, he has apparently declared himself to be Tigeroo on the talk page.
 * 6th revert: 23:39, 3 January 2008 He admits to being to being the IP as well.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 08:35, 3 January 2008 He obviously didn't need to be warned, but I actually warned him and asked him to stop.

I initially restored the concensus version of the article as modified by User:Itaqallah. Tigeroo reverted it. Instead of reverting, I was willing to work with him and tried to improve his version by adding new content. He removed it. I then added new sourced content (all to reliable sources). He removed it. It became clear that he was in no way interested in working collaboratively and was reverting reflexively; I restored my additions and asked him to stop. There appears to be some coordinated meat-puppetry going on; as of now, user Itaqallah has also revert me twice, and Bless sins three times, to delete new sourced content, while I have made only one revert in the last 24 hours, though I may soon restore the deleted text. I have not been edit-warring! There has been almost no justification given for what appears to be vandalistic meatpuppetry. Arrow740 (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Arrow has been continually edit warring on this article for several days, both before protection was implemented on 26 December and after it expired on 2 January. He habitually games 3RR by reverting right up to three and then reverting sometime later. He was recently blocked on a previous article for this behaviour of rushing to three reverts. He seems to have invented a novel way of gaming it: that is, continually and disruptively insert more and more disputed material each time someone takes a previous addition out (this, on a featured article.) Yet, in spite of that, Arrow still seems to have managed three reverts on that article.  ITAQALLAH   23:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, as I said, I have not been edit warring. I learned when blocked recently for combating vandalism with three reverts to be more conservative. Itaqallah also often uses three reverts; I could give examples if the issue were not Tigeroo's vandalism here. I believe I have restored the content two times. Arrow740 (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Arrow740 has been edit warring with various users on multiple articles. Islam, Muhammad, Muhammad's wives, Islam and antisemitism etc. are but examples.Bless sins (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Blnguyen has blocked the user for 2 weeks per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no "Previous version reverted to". Apparently, it's "MANDATORY", is it not? Then, why did Arrow740 miss such a crucial detail in his report?Bless sins (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I provided a previous version for each diff by showing the exact edit he undid - I know it's complicated. Arrow740 (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it was complicated. I just went to the article history and started counting reverts, but then I saw Blnguyen had already blocked the user. Bless sins, don't jump on Arrow740 for missing a detail in his report. It does not affect the validity of the report in any way. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nishkid64, this is a detail that renders many reports as invalid. WP:3rr considers it as mandatory, why should we not insist upon something that is "mandatory"? Unless, you think that it is not "mandatory".Bless sins (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * BS, you need to read the report more carefully. It clearly states, for more complicated revert-warring, more complicated reports are needed. Please desist. Arrow740 (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Invalid reports do not grant 3RR violators a free pass. Some administrators, such as myself, collect their own evidence to make sure of the 3RR violation, and make a judgment call from there. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think the report should have been filed differently? Arrow740 (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a complicated report, so "previous version reverted to" would be of no use here. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:82.47.32.88 reported by User:TheIslander (Result: 24 hours )
. : Time reported: 01:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: Initially 00:43, 4 January 2008, including a rude comment, subsequently 01:01, 4 January.


 * 1st revert: 00:43, 4 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 01:01, 4 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 01:04, 4 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 01:08, 4 January 2008
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 01:04, 4 January 2008

Quick background: Presenter of Have I Got News for You is fired from show on a specific date. The article provides a rock solid source (BBC News article) to back this up. User insists that this is not true, ignores the source, removes it and replaces with original research. They are reverted, so they re-revert and add a rude message (first diff). I revert it, and the user re-reverts (second diff). I warn the user about 3RR, and revert to replace correct information and source, but they re-revert (third diff). I revert one last time, and am re-reverted (fourth diff). This is a blatent breach of 3RR; the user in question is repeatedly adding false information, and removing the very source that shows it to be false. The Islander 01:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * IP blocked for 24 hours.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  01:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:201.218.79.62 reported by User:Dúnadan (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 02:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

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

The anon user 201.218.79.62 is engaging in WP:OR (and vandalism) by making unsubstantiated claims and continuously inserting them on the article despite being warned several times to WP:CITE. He has been reverted by three users, and warned by three users to stop vandalizing the page. He has also been warned to stop reverting/vandalizing the article North America: he has also violated the 3RR rule in that article:. the D únadan 02:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:LGBTRights123 reported by User:Fordmadoxfraud (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 05:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:34, 23:03, 28 December 2007


 * 1st revert: 20:57, 3 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 23:54, 3 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 00:33, 4 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 04:50, 4 January 2008

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 03:57, 4 January 2008

LGBTRights123 continually reverts to versions containing his/her edits that more than one editor--ExRat and myself--both feel violates WP:NPOV and is not supported in substance by the citation given. We have placed our concerns on both the article's talkpage and LGBTRights123's, and the editor has continually ignored all attempts to communicate about the dispute, except to act belligerent in the edit summaries. Ford MF (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Charles reported by User:Piotrus (Result: page protected )
. : Time reported: 21:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:45, December 31, 2007


 * 1st revert: 00:22, January 3, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 14:50, January 3, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:20, January 3, 2008
 * 4th revert: 17:13, January 3, 2008

Edit warring. User familiar with 3RR, having been blocked before; should know better.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification. This dispute is about the naming of a Duchy formerly located in the now Czech city of Opava, formerly Austrian and Sudeten German Troppau, called Opawa in Polish. It is not about any of the places called Oppau in German, of which a minor one is also called Opawa in Polish. Yet, the incorrect OR-ish term "Herzogtum Oppau" was
 * 21:38, 11 May 2007 introduced by Piotrus (from pl wiki)
 * 17:52, 31 December 2007 restored by Piotrus after correction by Matthead to the correct German "Herzogtum Troppau" and the well sourced English "Duchy of Troppau" (among many Silesian Duchies, subject of disputes, past, present or future)
 * 23:37, 2 January 2008 (Herzogtum oppau, not troppau in any case) Piotrus insists on his OR term again despite previous correction by Charles
 * 12:00, 3 January 2008 (we should use Opawa, it is used in English publications too. Feel free to write a new article and explain the name on talk) Piotrus insists on his "Duchy of Opawa"
 * 12:22, 3 January 2008 Matthead gives a strongly worded comment on Piotrus Talk page (but does not join in the edit war)
 * 14:56, 3 January 2008 (I was mistaken, it should be Opava, not Opawa) Piotrus finally relents on trying to impose Polish POV, changes to "Duchy of Opava" (which still has much less evidence that Troppau)
 * 15:25, 3 January 2008 Another Eastern European flamer Piotrus lists me on WP:ANI/AE
 * 16:45, 3 January 2008 (Opava seems the proper English language naming) Molobo joins in, leading Charles to 4RR

Thus, Piotrus, a Polish editor and administrator on English Wikipedia, introduced and defended the non-existing German name "Herzogtum Oppau", which due to his persistence may annoy and then offend persons knowing about the history of Troppau. Then, he brought both of his opponents to Administrators' noticeboard, resulting in me getting listed at Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, the article getting protected with the non-existing German term, and Charles barely escaping, as I understand. -- Matthead DisOuß   12:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I really dislike seeing edit wars where no-one involved is using the talk page. Please do not discuss disputed edits in edit summaries. Seek consensus on the talk page. Since the last edit was some hours ago I'm going to protect the article for 7 days to allow a consensus to be reached. If there is further edit warring on this article blocks will ensue quite liberally. Spartaz Humbug! 21:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I can assure you that I do not seek edit wars and avoid them at all costs. Contrary to the belief that I have not learnt a single thing while editing, I have actively participated and initiated discussion on a great number of topics in order to seek resolution. That I hadn't in this instance I apologize to the administrators who have had to spend time on this issue. A general note though, I respond best if notified of these things, I believe it is standard, or at least courteous, practise to do so. Charles 22:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I can assure, from my observations about the conduct of User Charles, that he practically seeks edit wars, and is involved in such relatively often. Henq (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not know how this user navigated here other than following edits, etc. It should be noted that this users observations should specifically include unanswered notices on his talk page and discussions on the disputed pages, where he was adding unsourced material and original research that was not NPOV. Charles 22:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Its also good practise to discuss disputed edits on article talk pages and I didn't see any of that here. See my comments below Spartaz Humbug! 22:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC) (and with this I'm away to bed). Night all...


 * Indeed, and sorry that there wasn't even a notice of centralized discussion (truth be told, it's all over the place and if that's going to be the case, it should be mentioned everywhere where it applies). Kind of a mess really, there are a few move discussions concurrently and old, related discussions across several articles. Good night! Charles 22:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh my... Well, all I can really say is to look at this user's comments on talk pages relating to the duchies, specifically naming requested moves as in bad faith when they were not. And yes, I was blocked for 3RR in the past but if Piotrus feels the need to bring up something that didn't involve him I feel inclined to mention that he, in the past, has been party to many, many disputes, which he seems to cause or share fault in. That I find myself linked to this page is disheartening really, but not surprising given the circumstances. Charles 22:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly I couldn't care less. The point was that you were all revert warring with each other and you personally did breach the 3RR and you all know better. Ad homs do not help your cause - comment on edits not editors. Please have a discussion - I'm sure you all have better things to do with your time then to end up being blocked over petty arguments that frankly don't reflect well on anyone involved. I was reasonably generous not blocking you - use the chance to do something constructive. Spartaz Humbug! 22:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not feel that anything other than a generally fair course of action was taken, which is totally and completely fine (and in fact, best desired). As such, I don't feel that there is generosity in saying that I wasn't blocked because, again, I think this would be recommended to discussion or mediation by any administrator. 3RR violations have always been followed by a block as far as I've observed. Looking back, I didn't violate it, although I and other editors came close, sadly. Charles 22:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's black on white that you did 4 reverts in under 24h.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't like to split hairs, particularly when I think the admin ultimately made the right decision, but I am a fan of clarification. Upon analysis of the differences in question, I note that there are four identical versions by me in less than 24 hours, but no more than that. 3RR is broken after the fourth revert to the previous version in less than 24 hours. As I understand that, that is a version reverted to with four reverts all within 24 hours. That it came close to that for all parties is enough to warrant the restriction on the article, but to be scolded for it after when the lesson has been learnt before is not appreciated. Charles 22:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is quite possible that, after experience curve of a year or so apparently, User Charles has learnt how to go close to 3RR without precisely breaking it. However, it looks to me like he broke it this time. Having seen User Charles' temperament in work, frankly, my opinion is that each occasion he breaks 3RR, the block could well be one week. Another good idea would be that for User Charles, RR block will be given after 2RR. After all, if he really has something valuable to add to an article (and not deleting contributions of others), one edit will suffice for inserting it. Such policy would pacify royalty and nobility articles nicely. Henq (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, by all means, state all of your grievances in a new report and link it from here, if you must. I will be more than happy to address all of your questions and concerns and will back them up. Note also that you ignored messages on your own talk page and you are now (what I would say is) stalking because process does not agree with your edits to Saxon duchy related articles. Indeed, articles you aren't even involved in are now immediately of your concern because I have edited in them. That's okay, I'm not the king of Wikipedia and can't tell people not to edit, but it speaks to the veracity of the claims against me by you. Charles 22:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Case in point, finding this after my last reply here. I am done dealing with Henq's intrusion in this matter and advise him to file a report at WP:AN/I or any other appropriate venue if he has grievances with me. If necessary, I welcome anyone to post on my talk page if they feel they need to clear something up with me. Civility works if exercised. Charles 22:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Kindly observe gist of the text on the greenish-bluish background. One cannot help a feeling that if so many editors find conduct of one editor as disruptive and problematic, possibly even detestable, as the text gives us to understand, there unavoidably lies a grave inherent problem in the very conduct of that one editor. Henq (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have refactored my previous comment here, it was not very civil and the discussion should stay closed. My apologies if anybody was offended by it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:XLR8TION reported by User:UnclePaco (Result: 1 week)
. : Time reported: UnclePaco (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:47, 1 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 21:24, 1 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 04:43, 1 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 02:06, 1 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 01:13, 1 January 2008


 * Not a new user. Has been blocked multiple times  for personal attacks as well as  3rr violation.

Removal of sources. It was discussed here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominican_Day_Parade&action=history and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dominican_Day_Parade
 * Both parties are in violation, but are now discussing it on the talk page, blocking would serve no purpose unless it starts back up. --B (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've really been trying. User Xlr8tion has been speaking to me in a demeaning manner and using personal attacks. UnclePaco (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for review re:XLR8TION
I previously closed this request by issuing a warning to both users, both of whom appeared to have violated 3RR, but, at the time, were talking it out on the talk page. I felt that a block would not be helpful since the edit war appeared to have stopped. (I had never interacted with either user nor edited any of the involved articles prior to that time. ) Since that time, XLR8TION has continued to edit war in less than constructive ways and, though I feel I would be justified in issuing the block myself, I wanted to relist it here to allow an admin who has not yet taken an action in this matter to make the decision.

Since the time I declined the block and left this warning with XLR8TION, he has repeatedly added a post from a white power message board to Puerto Rican Day Parade. (The only edits to that article in the last two days have been XLR8TION readding the link to the white power message board and others removing it.) He has also resumed reverting Dominican Day Parade, which was the original article for which this 3RR request was made.

Again, while I would feel completely justified in making the block for edit warring (3RR is not a license to revert exactly 3 times per 24 hour period) and for adding inappropriate external links, since I myself have removed the white power message board, I wish to maintain transparency and ask another admin to reconsider this request. Thank you. --B (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reviewed. I have blocked XLR8TION for one week for edit warring, incivility and personal attacks. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This was the website he posted. http://www.stormfront.org /forum/showthread.php/puerto-ricans-133236p6.html . Innapropriate.  UnclePaco (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * User:UnclePaco appears to be editing in bad faith. See this edit. He has been attempting to characterize the Dominican Day Parade as a mostly criminal activity through inappropriate photos, weasel words, and wikilawyering. I will appeal XLR8TION's ban. Zenwhat (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat appears to be editing in bad faith (Meatpuppet and utilizing WP:Stalk 67.101.248.187 (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please cite diffs to substantiate those allegations. Zenwhat (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Guettarda reported by User:TableManners (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 05:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:

,, ,. The last edit suggests bad faith, incorrectly characterizes a fact tag (the fact tag was to a sentence that never had its own citation). I don't think this is good form on the part of Guettarda, but thought I'd submit for others to look at. Guettarda is well liked no doubt so disinterested admins only please. T able M anners U·T·C 05:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no 3RR violation here. Without going too much further into the issue (as arguments should not be continued on this page), the first two diffs you listed are sequential and the second one is unrelated to the other three. It's an edit war, and an unquestionably bad decision on Guettarda's part, but I don't think a block is warranted in this case. Kafziel Talk 05:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops, I did not intend to request a block. Just some other eyes on the issue.  Thanks Kafziel, you may withdraw this if this is a place to request a block.  T able M anners U·T·C 06:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this noticeboard is for block requests (it looks like the editor who recommended you come here assumed that the four diffs were the same). I dropped Guettarda a warning and requested that he go through dispute resolution if need be. I think that's sufficient, and I'll go ahead and close this case. Kafziel Talk 06:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverts do not have to be related to be a violation of 3RR. Any full or partial reverts - even if you aren't reverting back to the same version - in excess of three is a violation.  That said, as you correctly pointed out, two of the diffs were in sequence, so Guettarda reverted EXACTLY three times, not in excess of three times.  I would close this as no violation, but because I am involved, I cannot.  (Never mind the last sentence, after I typed this, I see you already did close it.) --B (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Chemical Euphoria reported by User:Splette (Result: User warned )
. : Time reported: 06:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:11, 3 January 2008


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

This is my first 3RR report ever. So, please excuse in case I made any formal mistakes filing it. The global warming articles like this one seem to be a popular target for vandals, who do not agree with scientific consensus. Quite a number of sockpuppets have been 'retired' during the history of these articles. But new ones appear constantly. The user User:Chemical Euphoria appears to be one of them. The account was used for nothing else than reverting global warming articles. In the case of Attribution of recent climate change the user constantly reverted a certain phrase as can be seen in the diffs, without engaging in any discussion on the talk page. This is why I file this report. Splette :) How's my driving? 06:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a brand new account and no warning had been given prior to the diffs given above ... HOWEVER, Raymond Arritt has tagged the user as being a suspected sock of a banned user (seems rather likely) so this may all be moot. --B (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realize, that the user should have been tagged first. However, I also thought that this is a rather clear case and therefore went ahead and reported it. -- Splette :) How's my driving? 07:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This user has now been warned and any further disruption will result in a block. please reopen this report by removing the result if they make any further reverts. Cheers. If this is a sock, there are mechanisms to deal with it elsewhere Spartaz Humbug! 07:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks! -- Splette :) How's my driving? 07:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Betacommand reported by User:Yukichigai (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 07:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:21, 28 December 2007 (The removal of all images is the content in dispute)


 * 1st revert: 23:53, 3 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 00:28, 4 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 00:29, 4 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 00:33, 4 January 2008

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: 00:33, 4 January 2008

Betacommand has been insistent that all non-free images be cleared out of the List of Metalocalypse characters article, claiming that WP:NFC says that lists are "prohibited" from using them. Both myself and another editor have taken issue with that interpretation of WP:NFC and have attempted to discuss the matter with Betacommand, who has elected not to participate. He has in the last hour attempted to restore his preferred version of the article (the part about the images, anyway), claiming that the enforcement of WP:NFC exempts him from 3RR. I find this hard to believe to say the least, and thus I am reporting the incident here. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (ramble  argue  check ) 07:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No violation, copyvio removal is indeed exempt from 3RR, and character lists are not permitted to contain nonfree images. However, I would encourage Betacommand to seek input from other editors rather than reverting. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Umm... where does policy say that? The only thing anyone can show me is an essay written by Durin.  I know there's a specific prohibition on decorative images in grid-type lists, but this article is a list only in the name of the article.  It's a merged collection of several stubs, essentially, with paragraphs and all that jazz. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (ramble   argue  check ) 07:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't a simple list, though. Rather than just being a table listing character names, and descriptions, this article has a good deal of content and I don't believe could be considered a blatant violation of the non-free content policy.  I'm not inclined to block BC, though, because certainly he believes it is a violation, even if it isn't, and acted in good faith. --B (talk) 07:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Can I at least ask for a warning to be issued, lest some other, less-ballsy editor be run over roughshod because Betacommand doesn't realize he doesn't have carte blanche? -- Y&#124;yukichigai (ramble  argue  check ) 07:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've protected the article to stop the revert war and left a note on the talk page expressing a concern that this may not be a flagrant violation. Please discuss the issue there and feel free to open a request for comment to ask others to be involved or ask at a suitable location like WT:FAIR. --B (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Lswhitten reported by User:GaryColemanFan (Result: Page protected 24 hours... BLP issue)
. : Time reported: 18:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

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

This user has been deleting the same piece of information for the past five days with no explanation. I was concerned that it was unsourced, so I made sure a source was added. It has been removed several times since then, with an explanation finally coming that the subject of the article probably wouldn't want the information in the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a BLP issue with the information being added coming from what doesn't look like a mainstream source. I have suggested that the user contact Wikipedia via the address on Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject).  I'm more inclined to remove it and temporarily protect the article until OTRS can handle it than anything else.  Controversial information about a living person should not be added unless it is well-sourced ... and this isn't it. --B (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree... I protected the page for 24 hours as a MyClient account is not sufficeintly reliable, even if it is the subjects own pageBalloonman (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Zonbalance reported by User:Twerges (Result: page protected)
. : Time reported: 20:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 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: 23:17, 2 January 2008
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 06:02, 4 January 2008

Zonbalance continually reverts edits which remove a 'Discover' magazine editorial from the 'peer-reviewed journals' section (note that the Discover article is still referenced in the 'criticism' section). Zonbalance has refused at least 5 attempts at communication, on his talk page and on the discussion page, from me and from other users. Zonbalance has been informed of 3rr twice. Zonbalance usually leaves the comment blank for his reversions and does not attempt communication.Twerges (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Both editors seemed to have violated 3RR three days ago, and have continued to revert, so I felt it was best to fully protect the page, so a discussion can hopefully take place. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Alice reported by User:Perspicacite (Result: 24 Hours for both editors )
. : Time reported: 00:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:14 14 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 20:38 4 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 20:47 4 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:00 4 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 23:33 4 January 2008


 * Previously warned of 3RR: I'm pretty sure she was blocked for violating it previously too. Since she followed me to Neal Blair, and was already blocked after she followed me to Angolan Civil War, I would ask for a longer than usual block. Jose João (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is correct, User:Perspicacite.

I also made stylistic changes but they are more difficult to judge objectively.
 * My first edit today (and the first this year to that article) was to
 * 1) restore the citation you removed by your sixth revert in November 2007 and
 * 2) to move the incorrectly named (and wikilinked) statement "He also worked on the successful Gubernatorial campaign of Utah Governor John Huntsman." from the "See also" section


 * My second edit today after you reverted my first edit above, restored the citation removed without explanation again and wikilinked "Gubernatorial" to Governor. I suppose you could stretch a point and call it a "first revert" if you wished to edit war, but I regard it as a bona fide, good faith edit helpful to our readers in providing a useful wikilink for those (non-Americans?) unfamiliar with the American gubernatorial system.


 * My third edit today after you made a simple revert for the ninth time (removing the citation for the eighth time) provided a more exact link to a sub-section of one of our articles Angolan Civil War - in case that was the reason you were using simple reverts so often.


 * What you call my fourth revert was not a simple revert but corrected the redlink (due to the Governor being incorrectly named) and added a cite template and a wikilink to Utah: "He also worked on the successful Gubernatorial campaign of Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr."

I know you often edit from the north eastern USA, so was this your edit too, User:Perspicacite/Jose João as an IP because you forgot to logon?

I know that you habitually revert other good faith editors yourself (rather than progressively improve and build upon their edits) but this vexatious attempt to again get me banned is really beyond the pale. Why, exactly, do you continue to remove this:

" In 1984 and 1988 he was a member of The Council for National Policy. "

(the link to Neal Blair's biography) by simple and successive reverts? Would it not be better to use the discussion page or the edit summary to tell me what exactly is unsatisfactory about my edits?  A l i c e  ✉ 01:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Alice, I know you prefer not to address the issues raised, but to instead spam every talkpage to confuse the other editors, but it would be really helpful if you would just not follow me to another page. Could you try improving articles? Jose João (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It makes it difficult "to address the issues raised" if you remove all unfavourable comments from your own talk page or play games on mine in an attempt to drown out more cordial editors wishing me the compliments of the season.


 * What you call "spam" others call Wikipedia policy. Do you really think this: Hahaha is an appropriate response to serious questions posed about the effect of your reversions or do you really think my edits are worthless and that I am not making a good "try" at "improving articles"?  A l i c e  ✉ 06:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It takes two to edit war. Alice has broken the 3RR and has been blocked for 24 hours. Perspicacite should know better given the number of times they have been blocked for 3RR violations have failed to discuss the edits as well. 24 hours for them too. Spartaz Humbug! 10:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ray andrew reported by User:Locke Cole (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 02:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 2008-01-02T11:39:08


 * 1st revert: 2008-01-04T21:53:15
 * 2nd revert: 2008-01-04T22:35:51
 * 3rd revert: 2008-01-05T01:44:56
 * 4th revert: 2008-01-05T02:18:19
 * 5th revert: 2008-01-05T02:43:17
 * 6th revert: 2008-01-05T06:44:47


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 2007-11-14T05:42:09

User is trying to avoid having a chart updated given well sourced and documented news today. User was warned. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears four different editors have tried to update this pie chart graphic and each time Ray has reverted it unilaterally and against consensus. I've added a 6th revert diff. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure whether 3RR relates to an image but the actions are certainly disruptive. 24 Hours. Spartaz Humbug! 11:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

User:71.240.94.64 reported by User:69.74.29.2 (Result: both blocked 24 hours, article protected)
. : Time reported: 06:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._John%27s_University_%28New_York_City%29&oldid=182473665

With this IP address a quick view of the history makes diffs unnecessary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.240.94.64


 * Not a new user.

Looks to be a sock. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._John%27s_University_%28New_York_City%29&diff=182473225&oldid=182031122. Looking at history page was taken off full protection. It seems it may be necessary to place it back on protection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TiconderogaCCB

69.74.29.2 (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Please remember, though, that a user logged out is not a sock - there is no prohibition on editing while logged out.  Both of you have violated 3RR and both are blocked for 24 hours.  When the block expires, please discuss the issue on the talk page. --B (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Yuan.C.Lee reported by User:Appletrees (Result: Yuan.C.Lee blocked 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 15:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 2008-01-05T01:52:43

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * 1st revert: 2008-01-06T06:08:49
 * 2nd revert: 2008-01-06T09:00:57
 * 3rd revert: 2008-01-06T09:21:28
 * 4th revert: 2008-01-06T10:04:36
 * 5th revert: 2008-01-06T10:51:10
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-01-06T09:33:17

User:Yuan.C.Lee has tried not to give priority to Korea on the disambiguous page for 5 month with his unilateral pushes. Among the three university, Seoul National University is the most famous and alphabetically meets to the conventional order but he denied to put the Korean educational institution at first by his anti-Korean sentiment per his contribution history. According to WP:3RR, a revert means means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content or restoring deleted content, undoing page moves (sometimes called "move warring"), undoing administrative actions (sometimes called "wheel warring"), or recreating a page.

Per this description, User:Yuan.C.Lee violated 3RR by his POV. He even tagged a "fake" protection template on the page which only allows to administrators. He even does the same behavior on East Sea. I believe he should learn a lesson by suitable sanction. Thanks --Appletrees (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I(Yuan.C.Lee) should tell some. Appletrees revised the disambiguity page SNU with sort by alphabet without the agreement.

Before this rivising, I had shown the evidences of popularity of the items. And none has been against me. it means my opinion was implicitly accepted.

Suddenly IP User 128.2.17.19 reviced it. I just revised it. and the next Appletrees revised it. so I invited Appletrees to the talkpage. Though, he didn't leave any messages. He is the breaker at the wikipedia editing.

(I had left some evidences that the order of the popularity at SNU talk page)
 * History:
 * I revised the version of IP User 128.2.17.19 with the message See the note! ( I thought Sort by Popularity is accepted. )
 * Appletrees revised it with Sort by Alphabet without agreement.
 * I revised SNU with the message:Not handy. The convention is that the acronym links to the most popular one(though some words lack). I thought sort by pouplarity is handy.
 * He revised it without agreement. so I revised it with the message: Appletrees had better leave any comments on the talk page, before editting. No one has claimed at the talk page.)
 * though he left 'No message at talk page, and revised it.
 * At the talk page, I have given him a chance to choose which rule is favoured, sort by alphabets or sort by popularity before I final-changed SNU with sort by popularity.


 * He revised SNU. it means he chose sort by alphabets. I stopped the editing of the ordering by the popularity of my favour.
 * I followed his rule that items should be sorted by alphabets in disambiguity page.
 * I changed East Sea, following the rule he taught me: Sort by alphabets.
 * though he revised East Sea.


 * 1.) He revised SNU without leaving any messages at talk page of SNU.
 * 2.) He insisted me to follow sort by alphabet at a page SNU, and sort by popurality at another page East Sea.
 * 3.) Though, Wikipedia rule is this!!

Totally he insisted me to use the wrong rule and lead me to the wrong way. I cannot accept his behavior, as a wikipedian.

Should I accept a penalty in reason of his report? No way! --Yuan.C.Lee (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * you totally insist on keeping your "own rule". And you reverted 5 times on SNU and 3 times on East Sea by your unilateral POV. You didn't wait any time for me to answer your request. Before I commented my thought on my talk page or the relevant talk page, you just simply lied and insulted me and reverted so quickly. Even receiving my waring as to your 3RR, you just reverted without any intention to gather a consensus between us. Your disruptions are not only on 3RR violation but also on adding the fake template as if you were an admin. --Appletrees (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I count four reverts by Appletrees, one of which was removing the protected template added by a non-administrator. Excluding that one, he is only at three and to be perfectly honest, Yuan.C.Lee, edits there and on East Sea have been rather disruptive. I would normally block both users in a case like this, but the de-alphabetizing of a dab page under the claim that the more well-known institution should be at the top and the supposedly more well-known institution is Southern Nazarene University, which nobody has ever heard of and the supposedly lesser known university is Seoul National University ... well, I find that Appletrees edits were undoing disruption. Another admin may reverse me and block both users if you feel so inclined, but I really think we need to be more understanding when a user removes flagrant POV or undoes disruption, even if WP:3RR may not technically list that particular exception. Anyway, rant off. --B (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Justinm1978 reported by User:Alan.ca (Result: Warned both users)
. : Time reported: 18:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 2008-01-05T08:22:43


 * 1st revert: 2008-01-05T12:24:34
 * 2nd revert: 2008-01-05T19:52:46
 * 3rd revert: 2008-01-06T11:53:03
 * 4th revert: DIFFTIME


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-01-06T09:56:20

During a content debate about inclusion of a source of information an anonymous user posted a personal attack against me. I removed the personal attack, but subsequently Justinm1978 insists on reverting the removal of this anonymous comment. I have also posted on the wikipedia etiquette page to get an outside perspective. 2008-01-06T10:09:30. Alan.ca (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Guys, this is an edit war worthy of WP:LAME. Alan, as personal attacks go, that one is pretty tame.  Justin, that comment has nothing whatsoever to do with the development of an encyclopedia article and off-topic talk page comments can be removed on demand, particularly when they are addressed at one editor in particular and no response is needed.  But either way, this is about as lame as a thing to argue over. Please stop. --B (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Alansohn reported by User:Xcstar (Result:No violation)
. : Time reported: 17:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

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

Alansohn does not want to engage in collegial editing. Instead he has been rather arbitrary in reverting my contributions and those of others. Apparently he has engaged in heated battles with other editors, eg, User_talk:Alansohn. Xcstar (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Xcstar has been engaging in a longstanding effort at inserting misleading, false and defamatory information about Dane Rauschenberg at his article and at other articles, including L'Arche, in violation of WP:BLP. As indicated, WP:3RR excludes reverts "reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (see Biographies of living persons)". The persistent disruption caused by User:Xcstar at L'Arche have been raised at WP:BLPN, which would appear to be the appropriate venue for further discussion of this matter. Alansohn (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The L'Arche article is not about a living person, it is about an organization. Although User:Alansohn now (incorrectly) claims that the material posted is libelous, he has not stated that as his rationale during his edit wars. I am not aware of any discussion on WP:BLPN and it was posted only in retailation of this 3RR complaint. Xcstar (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The article itself may not be about a living person, but the information Xcstar has been adding to it is. Since the information does not include reliable sources, Alansohn was justified in removing it. Kafziel Talk 18:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please also look at Alansohn's edit war documented at: User_talk:Alansohn. I will add more sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcstar (talk • contribs) 18:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That was weeks ago. I'm not sure whether it's relevant at all, and it's certainly not relevant here. Kafziel Talk 19:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Hudson Hawk21 reported by User:Metalcore424 (Result: already blocked)
. : Time reported: 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 04:16, 7 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 05:14, 7 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 05:36, 7 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 13:07, 7 January 2008
 * the reverting continued up to:
 * most recent revert (after warning): 15:28, 7 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:24, 7 January 2008

Hudson Hawk (as well as possible sock puppets Nathann sc and PRINCETON007) continually add in the same poorly-formatted, redundant, confusing information after continually being reverted by at least four different users. Evan Seeds ( talk )( contrib. ) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently, while I was writing this up, it appears he has already been blocked for vandalism of some sort. --Evan Seeds ( talk )( contrib. ) 19:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Petition reported by User:Omtay38 (Result: no violation)
. : Time reported: 21:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: Multiple. Favors some of the original content of the page


 * 1st revert: 13:49, January 7, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 14:21, January 7, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 14:30, January 7, 2008
 * 4th revert: 14:40, January 7, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 14:59, January 7, 2008

Has been warring over Joe Viglione for quite some time. I have no personal stake in the matter, just stumbled upon it. Personally, the article seems like NN Spam to me, but I leave it up to the admin who handles the 3RR problem. -- omtay 38  21:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with opposing a PROD multiple times. It seems that the user who keeps PRODding the article is at fault here.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Mickhunt reported by User:Omtay38 (Result: indef blocked)
. : Time reported: 21:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:16, January 7, 2008


 * 1st revert: 14:17, January 7, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 14:23, January 7, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 14:32, January 7, 2008
 * 4th revert: 14:45, January 7, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

See report above. Other end of the edit war over Joe Viglione -- omtay 38  21:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * User was blocked by Nick for disruption. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 22:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User:PanLover reported by User:Fordmadoxfraud (Result: 24 hour block)
. : Time reported: 22:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:40, 6 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 22:58, 6 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 14:14, 7 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 20:26, 7 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 21:28, 7 January 2008
 * 5th revert: 21:55, 7 January 2008

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: 21:33, 7 January 2008

User:PanLover continues to revert into the pan flute article a link to an educational flash video about which two editors--myself and User:ILike2BeAnonymous--have expressed concerns on various grounds. Most of PanLover's responses have been to persist in edit warring and act personally slighted, essentially accusing the editors involved of personally colluding against him and his edit. Ford MF (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The user has ignored consensus that the link should not be added to the article and persisted in adding it anyway. 24 hour block for edit warring issued.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 22:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Nathan86 reported by User:Precious Roy (Result: 24 hour block)
. : Time reported: 02:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:33, 7 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 01:12, 8 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 01:29, 8 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 01:41, 8 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 02:05, 8 January 2008

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 01:40, 8 January 2008

Content cited as unsourced since mid-December. Comment left on talk page of article was responded to indicating that references were not forthcoming ("I can't be bothered to find them again"). Content was removed from article, revert war commenced; additional talk-page discussion has proven fruitless. Precious Roy (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3RR was violated by not achieving consensus and then edit warring over it. 24 hour block issued.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 14:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Yehoishophot Oliver reported by User:Lobojo (Result: 24 hours )
. : Time reported: 14:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:32, 7 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 17:34, 7 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 03:23, 8 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 11:21, 8 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 14:29, 8 January 2008

Times above are the UTC times for clarity.

User is a very established user, and is aware or 3rr, as evidenced here for example.

It is actually 5 reverts, but since showing the first one is more complicated, I simply linked that as the original version reverted to. User making repeated reverts of sourced information without any engagement on the talk page. While I am loathe to do this in general, this user has a history of tendentious editing on this page. Lobojo (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 24 hours Spartaz Humbug! 19:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson reported by User:Eurocopter tigre (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 21:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: - 7 January, 18:13
 * 2nd revert: - 7 January, 20:21
 * 3rd revert: - 7 January, 20:55
 * 4th revert: - 8 January, 16:03

User:Pmanderson keeps reverting disruptively in an issue quite logic and supported by the BBC, US State Department and CIA World Factbook; actually, he keeps adding "alternate names" for "Romania" (erroneusely typed in sources he cites, as the oficial English name for this country is "Romania). He has also been reported few days ago for incivility and disruptivity - here and he was also blocked several times for edit warring/3RR violation. However, he had break the 3RR again, as stated in the diffs above. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I regret not having checked the timing more carefully. However, the first edit shown is not a revert, but supplies additional evidence; the third is an attempt at compromise, as the edit summary shows. I would request that this uncivil  edit summary by Eurocopter Tigre, which also requested additional sources,  be taken into consideration. While I have been blocked before, the history Eurocopter brings up is nine months old.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure the first one is a revert, as he keeps adding back the same text removed by others. Clearly, disruptive edit warring is a thing in which this editor is often involved and should be treated properly. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please consult Eurocopter's block log. He was blocked for edit warring less than two weeks ago. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Correct, that's why I decided not to continue the edit warring and report you accordingly, even if I reverted you only two times. However, my personal block log has nothing to do with this report. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm. "He has also been reported few days ago for incivility and disruptivity - here and he was also blocked several times for edit warring/3RR violation." You mention his blocks, it seems fair that he mentions yours. Edit warring, which you allege has occurred, requires more than one person. Charles 18:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately for him i'm not the one reported (if I was the one reported, I would accept that admins consult my block log before taking any decision), so my block log would be irrelevant in this report. Clearly, this user didn't learn from mistakes in the past, and continues to be diruptive and break the 3RR. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because a form of a country's name isn't mentioned it does not mean that it is not an alternative. On Google (yes, I know), Romania shows up in English language results about 30:1 against Rumania. Rumania, however, appears in about half a million hits. Maybe not an official form, but certainly not a mere misspelling. Charles 17:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Google Books returns almost 8000 hits for Rumania, including a 1994 publication by Oxford; the more common form gets 13,300. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that this is widely discussed on the proper talk page in this moment, so let's don't change the subject. The user violated the 3 revert rule and therefore should be blocked. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have come unfortunately close to infringing it; had I noticed the timing, I would probably have delayed my last edit a while. But I have not done so; and this entire complaint is an effort to ignore my suggestion of compromise, by an editor with an emotional commitment to official names, which is contrary to our guidelines. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, the discussion which takes place on Talk:Romania has nothing to do with this report and therefore it should not be continued here. The user break the 3RR and will be blocked. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this a retraction of the claim that the title of the recent Oxford University Press book is a typo? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the interview, "Roma Issues in Rumania: The Year 2000 and Beyond", cited here, with a former member of the Romanian Government (search on Rumania)? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, i'm not going to discuss this here any more. However, I would be free to discuss everything on the proper talk page. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 24 hours. Spartaz Humbug! 19:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, you blocked the user for 31 hours. I have no incredibly strong opinion one way or the other ... but you may want to either change the block or change the result here. --B (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:LapisExCoelis reported by User:Corticopia (Result: 24 hour block)
. : Time reported: 19:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: - 17:44, 8 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: - 18:14, 8 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: - 18:56, 8 January 2008
 * 4th revert: - 19:10, 8 January 2008

This is pretty clear-cut: this editor continues to insinuate simple yet arguably divisive/unnecessary wording regarding the 'ancient (Greek) kingdom of Macedon'.{} The factual nature of the assertion is not in dispute per se, but this user has not discussed nor compelled for the change in text on the talk page, which was in place for some time until recently. Thus, his insinuation of me manipulating 3RR is insipid: just as '[he] believe(s)' he has provided 'sensible and sound reasoning', he has violated it all on his own, and despite warning. Corticopia (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor disclaimer

 * I am writing from an Academic library workstation with browser restrictions that do not allow the use of the address box (URL bar). As such, I can not right now provide the necessary diffs. I would kindly request some time to relocate to my laboratory/office or home PC.


 * I will not debate here the reasoning behind my correctional edit. I believe it is not place.

3RR and "gaming the system"
I did break the 3 Revert Rule, which I was just reading.

I believe that User:Corticopia did also break that rule, not so in 'practice' but most importantly in spirit.

S/He was obviously aware of the rule, since upon his/her own admission, 'warned' me about it (diff pending), yet despite that, s/he continued to edit-warring.


 * 1st revert: (diff pending) 18:05, 8 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: (diff pending) 18:49, 8 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: (diff pending) 18:58, 8 January 2008

I also believe that s/he engaged in a curious, non-constructive and antagonistic attempt to "game the system" (GAME).

Upon his/her own admission the "ancient kingdom of Macedon of Alexander III and Phillip II", was "(ancient) Greek"  at least in spirit and in character (diffs pending). This version was the established, prevailing one up until  20:29, 30 December 2007  (diffs pending) when User:3rdAlcove, without any explanation in the summary box, any discussion in the talk page and certainly without any academic, editorial, community or otherwise 'consensus' what-so-ever, decided to remove.

I did discovered this removal some days later and reverted it (diff pending). It was exactly at that point when User:Corticopia reverted my edit, in minutes, thus declairing his/her position to challenge the established version, due to 'simplicity' (talking about NPOV).
 * Revert: (diff pending) 20:40, 4 January 2008,

For the reasons stated above I believe that his/her actions were not in good faith thus the whole 3RR invoke was just hand-waiving in a curious attempt to change the established version of the said page and "game the system" by invoking, widely used and cited, wikipedia practices, guidelines and policies as WP:3RR and WP:NPOV.

P.S. It may seem far fetched but I have a minor suspicion that User:3rdAlcove may be a sock/meat puppet of User:Corticopia (or the other way around), among others. This would propably mean that, in this case s/he used his/her alter egos in an abusive way. I would kindly request a way to check it. --LapisExCoelis (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Clear violation of 3RR. User blocked for 24 hours.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Other comments/accusations from this editor aside, I would strongly encourage the retention of this electric fence for the duration -- this editor was clearly blocked by an admin despite LEC's response to my report (i.e., the diffs would make no difference) and my equally reasoned comments. Corticopia (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:64.85.234.166 reported by User:Pairadox (Result:24 hours )
. : Time reported: 23:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:17, 8 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 18:26, 8 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 22:07, 8 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 22:32, 8 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 23:01, 8 January 2008

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: 22:40, 8 January 2008

Pretty straightforward case of reverting more than 3 times to preserve info that three other editors agree is inappropriate. Pairadox (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * User:64.85.234.166 blocked by Ben W Bell for 24 hours. SkierRMH  ( talk ) 04:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:219.66.41.150 reported by User:Appletrees (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 23:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 2008-01-08T00:06:48


 * 1st revert: 2008-01-08T16:59:51
 * 2nd revert: 2008-01-08T17:16:44
 * 3rd revert: 2008-01-08T17:24:41
 * 4th revert: 2008-01-08T17:42:41

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-01-08T17:20:16


 * The user removed referenced contents regarding Korean and Japan relations without any plausible rationale, but just said that "It is Korean POV, Korean nationalism, or grounds of Bais". The two countries are neighboring each other. Cultural exchanges and interactions between Japan and Korea are so natural. His denial is so unnatural and not constructive for Wikipedia. He can't change the history and his reverts without any reason can be considered vandalism. However, the anonymous user is doing the same behaviors on Empress Jingū, Nihon Shoki, and Japanese cuisine. The anonymous user is certainly not a new user because a similar ip anon, 219.66.42.176 did the same things on the mentioned articles. Moreover, judging by the same misspells on the word, propaganda as probaganda2007-07-24T19:08:49(by 219.66.44.159), 2007-10-05T16:40:41 (by 211.3.113.247), the editor is a long time POV pusher. I tried to talk to him at his talk page, but got no answer from him. Another user also provided more references to him as following the anon's demands, but also got no answer back. Besides, the user suddenly put a Japanese words to a Korean tea article which is no relation with Japan but he seemed to do that as a retaliation. The act is very similar to User:Yuan.C.Lee's behavioral patterns on East Sea which occurred a couple of days ago. Please prevent the user from causing further troubles on Japan-Korean relations. Thanks. --Appletrees (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Clear violation. Blocked 24 hours. Kafziel Talk 09:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Polaron reported by User:MojaveNC (Result:Template protected)
USLargestMetros. : Time reported: 03:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * This is my first revert to the version that uses United States metropolitan area as the basis for the items on the template.
 * 2nd revert:
 * This is not a revert but a fixing of links that was edit conflicted.
 * 3rd revert:
 * This is the second revert to the metropolitan area definition
 * 4th revert:
 * This is not a revert but a completely new version using United States urban area as the basis for th template. Since User:MojaveNC was claiming the template is a list of urban areas, I thought using urban areas instead of metropolitan areas would satisfy him.
 * 5th revert:
 * This is my first revert to the urban area definition.

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

I stumbled upon this incomplete and unused template this week after seeing that the largest cities also had a template. Since urban areas are a much more accurate depiction of a city's relative economic, cultural and social significance, I made a ranking based on these. I examined three population rankings provided by the U.S. Census Bureau – urban area, Metropolitan Statistical Area and Combined Statistical Area. The CSA seemed to provide the best definition – i.e., metropolitan areas whose centers were less than 30 miles apart were part of one combined CSA rather than two or three smaller MSA's – but not every CSA corresponds to a Metropolitan Statistical Area (i.e., San Diego, California does not have a CSA.) I added the MSAs into these rankings where those cities were not part of a CSA and created the template based on that criteria, thus providing what I believe to be the most accurate way of ranking urban areas' significance, as far as this template goes. User has consistently reverted the rankings back to other criterias – Census urban areas or MSAs, neither of which as accurately portray an urban area's absolute size and relative importance. This would be an open-and-shut case if every city was part of a CSA, but they're not. Minimal subjectivity - filling in the gaps with existing Census criteria - was required to make the rankings accurate.MojaveNC (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that said user is the one who is technically in violation of 3RR (his reverts are:   ). I am unsure if he understands how Combined Statistical Areas are delineated. Please see Talk:Combined Statistical Area for a link to the Federal Register indicating that CSAs and MSAs should not be compared as the results are misleading because they represent different concepts. --Polaron | Talk 05:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Polaron is correct, in that a) he did not break 3RR, and b) MojaveNC did break 3RR. However, I'm not issuing a block because discussion is ongoing at the template talk page and both sides should continue trying to make progress there. I've protected the template for two days, which should be sufficient time to come to a better understanding. If an agreement is reached earlier, I'll unlock it. If, on the other hand, the edit war continues after protection expires, we can revisit this block request. Kafziel Talk 08:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Carlo ms06 reported by User:Chrishomingtang (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 05:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:52, January 8, 2008


 * 1st revert: 20:12, January 8, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 20:46, January 8, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:21, January 8, 2008

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

I and this user are involved in a content dispute. I told him about 3RR and he continued to revert me. I did attempt to discuss the issue, but it seems to me that he is not listening. Chris! c t 05:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:TheIslander reported by User:Chrisieboy (Result:No violation )
. : Time reported: 12:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:38, 9 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 20:24, 8 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 10:05, 9 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 11:20, 9 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 11:30, 9 January 2008

The same editor has also made three edits to the page Image:LINK.png within the same time period. I asked him to discuss, but he just reverted and asked me to discuss.

Chrisieboy (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Can I suggest that whichever admin takes a look at this a) has a look at what I was reverting (a violation of the WP:NONFREE policy), b) takes a look at the talk page of the article in question where I tried to initiate a discussion, and c) notices that I haven't actually reverted thrice in 24 hours yet. Though having said that, as my edits are to remove non-free material, I doubt that it'd qualify for 3RR anyway (not that I'm planning on reverting anymore without admin intervention). Thank you. The Islander 15:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. User:TheIslander tried to initiate a discussion after reverting three times in a 24 hour period on both Norwich and Peterborough Building Society and Image:LINK.png and placing an inappropriate warning on my talk page. His/her revert is disputed and controversial and therefore s/he should have initiated a discussion before. It is not enough to simply assert that it is non-free material, that fact is not disputed. I provided a rationale for fair use. It is not for one user to unilaterally decide that that is not acceptable and to persist in removing it without consensus, proper discussion or the common courtesy of first explaining their actions.


 * I am providing diffs below, for revision at Image:LINK.png:&mdash;
 * First 20:25, 8 January 2008
 * Second 10:05, 9 January 2008
 * Third 11:22, 9 January 2008


 * Chrisieboy (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * For your information, those aren't diffs - see here. The Islander 15:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * For the admin's benefit, as this request has been malformed anyway (diffs have not been cited). I remove the picture, which was placed in violation of WP:NONFREE here. For Chrisieboy's benefit, that does not count as a revert. Chrissieboy then reverts here without discussion, or request for discussion. I then re-revert here (my first revert), and request discussion on the talk page. As this picture is possibly used in violation of WP:NONFREE, it is better to remove and then discuss than discuss whilst leaving a potentially wrong use of an image on the page. Chrisieboy ignores the request for discussion, re-reverts here (2nd revert), and requests discussion himself. As the copyright status is dubious, I place a message on the talk page here (11:19, 9 January 2008), and then re-revert here (11:20, 9 January 2008) for my second and last time, and request discussion on talk page. I have only reverted twice; my reverts have been to remove copyright-dubious work; I have made requests for discussion which have been ignored. Any reverts to the image mirror the article to remove a pointless and invalid rationale. Hope that finally clears up any confusion. The Islander 15:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no violation here - TheIslander has only reverted three times, but regardless, he was removing a copyrighted picture from the article that had no rationale for its use on the page. Please note "Reverts to remove clear violations of the copyright, spamming or non-free content policies" are clearly marked as exempt from the 3RR policy.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  16:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:43.244.133.167 reported by User:Appletrees (Result:Sock IP blocked 1 week)
. and  : Time reported: 15:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 2008-01-07T03:12:46


 * 1st revert: 2008-01-08T17:03:55
 * (RV: Korean POV)


 * 2nd revert: 2008-01-08T17:18:36
 * (Please present evidence to become grounds of Bais. Please do not use this article for anti-japanese of Korea Probaganda.)


 * 3rd revert: 2008-01-08T17:42:44
 * (To two Korean. Please write your insistences in Talkpage. Insisting Bais on an unpleasant history description for Korean people is not logical.)


 * 4th revert: 2008-01-09T09:03:43
 * (Grounds are not presented at all though you insist that this book is Bias. Please do not write your personal insistence.)

Please see these report first.


 * AN3
 * AN3

Administrators might think that the 4 reverts by two different editors do not breach to the 3RR violation. However, how does 43.244.133.167 know about 219.66.41.150's recent edits after returning his break for 3 months!

Their editing show exactly same pattern and grammatical errors. Both are long time users and 219.66.41.150 has been banned from editing wikipedia for 24 hours. Please see my above reports on 219.66.41.150's violation and their contribution history.I have a long list of 22x.xxx. xxx.xxx IP ranges hosted by odn ip network. I warned them(?) not to use sockpuppetry with ip address and fake accounts. Talk:So_Far_from_the_Bamboo_Grove And then 43.244.133.167 user with a different ip host appeared! If my assumption is right, he evades his block twice. I filed a much longer version to WP:RFCU, but it takes over 3 days. I just bring current incidents here. please make him stopped. Thanks. -Appletrees (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the sock IP for one week. Further violations would be best reported to an administrator, rather than filing a new 3RR report. Kafziel Talk 00:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, the user is just not ceasing the disruption. I hope my RFCU report result comes out soon to prove his massive sockpuppetry. Once again, thank you! -Appletrees (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Cocoliras reported by User:Seicer (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 18:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 15:22, 9 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 14:57, 9 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 14:38, 9 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 13:59, 9 January 2008
 * 5th revert: 17:55, 8 January 2008

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:26, 9 January 2008

User has edit warred regarding citations in labeling the top ten cities in North America. Discussion revolved around the credibility of the citations and the lack of central America cities in the list, and the issue was resolved amicably. The user has been warned of prior edit warring in the past.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 18:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, that was quick! User blocked by . Thanks.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 18:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:212.51.199.173 reported by User:Coloane (Result: Semi-protected)
. : Time reported: 21:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 20:52, 9 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 21:06, 9 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:13, 9 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 21:21, 9 January 2008

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. Edit warring. Coloane (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Page semi-protected by Jmlk17. Please make sure you include the previous version reverted to in future when making reports. It is mandatory. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Esanchez7587 reported by User:91.108.195.35 (Result: No vio (Es); 24h (91.1))
. : Time reported: 23:51, 9 January 2008 (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:

Said user continues to remove valid content from the article, and has ignored my concerns about edit warring. 91.108.195.35 (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above IP is blocked for twenty-four hours for vandalism. --  tariq abjotu  00:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm absolutely disgusted by this. Said IP did everything by the book, yet you find the need not only to carry on permitting the violator to edit war, but also to ban the anon. Typical of this site, it makes me so angry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.232.183 (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Alansohn reported by User:Xcstar (Result: both 24h)
. : Time reported: 00:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:08, 8 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 18:58, 8 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 19:26, 9 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 20:36, 9 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:53, 9 January 2008

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:

A short explanation of the incident. Xcstar (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Both users (reporter and reportee) have been blocked for twenty-four hours for edit-warring on Dane Rauschenberg. --  tariq abjotu  00:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Dandelion1 reported by User:mikeblas (Result: No violation, reverts more than a month apart)
. : Time reported: 03:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 11:43, 23 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 09:56, 28 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:53, 7 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:55, 8 January 2008

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

I've been working to remove unreferenced material from this article. EAch time I've removed the references, the material has been restored (without the references being improved) by this user. I've explained the removals each time at Talk:Mercer Island, Washington. Mikeblas (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For a violation of the 3RR to occur, there has to be four reverts within 24 hours. These aren't even within 24 days. No violation. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * On top of that, you need to include diffs (not previous versions), include the mandatory detail of the previous version reverted to in order to make it clear that the four edits you cite are reverts, and where you indicate that you have warned a user, a link to their talk page. Stifle (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Nubula reported by User:English as tuppence (Result: both are blocked to stop mutual revert warring)
. : Time reported: 15:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:02, 10 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 14:16, 10 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 14:27, 10 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 14:32, 10 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 14:36, 10 January 2008
 * 5th revert: 14:39, 10 January 2008
 * 6th revert: 14:45, 10 January 2008

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: 14:42, 10 January 2008 (edit) (undo)

I removed an external link from Primeval (TV series) which hosted material copied from various professional publications without any assertion that they had permission to do so (as advised in External links). User:Nubula objected to this, reverting all attempts to remove this copyright violating site, requesting "proof" that the publications or writers held copyright on said articles. English as tuppence 15:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Both blocked by Mikkalai for edit warring. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ghanadar galpa reported by User:Relata refero (Result: Both blocked)
. : Time reported: 19:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:14, January 10, 2008


 * 1st revert: 19:04 January 10
 * 2nd revert: 20:09 January 10
 * 3rd revert: 20:11 January 10
 * 4th revert: 00:34 January 11

Refusing to engage on talkpage, saying "things are too heated". Well aware of 3RR; has in fact violated it already on this article in the previous 24 hour period, and on another article in the same time period (see his user talk). My involvement limited to responding to an incident report at AN/I; was accused instantly of collusion with Communists. A cool-down block to think about using talkpages to defuse "heatedness" rather than reverts might be in order. Relata refero (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Both editors are blocked for revert warring. The "involvement" of Relata refero was three reverts/blanking of a huge chunk of text (I assume, disputed). I consider this to be an attempt of gaming of system rather than dispute resolution. `'Míkka>t 20:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree and have warned User:Ghanadar galpa and User:Conjoiner who have been involved in the incident. But only User:Ghanadar galpa has been blocked so far. This does not seem to be a fair decision. Biophys (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems that Mikka blocked another person (who was less involved in the warring) by mistake. Sorry if I am wrong. Could anyone review this please?Biophys (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I was warned not to revert by you and Míkka not to engage in reverting. I took this on board and in fact have not made any edit to any article since let alone revert anyone's edits, while User:Ghanadar galpa has ignored you and Mikka and continued reverting. You can look at my contributions record. So why now push for me to be blocked when I have fully complied with these requests?--Conjoiner (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I do not suggest to block anyone. But it seems that Mikkolai has made a technical mistake by blocking User:Soman instead of User:Relata refero. He left a notice to Relata but blocked Soman. Sorry for misunderstanding.Biophys (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Regarding Soman, it appears his block is the result of a clerical error. Relata refero appears to be a very recent entrant to the debate and I don't think there is any evidence that he "gamed the system", but was trying to remove some highly POV content. Perhaps he began to experience the same level of frustration as everyone else in dealing with a difficult editor who continually attacks those he disagrees with as "Communist vandals/trolls/paid propagandists/etc" (for example, this accusation that I, Relata and Soman are members of a "cabal" of editors belonging to or supportive of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)) ), apparently in a bid to antagonise rather than resolve issues.--Conjoiner (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a place for discussion. If there are issues with the block, take it to WP:AN or Mikkalai's talk page. If there are issues with the page, take it to its talk page. This report is closed. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:TTN reported by User:Maniwar (Result: Page Protected)
. : Time reported: 21:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Refusing to engage on talkpage. I'm in the process of doing some updates and all he is doing is reverting. This user has been guilty of this on numerous articles and a quick history review will quickly show how typical this is for him. When I did my second revert, it was because I was editing and ran into an edit conflict, I reverted then went right back to editing. --User: (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Since posting this, editor reverted a fourth time. I've added the info above. --User: (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * TTN in order to avoid another 3RR |has, as his history will show, gained help from User:Eusebeus. Again, looking at the history of TTN's edit will show that Eusebeus is there to help [] when he is at or around two reverts. A look at this history page |here will show yet another close possible 3RR (two reverts) violation. And a look here  here, here , and here , show aother 3RR violation, as well as here , and here [, here . This is the rampant attitude this user takes with all of wikipedia. --[[User:|]] (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also like you all to scrutinize User:Eusebeus because he and TTN engage in Tag Team 3RR. I know that sounds ridiculous, but this is their way around violating the rule. See examples here, here , here , here , and there are more which show the two of them working in sync to avoid breaking 3RR. However, in spirit both are guilty of such. --User: (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your wider complaints belong elsewhere. Since you were also edit warring you are also liable to a block. I have protected the article for 24 as an alternative to blocking you both. Spartaz Humbug! 00:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:CBFan reported by User:Collectonian (Result: One month)
. : Time reported: 21:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:42, 9 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 15:07, 10 January 2008 - also labeled good faith clean up efforts that included a note on the talk page
 * 2nd revert: 15:07, 10 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 15:18, 10 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 15:21, 10 January 2008
 * 5th revert: 15:25, 10 January 2008
 * 6th revert: 15:39, 10 January 2008

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:25, 10 January 2008 (given warning, but he is not a new editor and has received several 3RR warnings before, so he knows the rules)

As part of a clean up effort, I did some massive edits to the List of Crash Bandicoot characters article, including rewriting several sections that had the same paragraph repeated multiple times, cleaning up the references and sources, and removing minor characters. I left a message on the talk page (where consensus had already been reached that clean up was needed in addition to some merges), explaining what I did, and asking if I removed any characters who I thought were minor but were not, to either add them back or bring them up for discussion. Instead, CBNFan reverted the entire edit as blatant vandalism and has been repeated redoing his reverts when I and another editor undoes them. He was reported to ANI over issues related to the articles about this game, but it was allowed to drop after he promised to discuss not just revert war and to be more careful about his being uncivil with other editors (see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive346). He was also reported in November for his uncivil behavior and edit warring as well. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You are to blame for this little incident and you know full well you are. CBFan (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am recusing myself from this one, because I've had previous encounters with CBFan, even though I don't believe that disqualifies me from acting. However, given his tendencies, it's best that someone else handle this report.  I would point out, though, that an anon removed it from the board immediately after CBFan commented on it (and I reverted it back onto the board).  I would also point out the frequency of 3RR violations for this account, and a tendency to refer to any edits (good faith or not) that he does not agree with as vandalism.  - Philippe &#124; Talk 21:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I had reasons for refering to that edit as vandalism. It was certainly not constructing the encyclopedia very well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CBFan (talk • contribs) 22:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: The anon IP that vandalized this report, 79.74.10.90, traces back to CBFan's general location, and is very similar to the vandalism of the AfD referenced in the ANI report above. And, for extra fun, CBFan is now 3RRing on my talk page to put a 3RR notice about the same article (per is vindictive report below) even though he deleted the same notice from his own user page, and I reverted 3 times, and stopped to avoid violating 3RR (so its also a false warning). AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, so you've had to resort to telling lies, have you? Sad, so sad. It's obvious that you're wrong. CBFan (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked for a month. The block log for this user is riddled with 3RR blocks (this is block 7 or 8) and I seriously considered an indef at this point. The exceedingly uncivil edit summaries and agressive editing should not be tolerated and a firm signal is required. Spartaz Humbug! 00:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Collectonian reported by User:CBFan (Result:no violation )
. : Time reported: 21:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

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

Collectionian has blatantly removed characters from the List of Crash Bandicoot characters page for apparantly no reason and little logic (removed characters with developed personalities, yet kept those with none at all). He did mention on the talk page this idea, yet he went ahead and edited without any fors or againsts. After seeing this, I reverted back to the last edit before he wrecked it and set about trying improve the article myself. However, despite removing a lot of "garbage" from before, C blatantly refused to accept it and continually reverted back to HIS edit, despite the fact that he had removed characters for no reason AND he had made the article very un-encyclopediac. Furthermore, he refuses to accept blame for this as shown above AND that he posted a warning about my revert war thing, yet when one was posted on his talk page, he deleted it. He is clearly more to blame than I am and a lie-teller at that. CBFan (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to add that he has now refused to accept blame for being involved in the edit war for the third time now, as par his talk page, as seen [], [], [], [], [] and []. Furthermore, he is refusing to accept blame in any way, blaming the incident solely on me as seen here []. CBFan (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * closed - no violation. Spartaz Humbug! 00:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:65.0.115.11 User:68.199.235.190 User:70.149.163.213 reported by User:UnclePaco (Result: no vio )
.          : Time reported: 01:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:01, 11 January 2008 Alexfusco5


 * 1st revert: 00:02, 11 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 00:00, 11 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 22:29, 10 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 11:00, 10 January 2008

Sockpuppet of

Previously blocked for vandalism http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:68.199.235.190

3rr violation and using sockpuppets

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:74.230.195.78

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: 00:01, 11 January 2008

Annonymous user with history of using IP's and history of editing same articles has on many occasions engaged in edit wars and violated 3rr on a number of occasions. Requesting page protection as well UnclePaco (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The others you gave are all from Baton Rouge, LA. 68.199.235.190 is from New York and presumably unrelated. --B (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * one of the reverts is different. I'd suggest WP:RFPP if the article is being disrupted by anon-ip edits. Spartaz Humbug! 06:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)