Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive64

User:Go Down, Moses reported by User:BQZip01 (Result: Indefblocked)
. : Time reported: 01:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:01, 29 November 2007


 * 1st revert: 00:26, 10 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 14:50, 10 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 15:24, 10 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 15:34, 10 January 2008
 * 5th revert: 17:12, 10 January 2008
 * 6th revert: 19:39, 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: 17:05, 10 January 2008

New user continues to do nothing but vandalize said talk page over and over in the same manner; violation of WP:3RR. — BQZip01 — talk 01:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Orange check.svg|20px]] User blocked: For obvious trolling, please report it to WP:AIV. It isn't necessary to bring it here, but please note that the criticism section that he blanked in a few of his edits was absolutely 100% inappropriate to have in the article.  We don't source things to opponents' message boards - that's just plain nonsense.  Message boards are not reliable sources and Wikipedia is not the place to bring the sports rivalry.  I'm a Tech fan, but I have blocked Tech fans for trolling UVA articles.  The rivalry needs to be checked at the door. --B (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Coloane reported by User:Miyokan (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 03:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:33, 10 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 19:17, 10 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 23:31, 10 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 02:33, 11 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 02:44, 11 January 2008

Not a new user, blanks his talk page.

User continues to add the tag in bad faith. After I exposed his lying on another issue, User:Coloane declared - "OK! go ahead! I just don't care! I already illustrated my point. I am not going to revert it. RIght now I will try to make sure your article Russia fail and die from FAC. That is the most important thing." and "whenever you nominate Russia or Russian article, I will surely vote OPPOSE or take them to FAR. This is the heavy price you have to pay". He has made similar disruptive WP:POINTy edits on other pages, see User_talk:Coloane Miyokan (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would also like to direct administrators' attention the user's contributions. He is heavily drawn into FAC discussions. Upon further investigation, it is evident that he started some kind of FA revenge war with Indonesia, when its primary contributor voted negatively on Macau's FAC. This user's mainspace edits are very sparse. And what he does contribute, are mostly reverts. I strongly question this user's intentions on Wikipedia. Regards, Bogdan що? 04:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would add to my concern as to whether the sum total of Coloanes' contributions add or hinder making a better encyclopedia. If he can not learn a more collegiate style a one month block for reflection might be appropriate. A l i c e ✉ 04:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've blocked Coloane for twenty-four hours for edit-warring. I think you might have a case for general disruption, but I feel it would be better to raise this matter at WP:ANI so you can get a broader opinion and so you can explain the issue in greater detail. --  tariq abjotu  04:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, his nomination for Indonesia to FAR (and other countries?) while he's pushing his hometown Macau FAC are disruptive - if he was genuine about improving Indonesia (all of a sudden), he'd make the changes himself or use that article's talk page. --Merbabu (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please place a note on my talk page if a "General disruption case" is raised, as I may wish to contribute pertinent diffs. A l i c e ✉ 04:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:XLR8TION reported by User:UnclePaco (Result: 2 weeks)
. : Time reported: 03:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:46, 4 January 2008

One revert where his reverts are based from is 01:45, 2 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 03:23, 11 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 03:12, 11 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 11 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 20:34, 10 January 2008

No need for warning has been blocked many times in the past for 3rr.

Was let off of block early if he behaved, but immediately enters into an edit war. Has been blocked many times for incivility as well as 3rr violations. UnclePaco (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI to whoever reviews this, checkuser has confirmed that the IPs reverting the article are not UnclePaco, however suspicious as those reverts may be. XLR8TION's prior block was in part based on what was possibly a misunderstanding - see everyone's comments at RFARB if interested.  UnclePaco's version is somewhat of a WP:COATRACK as it is taking a couple of sentences at the end of articles and making it sound like the parade was nothing but violence (in other words, quite a lot of POV to it).  But, on the other hand, reverting POV is not an exception to 3RR. --B (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User was noted on wikipedia ediquette here and noted that his attack on me stating English isn't my first language but his and thus i should allow him to edit. . Violated 3rr here but was warned, later he was placed on put on a week block for continuous posting of a white power website []. The RFARB was started by an individual right after Xlr8tion was blocked (quite unusual) demanding the unblock of Xlr8tion, after I replied with much evidence. That person never replied again. UnclePaco (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * beaten to the punch by Nishkid - blocked for 2 weeks for edit warring. Spartaz Humbug! 06:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, UnclePaco is a reincarnation of the banned user . --B (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:86.153.35.1 reported by User:Lawrence Cohen (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 16:25, 11 January 2008
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:12, 11 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 16:13, 11 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:14, 11 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:15, 11 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 16:21, 11 January 2008

New IP, warning left.


 * Hopefully, the warning will stick. I see that the warning didn't do the trick.  The text the IP was trying to add shouldn't be there, since the userpage is someone else's; I see no evidence that it's deliberate vandalism per se.  It is, however, rather POINTy.  Any relation between this user and past advocates of similar points of view? --SSBohio 17:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:SqueakBox reported by User:Lawrence Cohen (Result: no violation)
. : Time reported: 16:20, 11 January 2008
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:13, 11 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 16:13, 11 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:14, 11 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:15, 11 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 16:16, 11 January 2008

No need for warning has been blocked many times in the past for 3rr.

Reverting vandalism is not 3rr and this report is not acceptable. Itw as clear vandal;sim of Jimbo's page and I reverted it as such. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * SqueakBox is right; no violation. Keep up the good work!  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The text the IP was trying to add shouldn't be there, but I see no evidence that it's vandalism per se. Still, on Wales' userpage, he can describe himself as founder, co-founder, or ham sandwich, as he (not the IP) chooses, so reverting is (IMO) justified. --SSBohio 17:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to assume good faith in that Cohen muddled User:Jimbo Wales with Jimmy Wales. Reverting nasty vandalism (which this clearly was) on peoples user pages is a number one priority on this project. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:1993.J and 86.132.9.116 reported by User:Rocksanddirt (Result: Warned; next revert will result in block)
. and : Time reported: 21:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:46, 11 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 20:51, 11 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 20:54, 11 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 20:58, 11 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 21:03, 11 January 2008


 * 5th revert: 21:06, 11 January 2008
 * 6th revert: 21:09, 11 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: 21:09, 11 January 2008

Editor created an article that may be speedy deletable, but assuming there was more to it I tagged it for references, and advertising. In addition, I removed some of the clearly unencylcopedic content (phone numbers, address, dress code, etc.) and formated it a wee bit more wiki'ish. Since, then it has been a nearly constant reversion from the named user and ip above. Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reverts since the warning was placed. Now that the user has been warned, if he continues to edit-war please let me know or bring it back here. MastCell Talk 22:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * User appeared to take the warning seriously. The article is now not in a position that I would edit war over all the tags.  I might re-add the ref's tag later.  Or I might go watch a movie.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:144.232.153.118/User:GRANDEXTRAV reported by User:Yilloslime (Result: 24 hours)
. /: Time reported: 22:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:14, 10 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 17:01, 11 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 19:35, 11 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 19:49, 11 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 20:02, 11 January 2008
 * 5th revert: 21:07, 11 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: 20:09, 11 January 2008

User repeated inserting unsourced material into LEAD in violation of WP:BLP: "He is also known as a symbol of Bigotry." He has been reverted by several different editors, and attempts were made on the article's talk page and the user's talk page to reason with. Note: User:144.232.153.118 is User:GRANDEXTRAV as evidenced by User:144.232.153.118 signing his posts with "Alvin A Harris" and User:GRANDEXTRAV stating on his user page, "Hi my name is Alvin A. Harris."Yilloslime (t) 22:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours (named account only). The autoblock should catch the IP; if the IP is being used to continue edit-warring, then let me know and I'll block it. MastCell Talk 22:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jkaradell reported by User:PhGustaf (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 22:21, 11 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:

There are several further deletions, all of the same material. Both topics have been discussed and (more or less) resolved on the talk page. The poster refuses to enter edit summaries, discuss changes on the talk page, or acknowledge entries on his talk page. PhGustaf (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Request is a bit malformed, but everything's there and it's a clear violation after warning. Blocked for 24 hours. MastCell Talk 22:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Tqbf reported by User:Duchamps_comb (Result: No block)
. : Time reported: 21:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revertRevision as of 17:56, 10 January


 * 2nd revertRevision as of 21:20, 11 January


 * 3rd revert Revision as of 19:48, 11 January


 * 4th revertRevision as of 16:50, 11 January


 * 5th revertRevision as of 18:27, 12 January 2008

--Duchamps_comb MFA 02:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No block &mdash; improper report. Please include "previous revision reverted to", so we can see what the desired version is. As it is, all we can see are random changes. Crum375 (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, please look again: here are four reverts just from the history.

18:27, 12 January 2008(Undid revision 183871662 by Duchamps comb criticism sourced to the daily show is less notable than hotties 4 ron paul?) (undo)

21:20, 11 January 2008 Tqbf (Talk | contribs) (128,716 bytes) (Undid revision 183709143 by Buspar (talk)PLEASE DON'T EDIT DIRECT QUOTES FROM MAGAZINES.) (undo)

17:22, 11 January 2008 Tqbf (Talk | contribs) (126,505 bytes) (Undid revision 183659906 by Terjen that's your opinion; IMO, what's newsworthy is the overt critique under Houston Chron masthead) (undo)

17:56, 10 January 2008 Tqbf (Talk | contribs) m (123,683 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Duchamps comb; It already says he's an advisor to Rudy. It's still notable. . (TW)) (undo)

--Comment left on my talk page: If you really want to report me for a 3RR violation --- and I think that's petty and unproductive, and won't go where you want it to either with admins or with the article you're editing --- then you're going to want to actually warn me on my talk page first. As it stands, you've gone behind my back and tried to ambush me with a 3RR warning on a page where something like 5 other editors are also over their "revert limit" for the day. But 3RR doesn't work that way. You have to actually be in an edit war, and you yourself have to actually demonstrate that you are trying and failing to resolve it. Next time, count edits, and then send the 3RR template warning, and then file your case, noting that you've posted your warning and that I have (as I likely will) ignored you. You will get further. Though, I suspect, not much. --- tqbf 03:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

--Duchamps_comb MFA 15:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No block - improper report. Crum375 (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jagged 85 reported by User:Arrow740 (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 05:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 23:17, 11 January 2008 Reverts back to this (22:57, 11 January 2008) version of the intro after I had moved some of it to a better place.
 * 2nd revert: 23:33, 11 January 2008 Reverted back to this (23:23, 11 January 2008) version of the lead after I had moved other excessive details from the lead.
 * 3rd revert: 02:18, 12 January 2008 Reverted my previous two edits back to this version (23:33, 11 January 2008).
 * 4th revert: 04:45, 12 January 2008 Again restored the excessive details in the third paragraph. He also restored the source Ghamidi I had objected to in previous edit summaries.
 * 5th revert: 04:53, 12 January 2008 Restored content that had been removed by User:Aminz with this edit; a straight revert. I had also objected to this material in December.

He's trying to turn the lead into a list of all dissenting scholars on the issue of execution, and that doesn't reflect the article as a whole, so there are WP:LEAD problems as well as the edit-warring. Note that Aminz and I rarely see eye-to-eye but we agree on at least one issue here. There is only one person edit-warring, and that against consensus. He was previously warned and not blocked for 5RR (5 in 24 hours, 6 in 27):. Arrow740 (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that this report is simply made to have another user blocked rather than to prevent an edit war. The intro matter seems to have been already settled. --User:Aminz (talk) 06:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The user has not been using the talk page or justifying his sources as requested. He's already been edit-warring. How does it "seem" to have been already settled? Arrow740 (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked for twenty-four hours, per the evidence above. --  tariq abjotu  06:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Lipton1995 reported by User:Tomj (Result: 24 hrs)
. : Time reported: 18:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:05, 11 January 200


 * 1st revert: 23:12, 11 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 14:57, 12 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 15:31, 12 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 16:03, 12 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: 15:53, 12 January 2008

The status of English as an official language in the province of Quebec, as well as the definition of "official" is this context is controversial beyond the limits of Wikipedia. It has been established on the talk page that, based on reliable sources ,"quasi-official" was an acceptable word to qualify the status of English. Still, User:Lipton1995 is engaged in the reversion of this wording. Tomj (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 24 hours. Crum375 (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Hereward77 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 31 hours)
. : Time reported: 19:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:57, January 11, 2008


 * 1st revert: 00:22, January 12, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 00:35, January 12, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 17:29, January 12, 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:12, January 12, 2008


 * Diffs of 3RR warning:
 * 19:13, January 12, 2008 this article
 * 19:50, August 1, 2007 another revert

The latter 2 reverts were only reverts in regard the same section. I reverted 3 times, self-reverted a 4th revert before anyone could comment, and made a separate change to the section, adding "according to Jones". I suppose, rather than reinserting the, I could insert, instead, , but that would be gaming 3RR. Also, he was previously blocked for 3RR 04:26, November 26, 2007. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So the fact that you personally disagree with his political beliefs means that he is a "liar", does it? Your actions are entirely biased here. Hereward77 (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Both users blocked for thirty-one hours. &mdash; madman bum and angel 20:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jéské Couriano reported by User:V-Dash (Result: No block)
. : Time reported: 20:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

A short explanation of the incident. He has reverted 3 edits on his page within the span of an hour. V-Dash (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You need evidence. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 20:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You ain't gonna get out of this one Couriano.V-Dash (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reading over it, I see two mitigating circumstances here. Any admin will reject this out-of-hand as incomplete and inactionable because it's my own TP - just as you are immune from 3RR on your TP, so am I on mine. -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 20:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ONJECTION! When I kept deleting Wandering's comments off my talk page, you warned me for 3RR. Contradiction..V-Dash (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * brought you up here for a 3RR violation on your own TP last month. It was summarily rejected. -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 21:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No block. Immunity isn't (but great latitude is) given in userspace. Users are allowed to remove bad faith comments from their talk pages, and anyone who's even had ANI on watchlist knows that you've being antagonising Jeske for weeks. Will (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Concur with Sceptre. User has commented several times without actually providing diffs, leading me to believe that he has none. Finally, Jéské was either removing personal attacks (which he has every right to do) or removing messages that he has read (which he has every right to do as well.) Ergo, no violation. Keilana talk 21:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Cocoliras reported by User:Seicer (Result:1 week )
. : Time reported: 22:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:19, 12 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 16:16, 11 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 22:54, 11 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 01:21, 12 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 13:18, 12 January 2008
 * 5th revert: 18:15, 12 January 2008
 * 6th revert: 20:02, 12 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 01:26, 12 January 2008

User continues to insert unreferenced or text that contridicts an official UN source at North America. Information user adds is relevant to Central America regarding a top-10 city list, however, the UN article clearly states that no Central America city makes the list. The strong bias towards the region was noted here, where the user stated that "Central America currently has more influence and popularity than North America." Sorry, original research in articles isn't favored. The insertion of the text also goes against consensus and discussion.

The user was previously reported only a few days ago here.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 22:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Orange check.svg|20px]] User blocked although in the diffs above the user has "only" reverted three times, they subsequently added a fourth revert in 24 hours. Given that the user continued to revert after being warned, was blocked for 24 hours earlier this week for the same revert and has continually to place that edit into the article in the days between, I have blocked this user for 1 week. Gwernol 23:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops. Thanks for catching that.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 23:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Nubula reported by User:Anaxial (Result:72 hours)
. : Time reported: 11:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:46, 13 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 15:00, 12 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:37, 12 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:52, 12 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 10:54, 13 January 2008
 * 5th revert: 11:33, 13 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 14:42, 10 January 2008

Repeated reversion to include external link to copyvio site in violation of WP:EXT - discussed ad nauseum on Talk:Primeval (TV series). Anaxial (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit: This user was blocked for the same 3RR violation just three days ago. (There has now been a 5th revert, details above).Anaxial (talk) 11:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Clearly excessive reverting, and Nubula's comment "BECAUSE, MAKE NO MISTAKE, I'LL KEEP REVERTING IT UNTIL YOU DEBATE THE MATTER TO SOME FORM OF CONCLUSION" (capitalisation as original) is a concern. I've given him 72 hours to think again. Further editwarring will need increasing blocks. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Baseball_Bugs reported by User:Arcayne (Result: Page protected )
. : Time reported: 16:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 01:01, January 11, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 01:52, January 11, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 09:36, January 11, 2008
 * 4th revert: 19:04, January 12, 2008


 * Baseball Bugs is an experienced user who is well aware of 3RR, as he has been blocked twice before (the last block was December 7) before for making personal attacks and disruptive editing behavior. The last block was five days in length.

The user Baseball Bugs has been arguing in favor of the inclusion of a section composed of almost entirely unreferenced (and likely OR or synthesized) information. User JimDunning spent two days calmly and clearly explaining the problems with the inclusion of uncited information. Baseball Bugs was abusive and made personal attacks towards both JimDunning and myself when I came to the page (at JimDunning's request, so as to evaluate whether his explanations of policy were clear). He's accused us of OWNing the page and of 'forcing him off the page'; this despite the fact that yesterday was my first day on the page, and Jim has been there less than a month. Bugs had been there since August of last year. Clearly, some of the personal attacks are more appropriate for inclusion in AN/I, but arguing regarding bad behavior is sometimes like grabbing at smoke. The 3RR violation, on the other hand, is quite clear indicated, and the block log for the user indicates that he/she is not learning from the previous blocks for bad behavior and disruptive editing practices. -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  16:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I was not paying close attention to the clock, obviously, as I have seldom fallen into the 3RR trap. The frustrating thing in this case is that they kept reverting for different reasons. For every argument I answered, they came up with yet another reason. Ultimately, they got their way with the page on a false premise: They claimed the information is not sourced, when it plainly IS verifiable in most cases. They finally owned up to "not liking it", under the official explanation of "fancruft". Every time I've been blocked it's been over frustration at dealing with this kind of behavior. Go ahead and suspend me. I've had enough of this frustration for awhile. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Point of fact (not making a final determination since I wouldn't be considered unbiased): the four reverts your referencing fall well outside the 24-hour span stipulated by WP:3RR. I added the times above to clarify.  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect, i think you mixed up a date there. the last one was within the 24-hour limit on the 12th, not the 13th. I am aware you are operating from a different time zone than I, but the diffs are all within a 24 hour period. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, am I doing time math wrong here? (I almost never pay attention to this page)  What is 19:04, January 12, 2008 minus 09:36, January 11, 2008?  I get more than 33 hours.  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Since its over 16 hours since the revert war ended on the wrong version, I think it is better to protect the page for a week to allow tempers to cool and for discussion to take place. Baseball Bugs, I suggest that you concentrate in discussing the edits and not the editor and try and resolve your concerns by discussing as opposed to revert warring. You have lots of different places to go to get extra opinions and advice. Spartaz Humbug! 17:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) As well, as a few points of clarification, Baseball bugs is somewhat mistaken; no one has "owned up to" or reverted his edits because they "didn't like" his edits. In point of fact, the numerous points of what policies and guidelines were being violated were spelled out in this edit. That the user considers 3RR a "trap" is telling indeed; for him, it appears to be the proverbial electric fence.
 * However, Spartaz' advice is good. A warning works just as well. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Protecting the page is fine. I took it off my watch list after their final reversion. I had intended to look for information and reviews I had saved at the time the film came out, to bolster some of the "citation needed" items. Maybe I will still do that, eventually. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Wknight94 is technically correct that I did not violate 3RR, although this situation was accelerating into an edit war until I abandoned the page yesterday. Here is what I'm showing for my edits the last couple of days, using the actual UTC's instead of converting. The highlighted items are the ones cited by the complaining user:
 * 00:04, 13 January 2008 - Straight revert.
 * 18:17, 12 January 2008 - Change of headings in the section in question and some rearrangement to fit the headings.
 * 14:36, 11 January 2008 - Straight revert.
 * 06:52, 11 January 2008 - Straight revert.
 * 06:19, 11 January 2008 - Normal edits.
 * 06:17, 11 January 2008 - Normal edits.
 * 06:01, 11 January 2008 - Straight revert plus some normal edits.

Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The case is closed. You are allowed to stop arguing now. Spartaz Humbug! 17:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rogereeny. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Brandeks reported by User:Bignole (Result: No block)
. : Time reported: 19:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 13:35, January 13, 2008
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 13:38, January 13, 2008
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 13:40, January 13, 2008
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 13:59, January 13, 2008
 * 5th revert: Revision as of 14:08, January 13, 2008


 * I warned him after his 5th revert (believing that it was his 4th). Upon inspection, when I was going to correct myself and state that he had reverted 5 times (but still wasn't going to report him on the grounds that he might not know about the three revert rule), I found this edit. I think maybe, at least a stern warning from an Administrator for his actions and uncivil remarks is probably what is best.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * &mdash; warned @ 1913. If he keeps at it, simply update this stating so.  I'll momentarily leave a civility warning.  -- slakr  \ talk / 19:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the warning, an Anon has come to the page and reverted the page to versions that Brandeks was trying to revert the page to. I don't know if it's the same person or not but I figured I'd leave it here in case an Administrator had some time to check the IP to see if it really was. It's suspicious that an Anon would come at that moment to revert back to Brandeks. Here are the three four reverts.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Revision as of 18:53, January 13, 2008
 * Revision as of 19:05, January 13, 2008
 * Current revision (19:43, January 13, 2008)
 * Current revision (19:59, January 13, 2008)
 * Asked for a CheckUser here. The check came back as inconclusive, but possible, since distance between the user and IP was about 50km. The IP's edits came just a few hours after Brandek's last edit, so it's still possible that it was Brandek editing under the IP. However, I'll leave this alone, and see how this progresses from here. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Manacpowers reported by User:RogueNinja (Result: Both blocked 24h)
. : Time reported: 20:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 19:48, 13 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 20:12, 13 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 20:18, 13 January 2008
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 20:22, 13 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

A short explanation of the incident. He keeps adding in ungrammatical comments, that while not quite nonsense, are still not quite english. I admit I also have violated 3RR in defending the page from him, except my edits were really just grammar correction. I warned him about 3RR in relation to a different page. Another editor also warned him about 3RR earlier. RogueNinja <sub style="color:forestgreen;">talk  20:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're both well over four reverts but you're even reverting other changes made by Manacpowers. The offending word appears to be "the" so why didn't you just remove it?  —Wknight94 (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already spent enough time running around fixing User:Manacpowers English, and to be quite frank, it gets bored quickly. RogueNinja <sub style="color:forestgreen;">talk  21:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:RogueNinja also violated 3rr rule. also his diff 3rr warning is not made by him. and it is not diff 3rr warning. just 'concern'.
 * karate
 * Song Duk-ki‎

his action is not english fixing. he is a POV pusher. This is reason that i think [User:RogueNinja|RogueNinja]] is a POV pusher. for example, Song Duk-ki‎ 1. His arts became the basis of the original form of Taekwondo. -> he changed this sentence like this, Later, his style helped inspire Taekwondo. 2. thus clearly distinguishing Taekwondo from the Japanese karate. -> He deleted this sentence. 3. He major delete imortant article. At that time 14 terms of techniques were used, representing 5 kicking patterns, 4 hand techniques, 3 pushing-down-the-heel patterns, one turning-over kick pattern and 1 technique of downing-the-whole-body. Also noteworthy is the use the term "poom" which signified a face-to-face stance preparing for a fight. The masters of Taekkyondo were also under constant threat of imprisonment, which resulted in an eventual of Taekkyondo as popular games.'' This is important article. It is cleary Karate JPOV pushing edit.(he try to hide TKD influenced by tekkyon) not english matter.(it is an ostensible reason) Plase, check my edit from reference source. my edit based on fact. his changing is not based on fact. also he did not offer counterpart source or FACT.Manacpowers (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

+ diff 3rr warning to RogueNinja by other user. Manacpowers (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not hearing any convincing explanations so I am blocking both parties for 24 hours. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Metal man666deth reported by User:Funeral (Result: 31 hours)
. : Time reported: 00:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The user is constantly adding uncited, unverifiable rumours about the band. Funeral 00:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked 31 hours for adding unsourced rumors concerning living people / 3RR. --B (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Taiketsu reported by User:MelicansMatkin (Result: 31 hours )
. : Time reported: 01:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:11


 * 1st revert: 19:49
 * 2nd revert: 22:56
 * 3rd revert: 23:03
 * 4th revert: 00:38


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 00:04

Seems to be a pretty standard edit war with the user, Taiketsu, ignoring WP:CON on the talk page. Four reverts, not including the first, in six hours, including one after a 3RR warning posted on their talk page. This user appears to have a history of edit warring, and was once blocked for a previous 3RR violation. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * User blocked for 31 hours. <font color="C154C1">Keilana <font color="9955BB">talk 01:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Historian born 1975 reported by User:Dupree3 (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 05:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 05:03, 14 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 05:07, 14 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 05:13, 14 January 2008
 * 4th revert: Current revision (05:20, 14 January 2008)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Revision as of 19:08, 29 December 2007

This user is not only edit warring and violating the 3RR rule on this article and many others... he is also providing false citations. He has been caught using false citations already and again I've checked his source and it does not mention that Afghans ever conquered Tajikistan. He has been warned about the 3RR rule more than once already. Dupree3 (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Bosnianjustice reported by User:JdeJ (Result: blocked 31 hours, page protected)
. : Time reported: 08:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 12.55 12 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 11.04 13 January
 * 2nd revert: 20.28 13 January
 * 3rd revert: 20.48 13 January
 * 4th revert: 04.19 14 January

The user is on Wikipedia with an agenda, most obvious in this edit Has a long history of edit warring on the page even before yesterday, as can be seen from the page history. Also attacking other users. His accusations of vandalism directed at others appear to be unsubstantial. JdeJ (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the user and protected the page. Talk it out - figure out if there are any legitimate objections to the map. --B (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Djma12 reported by User:Guido den Broeder (Result: No Block)
. : Time reported: 14:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:07, 14 January 2008

Previous revert: 04:18, 8 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 20:09, 13 January 2008
 * 2rd revert: 13:15, 14 January 2008
 * 3th revert: 14:07, 14 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 13:59, 14 January 2008

User:Djma12 is repeatedly re-adding a text that was removed before because it is not supported by the sources. He claims that he has consensus for this text, but this is not the case. The text differs significantly from the quote that he put forward for RFC, and no consensus was reached on the original quote either. Note that the source is already mentioned elsewhere in the text with a different (correct) interpretation. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttal - The RFC discussion can be viewed here. The edit history speaks for itself. Djma12 (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Only three reverts here, no 3RR breach. Users will be warned about 3RR and votestacking. - Revolving Bugbear  18:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Harumphy reported by User:Roguegeek (Result:24 hours )
. : Time reported: 22:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:31, January 14, 2008


 * 1st revert: 12:42, January 14, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 13:27, January 14, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 14:28, January 14, 2008
 * 4th revert: 14:49, January 14, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 16:15, January 8, 2008

Apparently, he doesn't agree with the concensus found on the discussion page. The user may also be a sockpuppet of User:Locke Cole, a user recently blocked as per Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole. Roguegeek (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * User blocked for 24 hours due to clear edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It may have been appropriate to warn others too- others were inappropriately reverting, including Roguegeek. It's not very cool to report someone for edit warring when you're also doing it.  Friday (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:faithlessthewonderboy reported by 82.0.206.215 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (Result:no block)
. : Time reported: 22:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:24 14 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 21:46, 14 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 20:14, 14 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 20:11, 14 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 19:55, 13 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:16, 14 January 2008

Constant discussions on appropriateness of word "tender" in this article, which "faithless" has backed out of, as per. Followed by un-backed up claims of meatpuppetry, and canvassing (whilst clearly being canvassed on his own page). Refusal to participate in discussion re tender and constant reverting (2 more times yesterday, plus reverts by his friends and bots). Please block this person. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not violated 3RR, as I have been removing blatant vandalism. A simple look at the page history will confirm this. Please also note that several other editors (including ClueBot) have been fighting vandalism on this page. This is a ridiculous charge by an admitted meatpuppeteer who has been vandalizing this article for literally months now and has been blocked for it already. User has repeatedly accused me of running ClueBot which, while quite a compliment, is obviously inaccurate. faithless   (speak)  22:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really think this can be considered blatant vandalism, but I am still unwilling to block for removing such a blatantly unencyclopedic language as this, especially when the IPs supporting this change have effectively stated an unwillingness to listen at all to the other side, essentially saying that because they disagree, there is no consensus. At best, both parties are equally guilty here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A little research with my main man whois suggests we have a lot of dynamic IPs here (which we pretty much could have guessed from the content, anyway). As this is clearly disruptive, I've semiprotected the article. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, the simple addition of the offending word would not be vandalism. However, there have been several edits which couldn't be described any other way. On top of that, this IP has already been blocked because of this. It's not the addition of the word that's vandalism, but rather the editor's actions long after a consensus has been reached that he didn't like. Cheers, faithless   (speak)  23:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Even so, it's not really vandalism; rather, it falls under the heading of disruption. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There can never be consensus whilst there is disagreement. Those who seek consensus (such as said IPs) discuss the change. Those who don't (such as faithless)refuse to discuss. At best both parties are equally guilty. At worst, Faithless is falsely accusing me of meetpuppetry. Semi-protection, and I quote, "should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. In particular, it should not be used to settle content disputes."  Please revise this decision. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC) BTW, I don't know what a Dynamic IP is, but I have a feeling I am being accused of something else. What does this mean? 82.0.206.215 (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You can continue making your case, but please stop misrepresenting me. Consensus does not mean unanimous agreement; if it did, there would never be consensus on anything. It means general agreement. Every editor who has weighed in on the topic has disagreed with you. Consensus has been reached, which is why I don't want to continue rehashing this same tired argument. I have suggested several times that you seek dispute resolution. You have refused to do this. Instead, you admittedly enlisted your friends to engage in edit warring and you've made absolutely baseless reports at the admin noticeboard. This (hopefully) will be my last word on the matter: if you disagree with the community's decision, please seek dispute resolution. That is the proper avenue here. If you're not willing to do that, please let this go. faithless   (speak)  23:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus seeks the agreement of all by resolving the objections of the minority. In what way have you done this? In what way have you resolved my objections? By reporting me, having me banned and ignoring what I said? And what of the countless other people who made the same edit as I? You clearly have NO understanding of the word consensus, and should give up your adminship now. Or at least look into what the word means. Once again, I ask you were I have said that I enlisted my friends. That is an assumption you make. Falsely. 82.0.206.215 (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ferrylodge reported by User:Turtlescrubber (Result:72 hours)
. : Time reported: 03:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

   
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This user is not new to the world of edit warring. Ferrylodge is known for his contentious editing and has been blocked four times previously. I can not see the blocks myself as I am not an administrator. User was banned by the community for disruptive and tendentious editing but is now on probation. User is currently banned from all abortion related topics. On this current article, user has filled up three pages of archive material and was one of the ones responsible for the month long protection of the Mitt Romney page. Article was unprotected because of a consensus reached and agree to by all editors. User has been trying to undue the consensus for many weeks now. He broke the 3rr rule today while trying to undue the original consensus. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions.Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Turtlescrubber and I both received warnings at our respective talk pages regarding 3RR from Gwernol (Turtlescrubber deleted his warning). Neither of us has reverted since the warnings.  Moreover, another admin looked at my reversions, and advised that they did not violate 3RR.  Even if it could be argued somehow that I otherwise would have been in violation of 3RR, the edits and the edit summaries show that Turtlescrubber was engaged in vandalism (reversion of which cannot violate 3RR), given that Turtlescrubber was making wildly inaccurate edits to sections of the article that he did not even have any objection against (e.g. the "Personal life" section).  This is a frivolous complaint.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That admin you bring up is your good friend and also takes the same side as you on the article talk page (also a brand new admin). I was not engaged in vandalism and I would ask you to stop making personal attacks. Frivolous complaint? You edit warred and then broke 3rr. I was polite and civil in my edit summaries and warned you multiple times before you violated the 3rr. The article is going to be protected once again because of your edit warring. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't recall ever having any contact with the admin named Gwernol before today. And I don't recall ever having any contact with the admin John Carter before January 11.  I don't think these insinuations of yours are helpful, Turtlescrubber.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Gwernol warned you about 3rr, what does that have to do with anything? You and John Carter are friends as evidenced by your talk page, the mitt romney talk page discussion and your voting for his adminship like two days ago. Please, let's be honest here. John also supports your position rather fervently. Hardly a neutral admin in all this. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no need to drag out this discussion. You've made your complaint.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If I didn't have to correct half-truths then I wouldn't comment at all. I am done arguing with you for the night. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I count three reverts apiece, but whatever ... guys, you both know the rules and you both know what you're doing. Talk it out on the talk page and quit reverting each other repeatedly. Someone would probably complain if I were to make the block myself, but come on guys ... this is ridiculous - you both know better. (24hr/ea would be my block in case anyone cares.) --B (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, he has 4 reverts. He started to edit war. He was warned and he violated the 3rr. Seems pretty clear cut to me. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if he does (and I count one initial edit + 3 reverts, but I could be looking at it wrong), 3RR is not license to revert exactly 3 times. You both were revert warring and three reverts inside of 30 minutes is inherently disruptive. --B (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Turtlescrubber, you were engaged in vandalism. Or do you have some explanation of why you edited the "Personal life" section?  Just to get on my nerves?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with you? You win. I quit the project. Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Taking into account Ferrylodge's behaviour and his history, along with the ongoing ANI discussion, I've blocked for 72 hours. Of course, this is subject to review by other admins. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:24.60.254.74 reported by User:loodog (Result: 31 hours)
. : Time reported: 03:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:42, 13 January 2008

03:35, 15 January 2008
 * 1st revert: 01:30, 14 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 04:38, 14 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 22:43, 14 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 02:42, 15 January 2008
 * 5th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 03:05, 15 January 2008

User wishes to change "on the Charles River" to "near the Charles River". Despite two requests in edit summaries to bring to talk page, and warning of 3RR, user has engaged in edit war and broken 3RR.Loodog (talk) 03:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked 31 hours. --B (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Tankred reported by User:Squash Racket (Result: No block)
. : Time reported: 20:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:31, 11 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 18:24, 12 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:29, 12 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 18:35, 12 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:50, 12 January 2008


 * No need for 3RR warning, old user already blocked for 3RR and made reports himself.

User:Tankred broke 3RR on the article Magyarization deleting relevant material (describing Andrej Hlinka as a controversial figure) and inserting POV information while deleting my contribution to change the meaning of my words. Also has been disruptive at the article Battle of Rozhanovce. I do not want to break the rule, so please look into this. Squash Racket (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess user Squash Racket is misleading you because of our content dispute in the article he mentioned. Only two first edits were reverts. The third edit was simple copyediting and addition of a citation. The fourth edit was expansion of a sentence based on a source cited in the article. These edits are not the same and only two of them were reverts. As to the article Battle of Rozhanovce, I am the original author and I do not understand how writing an article can be considered disruptive. Squash Racket is more than welcome to contribute to it in a constructive way. Tankred (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Reverting another editor's edit more than three times is breaking this rule. Squash Racket (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Only two edits were reverts. Tankred (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Earlier I tried to resolve the dispute at the talk page (see section "Černová event as a proof of the 'violent' Magyarization"), but received no answer from him. Squash Racket (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You have never replied to a comment by another user at that page. Anyway, the 3RR noticeboard is not a dispute resolution procedure. Tankred (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * At the time of my talk page attempt I had a dispute with Tankred (see dates and diffs), not an anonymous IP. Squash Racket (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The violation is stale, as it happened a few days ago. I'm leaving this one alone. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:BKLisenbee reported by User:Opiumjones 23 (Result: )
. : Time reported: 03:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

. : Time reported: 03:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:

This User claims to be awaiting admin advice but has violated 3RR on two pages See  and  Also note the users rationale in his edit summery on his last edit. He talks about his edit being him getting even. BKLisenbee (Talk | contribs) (3,458 bytes) "Get real. You have done nothing but smear Bachir Attar (see your own 'letter of protest'; this is just evening the score with another letter to you. And that is not POV; it's a fact, like it or not."

This user refused mediation call by User:FayssalF on his talk page. For mediation page see User:FayssalF/JK. A severe block is needed. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Could someone explain what the alleged BLP issue is here that you guys refer to in your edit summaries? (Removing BLP violations is exempt from 3RR.) --B (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * User places external link alleging illegal act by page's subject on Frank Rynne. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Procedural note: It's a lot easier to assess a 3RR notice if the evidence presented is in the form of diffs (with timestamps) rather than with histories. Thanks. - Revolving Bugbear  17:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Rufuskhan reported by User:JD554 (Result: 72 hours)
. : Time reported: 14:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:38, 12 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 12:51, 14 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:23, 14 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 23:03, 14 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 10:27, 15 January 2008
 * 5th revert: 12:50, 15 January 2008
 * 6th revert: 13:13, 15 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:44, 15 January 2008 (not a diff as only edit)

These are only the most recent reverts in an edit war between this user and User:Chakanobody over the past few weeks as the complete history of the article shows. At this time Rufuskhan appears to have made a total of 40 edits over the past 2 weeks alone and 2 edits since the 3RR warning. JD554 (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 72 hours for violating WP:3RR and edit warring on Peterborough United F.C.. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Chakanobody reported by User:JD554 (Result: 72 hours)
. : Time reported: 14:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:55, 12 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 11:38, 14 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:49, 14 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 22:22, 14 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 09:15, 15 January 2008
 * 5th revert: 12:42, 15 January 2008
 * 6th revert: 13:05, 15 January 2008
 * 7th revert: 13:52, 15 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:44, 15 January 2008 (not a diff as only edit)

These are only the most recent reverts in an edit war between this user and User:Rufuskhan (see previous report) over the past few weeks as the complete history of the article shows. At this time Chakanobody appears to have made a total of 20 edits over the past week alone and 2 edits since the 3RR warning. JD554 (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 72 hours for violating WP:3RR and edit warring on Peterborough United F.C.. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:1csimfan reported by User:Bigskyblueeyes (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 20:24, 15 January 2008
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:42, 11 January 2008
 * 1st revert: 17:25 14 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 00:34 15 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 17:46 15 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 19:12 15 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:12 15 January 2008

1csimfan has been repeatedly editing the Danny Messer article daily since at least December 27, strictly for the intent of POV pushing. It is also possible that this user has used the username Roximonoxide as a sockpuppet for the same purpose.


 * I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. If the user continues to edit after the block, I will protect the pages. I only chose not to protect the pages in this situation, because the user has been edit warring on multiple articles, and has made a minimal attempt at discussion. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:1csimfan reported by User:Bigskyblueeyes (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 20:24, 15 January 2008
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:12, 15 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 17:26 14 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 23:07 14 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 17:48 15 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 19:10 15 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

1csimfan has been editing the Lindsay Monroe article multiple times daily since at least December 27, strictly for the intent of pushing their POV as fact. It is also possible that this user has used the username Roximonoxide as a sockpuppet for the same purpose.


 * I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. If the user continues to edit after the block, I will protect the pages. I only chose not to protect the pages in this situation, because the user has been edit warring on multiple articles, and has made a minimal attempt at discussion. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:BTNCOURT reported by User:The Ogre (Result: Blocked)
. : Time reported: 01:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:38, 16 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 23:20, 15 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 23:52, 15 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 01:37, 16 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 01:43, 16 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

User BTNCOURT (and maybe some sockpuppets) insists, against all other user, to add a disputed, non-encyclopedic and normative section. The Ogre (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at the history of this article, this meme looks familiar. In any event, the user is blocked. --B (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User:L.Wadsworth reported by User:VirtualSteve (Result:Case sent to RFCU)
. : Time reported: 12:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:37, January 16, 2008


 * 1st revert: 18:36, January 16, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 20:11, January 16, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 20:43, January 16, 2008
 * 4th revert: 20:59, January 16, 2008
 * 5th revert: 21:32, January 16, 2008

Editor L.Wadsworth has a specific interest in the area of Hervey Bay, Queensland. He has persisted in adding detail concerning that location - in the case of this 3RR report to List of cities in Australia by population, but he has also made similar reversions stopping just before breaching the 3RR rule at Australia. It appears that he has now attempted to circumvent the rule by editing under his IP account (whilst not logged on). His page has a number of 3RR warnings. -- VS talk 12:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:23, January 16, 2008
 * Previous Diff of 3RR warning related also to Hervey Bay, Queensland insertions (provided as evidence as to his gaining recent earlier advice of 3RR rule): 20:23, January 16, 2008
 * For clarification purposes only, it should be noted that the information that User:L.Wadsworth insists on adding to List of cities in Australia by population is incorrect. His additions involve replacing properly cited and verified data with his own versions. This is why other editors have reverted his edits. His errors have been explained to him both on the article's talk page and on his talk page yet he insists on reverting the correct figures to his own. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Omegatron reported by User:Fnagaton (Result: Not a violation)
. : Time reported: 16:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:35, 16 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 11:35, 16 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 14:52, 16 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:50, 16 January 2008

Recently, someone pointed out on my talk page Omegatron made a change to MOSNUM. Upon investigation his change does not have consensus. The change was undone and I placed a request on Omegatron's page to not make changes until he had consensus. Since then Omegatron has claimed I've been edit warring when actually it is him who has been edit warring to try to make sure his changes (without consensus) stay on MOSNUM. My justification for reverting him is that he has failed to demonstrate consensus. I have checked that last two months of his edit history and nowhere has he once discussed those changes he made to MOSNUM. The diffs of his changes clearly show changes in the content of the guideline which go above and beyond simple "tidying up", for example he removed completely the phrase starting with "When in doubt, stay with established usage in the article, and follow the lead of the first major contributor...." and he also changes that part starting with "There is no consensus...". Even though he has not reverted more than twice, so far, he is well aware of the 3RR rule and should know better than try to make changes on guideline talk pages without building consensus. In summary, as explained above, he has failed to show any recent discussion he has tried to build consensus for these changes. Fnagaton 16:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what this is, but it's not a 3RR issue --B (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback. When making this report I was thinking of this phrase "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." in WP:Three-revert rule. I'm of the opinion that someone making changes to guidelines without building consensus and then reverting their changes back again are disruptive. Fnagaton 17:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You'd want to report him for disruptive editing then, and that's at WP:AIN. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (See AIN). — Omegatron 23:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Gamaliel reported by User:DJ Creamity (Result:no block)
. : Time reported: 18:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:50, 14 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 00:39, 16 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:01, 16 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 17:41, 16 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 17:53, 16 January 2008, removes Mark Steyn citation previously added by myself for no apparent reason

Gamaliel seems insistent on removing this information, even when properly sourced. He should know better. <font face="Times"> DJ Creamity Oh Yeah! 18:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe the section in question violates WP:BLP in its non-neutral, unsourced, one-sided presentation of the issue. I removed the section as required by BLP policy and thus these reverts are exempt from the 3RR. DJ Creamy restored the section three times, with the only change during the first two reverts the addition of a far-right opinion column as a source with no change to the non-neutral text.  The user finally added, on his third revert, two sources which appear to be netural, reliable newspaper articles, but made no changes to the text.  I took this as a sign he was willing to work on the section instead of merely edit warring, so I did not remove the section a fourth time, but I did add an NPOV tag and remove the inappropriate source, which is the fourth "revert" listed above.  I have self-reverted this last edit to avoid any appearance of impropriety, though I still believe all my edits were exempt from the 3RR as per the BLP policy. Gamaliel (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Self-revert = no block (no comment on whether or not one would be merited otherwise). I'd advise heading for an appropriate noticeboard (perhaps this one) to vet out the BLP issues. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You could have spent a few minutes sourcing the text, as I did, in order to find the citations you requested. There is no good reason given for the removal of the Jerusalem Post source, as it meets all the requirements for WP:BLP, and the opinion that the source was too partisan is not a good enough reason for its removal if it meets the criteria for inclusion. <font face="Times"> DJ Creamity Oh Yeah! 18:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * BLP requires the immediate removal of non-neutral unsourced text and it requires the person who wishes to include it to provide sources. Sourcing the text is not the only issue; if it was I would have gladly participated in finding appropriate sources. Neutrality is the other, more important issue. Gamaliel (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Muntuwandi reported by User:PelleSmith (Result:1 fortnight)
. : Time reported: 23:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: January 12, 2008


 * 1st revert: 10:48, 16 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:06, 16 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 18:06, 16 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 21:02, 16 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: No need for warning since he has been blocked before for 3RR

Muntuwandi is edit warring over a version of this entry that was previously deleted in an AfD and has sparked numerous controversies spanning a number of entry and user talk pages (generally between Muntuwandi and the rest of world). Unhappy with the version another user created in the spirit of the consensus established in several of these venues Muntuwandi has decided to simply insist on his version and has now broken 3RR in doing so. He is an experienced user who is well aware of the rules. PelleSmith (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an old content dispute, I suggest also looking into PelleSmith's behavior because he is largely responsible for much of this unnecessary trouble. Muntuwandi (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Muntuwandi is clearly edit warring. As for PelleSmith, two reverts is hardly enough for me to take action. Muntuwandi has already been blocked a few times for edit warring, therefore, I'm blocking for a fortnight. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I realize that this is all the rage lately, but considering that hardly anyone knows what a fortnight is (I had to look it up), it may be better to use modern English in the block log so that the user isn't guessing when their block will expire. --B (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Odst reported by User:Pairadox (Result: One Month )
. : Time reported: 02:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:57, 12 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 03:13, 16 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 00:40, 17 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 01:34, 17 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 02:01, 17 January 2008
 * 5th revert: 02:05, 17 January 2008
 * 6th revert: 02:17, 17 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 02:17, 17 January 200809:34, 6 March 200723:03, 30 December 2007

User:Odst has engaged in edit warring and 3RR violations on with edit summaries and talk page contributions that indicate an unwillingness to allow any wording other than that which s/he desires. Although not given a 3RR warning this time, the edit summary on the 6th revert above and previous blocks indicate that the user is well aware of the violation. Pairadox (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I initially saw a canvassing attempt on another user's talk page to get them to do the reverts for them and, having seen the user's block log, went for a 72 hour block. Having now seen this report and that the user knowingly went over 3RR (they brag about it in one of their edit summaries) their failure to use DR in an editing dispute, disruptive POV pushing, refusal to honour consensus it is clear that this is an insufficient sanction to reflect the fact that the community cannot tolerate behaviour of this kind. I toyed with just blockinbg them indefinitely but imposed 1RR conditions have successfully rehabilitated other problem editors in this area. I therefore settled on a one month block, the length designed to reflect the repeated offenses and wilful refusal to edit according to accepted norms. The user also left a long screed on their talk about the nazis after my first block but I have not taken this into account in my consideration. Spartaz Humbug! 07:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Guido den Broeder reported by User:Seicer (Result: 48 hours)
. : Time reported: 14:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:35, 16 January 2008


 * These are based upon the last 24:28 hours:
 * 06:20, 15 January 2008
 * 12:49, 15 January 2008
 * 14:56, 15 January 2008
 * 16:24, 15 January 2008
 * 17:27, 15 January 2008
 * 06:41, 16 January 2008
 * 06:48, 16 January 2008
 * 12:57, 16 January 2008 added later by User:Slicer, see below. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 11:25, 16 January 2008

The user has continued to edit war at Chronic fatigue syndrome and other related articles. He is the subject of numerous disputes at his talk page, has filed requests at WQA (2nd), filed frivolous requests against disputed editors at ANI.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 14:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: The user has a previous 31h block on 14 December for 5 reverts within 24 hours at the same article, with disruption to talk pages.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 14:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * At the time, I did not understand how 3RR was counted, and did not receive a warning. It was a simple mistake for which I apologized. Note, by the way, that User:Seicer's warning was immediately followed by this report, and therefore constitutes a fake warning. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Seicer is bandwagoning on a threatening editwar that I have prevented by starting RfC's, which he ignores. I am not the subject of any disputes and do not make frivolous requests. The diffs he mentions above pertain to several different content disputes on a very long article, all of which are presently discussed on the talk page, and do not constitute a 3RR violation (in fact, I am trying to follow 2RR these days). The content issue on Fibromyalgia is unrelated and has already been solved to my satisfaction. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 06:20, 15 January 2008 = fix where statement is erroneously attributed to author (issue 1)
 * 12:49, 15 January 2008 = restoring link to documented outbreaks which user is denying (issue 2 - same section as issue 1, but different change)
 * 14:56, 15 January 2008 = issue 2
 * 16:24, 15 January 2008 = vandalism fix (reinstation of undisputed misquotation of criteria) (issue 3)
 * 17:27, 15 January 2008 = issue 3 (note that user withdrew)
 * 06:41, 16 January 2008 = reinstating sourced CDC quote (issue 4)
 * 06:48, 16 January 2008 = pov-fix to indicate validity issue with source (issue 5)


 * I am requesting that User:Seicer reverts his own edit. It is good practice not to make contested edits while an RfC is running. His edit also includes reverting an undisputed edit. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that the edit marked above as "vandalism fix" is in fact a reversion of a constructive edit by an established editor. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not, I undid a revert of a constructive edit. In his haste to help his friend, user - who did not partake in any discussion - didn't notice that he destroyed an undisputed edit as well. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are misinterpreting WP:3RR.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 15:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. Please note User:Seicer's further disruptive behaviour by votestacking and discrediting on User talk:Orangemarlin . Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Seicer has just added another diff to his list from which it may look like his report follewed a new diff, instead of what really happened, that he filed his report right after a (therefore) fake warning. This manner of editing is disruptive and misleading. Note that the edit in question is a reparation of damage done by User:Seicer who reverted a normal copy-edit as part of a massive revert. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked for forty-eight hours, per the evidence above. --  tariq abjotu  16:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unblocked by User:Mangojuice ('not editwarring'). Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review the block/unblock situation
I'd like to request that another administrator who has not been involved in this dispute or in the Wikiquette alerts involving Guido den Broeder review the situation. There is now a discussion going on in my Talk page (User talk:KieferSkunk) about whether Guido was edit-warring, and a contention on the part of at least one party that Seicer was executing an agenda against Guido in this 3RR notice. Here is the approximate order of events surrounding this entire issue as I've seen it:


 * Guido den Broeder filed a Wikiquette Alert against User:Orangemarlin claiming abusive behavior and false accusations regarding edits in the Fibromyalgia article. Wikiquette alerts
 * User:Cheeser1 told Guido that the WQA appeared to be frivolous and that the diffs did not appear to support his accusations against Orangemarlin.
 * Guido filed a second WQA against Cheeser1 accusing him of making false accusations and "bad edits". Wikiquette alerts
 * I gave guidance to Guido letting him know why I felt the situation had gone the way it did. I also advised Orangemarlin that some comments he'd made about Guido were incorrect and unhelpful.
 * Cheeser1 closed the Orangemarlin WQA as frivolous. I closed the Cheeser1 WQA as frivolous.
 * Upon Cheeser1's request, I took the resulting discussion on the Fibromyalgia content dispute to Guido's talk page.


 * Guido received a 3RR warning from User:Seicer after the WQAs were closed, regarding reverts in Chronic fatigue syndrome. By his count, there were 6 reverts within 24 hours and 7 within 25 hours.
 * This 3RR notice was posted here shortly afterward. (It does stand to reason that more time may need to have been given between the 3RR warning on Guido's talk page and this noticeboard.)
 * User:Tariqabjotu issued a 48-hour block on Guido for violating WP:3RR.
 * Guido requested a block review, stating he was not edit warring and had done nothing wrong.
 * User:Mangojuice said he would consult with the blocking admin.
 * I reviewed the diffs in Seicer's warning and the full edit history of the article in question, then declined the unblock request on the grounds that it was a clear violation of 3RR.
 * Mangojuice unblocked Guido shortly afterward and went to my user talk page saying that if I felt Guido should be blocked for his behavior on the WQA page, I should block for that, but not for edit-warring. He asserted that Guido had not been edit warring, and that he had initiated two RFCs for the article and was discussing the issues there.
 * Mangojuice also stated that Seicer appeared to have an agenda against Guido ("...because Seicer felt the need, based on the WQA interactions, to try to have Guido blocked (after all, he wasn't editing the article in question)..."), which I also disagreed with and Seicer has denied.
 * Tariqabjotu stated that he disagreed with Mangojuice's rationale for unblocking.
 * Discussions ensued on my talk page and on User talk:Tariqabjotu as to whether Guido had been edit-warring.
 * To Mangojuice, I've said that I disagree with his assessment, and that we'll apparently have to agree to disagree on this issue.
 * Seicer suggested that we get a third opinion on this matter. I agreed on the ground that it would be good to have a neutral opinion about each admin's handling of the situation.

In my opinion, we should not allow users to engage in rapid reversions of edits that are not obvious vandalism (as is stated in WP:3RR), and we should furthermore not allow them to get away with it. I believe that unblocking Guido and defending his actions has sent Guido a message that he can basically do what he wants here on WP and get away with it, and I believe Guido's responses to the discussions following the unblock reflect that attitude. I am not asking for a formal review of Mangojuice, per se, but I would like additional guidance for future occurrences of this type of situation - if we're going to have the policies and be expected to enforce them, we need to do so equally. If we need to consider changes to the policies, we should do so through the appropriate channels of discussion rather than overriding each other's actions.

Thanks. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 02:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * For a short add before I head out for the evening, is this note that the user was unblocked on the basis of Tariqabjotu being offline for more than two hours that has me worried. An unblock should be carefully reviewed, not on the basis of a user being away, but upon the various policies. If the user was away for two hours (probably attending to real life duties), then that is immaterial to the case at hand. That's why we have the unblocking process, which was circumvented based upon the reason given above.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, Seicer, I didn't see an issue with that, since Mango's reason for unblocking wasn't that Tariq was away, but rather that he felt the block was unjustified. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 02:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. The unblock still circumvented the process, however.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The above leaves out a lot of essential information and makes several unsubstantiated claims. I get the feeling that User:KieferSkunk is trying to find a backdoor and a hanging party in order to deal out some punishment anyway, after a wiser admin explained to him that that is not what policies and blocks are for, and doesn't much mind discrediting me in he process. And that's all I'm going to say, this is a complete waste of time. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I wasn't clear, Guido: I am seeking the opinion of an uninvolved administrator to review my actions and those of the other admins involved in this case. So long as you stop being disruptive, no further action will be taken against you. I really wish you'd stop insinuating that we're all out to get you - it really doesn't help. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 17:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * IMO, if you are going to undo another admins actions without being able to discuss with them, then you probably should discuss it at AN/I first and seek consensus for the unblock. Spartaz Humbug! 10:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Spartaz, that's certainly prudent but it isn't always necessary. In this case, I looked carefully through the edit history and made a decision based on policy, common sense, and the facts.  If the situation had been a little simpler, I probably wouldn't have even asked Tariq; as it was, I asked if I had missed any information, only because there was a chance Tariq would respond quickly and because the situation was a bit complicated (and because it's courteous).  My understanding is that's the way the unblock process works -- the point is to have an independent admin look at the situation and make their own judgement.  When you do that you have to accept that admins will view the situation differently, and just because you wouldn't do things exactly the same way doesn't mean you should overturn an action, but only to overturn an action for a good reason.  If you take that kind of care, you don't need to go to WP:ANI every time. Mango juice talk 15:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But you were not the admin who declined the unblock, KieferSkunk was. You decided that the reason that KieferSkunk and the original blocking admin's reason from Tariqabjotu wasn't adequate, and circumvented process and unblocked Guado yourself. That's not how the unblock process works; if Guido wanted to dispute KieferSkunk's decline, then he would have added another unblock notice and another independent admin would have come in and decided based upon the policies. Furthermore, you began discussions with Tariqabjotu on unblocking Guido, but decided that after two hours that you would unblock without even a two-way discussion, which circumvents policy. It should have been taken to ANI, if the original blocking admin was not available.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't an unblocking admin - I just declined the unblock. That doesn't automatically mean that the case is closed - I could very well have been wrong to decline the unblock.  But with the original blocking admin and myself both of the opinion that the block was justified, we had a sort of mini-consensus already, and unblocking policy does state that you need to have a good reason for unblocking in situations like that.  I agree that seeking consensus for an unblock (even if it's as simple as "give the guy another chance" or "the block was too hasty due to RFC discussion") would probably have been a better course of action in this situation, as it ensures that more eyes have viewed the situation and agree with the decision, rather than it being a unilateral decision that opens up discussions like this one.


 * For the record, I am not trying to discredit anyone, cause extra drama, or seek extra punitive action. I simply want some feedback from an experienced admin (I am relatively new) as to how we all could handle this situation better in the future.  Spartaz, thank you for your comment. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 17:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I mistyped what I wrote last night -- it was worded completely opposite of what I was meaning. It has since been corrected.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Miyokan reported by User:JdeJ (Result: no violation; warned)
. : Time reported: 13:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 16 January 03.16
 * 2nd revert: 16 January 08.08
 * 3rd revert: 16 January 20.31
 * 4th revert: 17 January 04.29
 * 5th revert: 17 January 05.57


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17 January 04.57 (Immediately deleted and called nonsense)

I’m not sure if this technically qualifies for 3RR, but definitely edit warring. Restoring a POV-box would not normally fall under the rule, but when the general consensus is that the box should go, it’s a bit different. None of the edits are exactly the same, but all consist of restoring the POV-box and constantly removing criticism that is very well-sourced. Primarily about criticism from inside Russia and a controversy surrounding the church. Perhaps more of vandalism than 3RR, as deleting sourced content is usually vandalism, but the strong edit warring by the user,(has been going on for almost a week now) makes me post it here. JdeJ (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * First revert isn't within 24 hours and 5th isn't a revert, so no violation but a strong warning for Miyokan. Stifle (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:samurai commuter reported by User:eschoir (Result: both blocked 24 hours, will give explanation below)
. : Time reported: 15:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 10:04 January 17, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 10:19 January 17, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 11:07 January 17, 2008
 * 4th revert: 06:39 January 18, 2008


 * NOTE: "4th" revert is not the same content selected by Eschoir to make the subject of the article look bad, it's differet content selected by Eschoir to make the subject look bad. Don't let him fool you. It's not a 4th revert of the same content. Samurai Commuter (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The three-revert rule (often referred to as 3RR) is a policy that applies to all Wikipedians, and is intended to prevent edit warring:


 * An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

Eschoir (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 16:26 January 17, 2008

The return of User:BryanFromPalatine, defender of the faith, Eschoir (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Malformed Please provide the diffs for Samurai Commuter's reverts. What you have listed for diffs are edits by you. Metros (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Metros, Please carefully review any evidence posted here by Eschoir. He's been trying to bait me into an edit war for weeks. You are urged to review evidence of his edit warring at WP:RFAR. Samurai Commuter (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Diffs are still screwed up. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  00:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope they're better now. Eschoir (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Eschoir was deleting content that was supported by consensus, deleting the same sourced content three times within one hour. I repeatedly asked him in edit summaries to obtain consensus on the Talk page. The article is on ArbCom probation. Please also review his extensive history of disruptive behavior and his king-size COI problem, as documented in detail at WP:RFAR. Eschoir was asked five days ago by Newyorkbrad, a member of the Arbitration Committee, to explain his "very troubling editing history" but has ignored that request, choosing instead to continue edit warring against consensus of other editors. For all these reasons, on the 2nd and 3rd diffs, I treated it as vandalism and used the letters "RVV" in my edit summary. Reverted vandalism is a 3RR exception. Samurai Commuter (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User: 81.103.115.49 and User:Sonoforion reported by User:Bettia (Result: article sprotected )
. : Time reported: 15:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 14:00, 18 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 02:37, 18 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 00:14, 18 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 00:06, 18 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warnings:
 * 00:59, 18 January 2008 (Sonoforion)
 * 15:00, 18 January 2008 (81.103.115.49)

I believe that these are the actions of the same user, using both his logged in username (2 reverts) and the IP shown above (2 reverts), repeatedly entering highly POV commentary into the Transport section of this article. Warning messages have been left on both talk pages by myself and other users. However, these appear to have been ignored and I believe that this user will probably continue this line of editing. <font style="color:yellow;"> B e t t i a <sup style="color:white;"> t a l k 15:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Article semi-protected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Reginmund reported by User:Metros (Result: Warned)
. : Time reported: 16:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:32 18 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 02:42 18 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 02:52 18 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 06:56 18 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 15:24 18 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Unnecessary as Reginmund has 4 blocks for edit warring in the past.

Reginmund has continuously added comments to the RFC on this article talk page after it was closed. He argues that he started making the comment before the RFC closed (which closed over 10 hours before he posted the first time). His past history with 4 blocks for edit warring (with the most recent block being a month for edit warring) proves that he should be well aware of the standards of editing. Metros (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, those edit warring to remove his comments were just as misguided as those edit warring to put them in. People are allowed to discuss articles on talk pages. Declaring a discussion closed and reverting further input is tricky at best. Friday (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well this is a discussion that dragged on for a month after another discussion on the same topic in July. The issue needs to be put to bed and to allow further discussion like that after the close of the RFC is inappropriate and only furthers the issue at hand.  By allowing one user to comment after the request for comment has been closed, we're going to have to allow others to respond to his comments made after the closure.  There is a clear consensus on the RFC, so the comments made by Reginmund after the closure of the RFC will do nothing to aid the situation. Metros (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand, I just wish people had let him say his piece, and then ignored it. Friday (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but you know Wikipedians. If one user gets to say his piece after a discussion is closed, they're all going to want to say their piece which is only going to drag us on further.  Metros (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Users can comment in an RfC after its closed along as its outside the archived area. I don't think a block is necessary here.  At least the edit warring wasn't in an article.  Tbo 157   (talk)  21:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what he is doing, trying to add inside the archived area after it was closed. And he just did it again.  V-train (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:88.161.129.43 reported by User:Terraxos (Result:no action )
. : Time reported: 06:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User appears to be engaged in an edit war over exactly which characters are available from the start and which are unlockable in Tekken 2. Terraxos (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This happened about 22 hours ago. We're here to stop, not punish. Krakatoa  Katie  06:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That is true, a 3RR block needs to be preventative, but this seems to be a static IP that comes back once in a few days just to revert the same page, thus there're chances that editwarring may go on if no intervention is done. There's already a 3RR warning on the talk page, and no edits have been made since then, so we'll see if the anon still persists on warring, if they do, that would warrant a block. - PeaceNT (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Fjnainoa reported by User:TheBilly (Result:Not a violation )
. : Time reported: 02:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:06, January 16, 2008 (GMT-8)


 * 1st revert: 16:59, January 16, 2008 (GMT-8)
 * 2nd revert: 17:56, January 16, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 18:50, January 16, 2008
 * 4th revert: 19:19, January 16, 2008
 * 5th revert: 19:45, January 16, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 18:50, January 16, 2008

Removed COI template 5 times in 7 hours. She is the one with the conflict of interest (see artcle talk, and my talk). Situation explained to her multiple times by 2 editors (me and User:Elipongo). Actions also probably constitute meatpuppetry in connection with User:Robertptolemy, another person with a suspected COI (with fairly high confidence). Removed template again today. Overall stubborn, uncooperative edit warring with an agenda &mdash; TheBilly(Talk) 02:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a current violation; diffs provided happened more than 48 hours ago, and this board is for prevention, not punishment. I'll leave a message on Fjnainoa's user talk page about removing tags and ownership of articles, but the COI noticeboard is over there. - Krakatoa  Katie  06:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I reported it because she removed the tag again recently, showing that she only intends to continue, and that all the violations over the past few days are one big deliberate edit war. I'm reporting it for "prevention, not punishment"; I would have more recent violations to show but I didn't keep re-adding the template, beacuse I didn't want to be blocked myself for edit warring even though I wouldn't have restored it more than three times. In the future I'll remember to vindictively report people within the technical timeframe, rather than wait to see if I can fix the situation in a civil manner. Thanks! &mdash; TheBilly(Talk) 21:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, I see now you made a lengthy comment on her talk page. That's one thing I was at least hoping for; Hopefully, that will be sufficient to stop her, because when mere lowly users repeatedly warned her she didn't seem to take it seriously. So, any outcome that gets the message across to her..... &mdash; TheBilly(Talk) 21:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:B9_hummingbird_hovering reported by User:GourangaUK (Result: 72 hours)
. : Time reported: 13:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

Dispute over addition of undiscussed & highly controversial content, which the user seems unwilling to stop and discuss first in a sensible manner. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 72 hours (given other recent infractions a longer then usual block was appropriate). Gouranga (UK) I considered blocked you as well. I does take 2 to edit war. You can leave material you don't like in an article for a while while you discuss it at the talk page and reach a consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 13:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair point. I will try my best. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Obscuredata reported by User:Coldmachine (Result: Protected )
. : Time reported: 18:46, 19 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:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This user has been engaged in an edit war on this article regarding the section on company officers. The user has been changing the sourced names, identified within this reference, and has broken the WP:3RR policy in the process of doing so. ColdmachineTalk 18:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems like both sides are revert warring. I have protected the article for 48 hours to allow time to reach a consensus on the talk page. Spartaz Humbug! 22:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:86.158.67.84 reported by User:Domer48 (Result: No vio)
. : Time reported: 19:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This user has been engaged in an edit war on this article regarding the Cat's on the article. This issue has been well discussed on both the talk page and the Cat talk pages. This has been pointed out in edit summarries also. Domer48 (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Revert#4 isn't the same as the previous 3. Spartaz Humbug! 22:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Toxicmango reported by User:Dark Shikari (Result: 1 week)
. : Time reported: 06:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * He isn't reverting to a specific version--unrelated changes were added to the article between the last time he inserted his text into the article, so while he's reverting the exact same text he's posted before half a dozen times, there is no exact revision of the article that he reverted to.

Has never discussed anything on the talk page, constantly talks about "reverting coverups" with absolutely no response to any requests for discussion. Already been blocked once, and has not stopped his edit warring at all regardless of anyone else's actions. Seems to be repeating the actions of the IPs that were trolling the article before the indefinite semi-protect. WP:DUCK applies.


 * 4th revert: 01:19, 20 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 00:43, 20 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 23:24, 19 January 2008
 * 1st revert: 9:34, 19 January 2008

—<font color="#0000bb">Da<font color="#000066">rk<font color="#000022">•S hik ari [T] 06:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked for one week. — Kurykh  06:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Arbiteroftruth and User:HostileToVandals reported by User:Salona (Result: no vio)
.
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Time reported: 07:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 6th revert 06:56, 20 January 2008
 * 5th revert 06:55, 20 January 2008
 * 4th revert 06:53, 20 January 2008
 * 3rd revert 06:50, 20 January 2008
 * 2nd revert 06:48, 20 January 2008
 * 1st revert 06:32, 20 January 2008
 * Time reported: 07:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 4th revert 06:56, 20 January 2008
 * 3rd revert 06:55, 20 January 2008
 * 2nd revert 06:53, 20 January 2008
 * 1st revert 06:49, 20 January 2008
 * HostileToVandals was an abusive sock, therefore Arbiteroftruth was perfectly entitled to revert the edits as vandalism. — Kurykh  07:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

User:67.168.86.129 reported by User:Callmebc (Result: both blocked)
. : Time reported: 20:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 04:52, 20 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:41, 20 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 19:09, 20 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 19:33, 20 January 2008
 * 5th revert: 19:53, 20 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

An anonymous IP, 67.168.86.129, with a short edit history substantially changed the intro to Killian Documents without discussion. I felt the edit changes were not exactly in the best interest of the article so I reverted them and posted my reasons for doing so on the IP's Talk page and requested that such changes should be proposed and discussed first. The IP did respond on the article talk page, but basically ignored the discussion to keep reinserting his/her edits back into the article. I belatedly noticed that I had accidentally done a 4th revert to 67.168.86.129's edits and I apologize for that (I've gotten into trouble over revert wars before), but I did leave alone 67.168.86.129's last edit insert to stop the edit warring. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I just noticed that 67.168.86.129's edit inserts vary a little bit (I've had a busy Wiki day), and that the last one consists of relatively minor edits, but still, you know.... -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with this report that the IP is edit warring, but so is Callmebc. This is especially disturbing given that Callmebc returned rather recently from an indefinite block which seems to have been partly as a result of edit warring. I'm blocking the IP for 24 hours and Callmebc for two weeks since this is far from a first offence. I will also report this to ANI so that those who are more familiar with Callmebc can weigh in and determine if we should reconsider his unblock. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Tankred reported by User:Hobartimus (Result: 31 hours)
. : Time reported: 20:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:24, 19 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 22:50, January 19, 2008 reverts the previous edit.
 * 2nd revert: 14:43, January 20, 2008 Deletes a portion of text, changes meaning by inserting In fact "undoing the actions" of others.
 * 3rd revert: 15:54, January 20, 2008 Reverts to version containing In fact after it got deleted
 * 4th revert: 16:32, January 20, 2008 Again reverts to version containing In fact


 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 3RR blocks show familiarity with the rule (block log )

A short explanation of the incident. Despite previous clashes with the 3RR rule this editor continues his disruptive style of communication and disruptive editing. Previous admin action has not stopped his edit warring at all, only on the Kingodm of Hungary article we can see a number reverts other than the ones reported (one . just a few hours before the ones being reported making for 5 reverts in about 27 hours], and edit warring on other articles is evident as well from contributions (one example is edit warring over multiple Hungarian city articles at the same time, examples, often with only minutes between edits). It was only five days ago that an admin gave Tankred a second chance writing "The violation happened a few days ago" as a reason for not blocking him for 3RR. The fact that he used this opportunity to start a massive edit war only a few days later and continue beyond 3RR means that the situation is highly unlikely to improve without a warning type block. Hobartimus (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked 31 hours. --B (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Doktor Wilhelm reported by User:drag-5 (Result: not blocked)
. : Time reported: 01:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

The user keeps changing the page without any concensus. I have tried to retain hte integrity of teh article and to acquire a third party view on hte incident but the user keeps reverting. I have tried to follow wikipedia policy and take it into hte discussion page but the user has change the page anyway. Drag-5 (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not blocked. You seem to not understand what a disambiguation page is. Adding a link to Guyver (DJ) when that article doesn't exist and you provide no context for creating such an article is unhelpful. Disambiguation pages should almost never contain redlinks and if they do, it should only be temporary (ie, you're in the middle of typing up the new page).--B (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:59.190.130.200 reported by User:RomaC (Result: Stale, not blocked)
. : Time reported: 01:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:54, January 18, 2008


 * 1st revert: 16:35, January 18, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:54, January 18, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 17:14, January 18, 2008
 * 4th revert 17:35, January 18, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:41 January 18, 2008

User is repeatedly inserting the word "illegal" as an unqualified characterisation of the boarding of the whaling ship, despite a consensus against that on the Talk Page. User is not discussing their edits, and is similarly active on the Sea Shepherd page. RomaC (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Stale, please discuss it with the user and re-present if the unconstructive behaviors resume. --B (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Corticopia reported by User:Ed Fitzgerald (Result: Corticopia 2 weeks, Ed Fitzgerald warned)
. : Time reported: 03:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:00, December 24, 2007


 * 1st revert: 10:57, January 20, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:27, January 20, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 19:56, January 20, 2008
 * 4th revert: 21:42, January 20, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:34, January 20, 2008

The article in question had been heavily copy-edited by me on December 30th. The article as it existed was repetitive, badly organized and confusing in details, and I attempted to fix these problems. The article has existed more or less without change, until today, when User:Corticopia, without attempting to fix whatever flaws existed in the re-written article, instead reverted to the previous version without discussion. Invited to talk, he continued to revert wholesale without discussing the merits of the edited version, or dealing with what specific problems he found. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  03:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The copyedits, on the whole, have resulted in an inferior article, with numerous details more unclear than previously (e.g., distinction between continental/contiguous US, original footnotes). This editor's initial deletions of content copyedits were not justified sufficiently through edit summaries, so I restored the content which prevailed for months beforehand.  The numerous flaws were pointed out both through edit summaries and on the talk page -- please consult -- regarding these recent edits.  And, despite pointing these out and citing BRD, this editor has not yielded one iota, saying merely I am "wrong" and reverting just as well.  Of course, I would not be surprised if this editor were to await a potential 3RR block of me and the passage of 24 hr before restoring his substandard content.  So, if I am blocked, so should he for also engaging in edit warring.  Corticopia (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am always willing to discuss any edit I've made -- I have done so extensively in the past, and have tried to justify my changes. Sometimes I prevail, sometimes I don't. But I'm not willing to do so "under the gun" of continued reversion.  All Corticopa had to do was stop reverting when I posting a warning that 3RR was approaching, and discuss specifics, and we probably would have been able to arrive at a compromise -- but I see from a perusal of the user's edit history and his block log, that this is not the way this user has operated in the past, when "my way or the highway" seems to have been the usual modus operandi. I would be happy with a revert to the previous version of the article, and a slap on both of our wrists and being told to play nice, if it will provoke some kind of cooperation from this user. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  04:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, as Corticopia's history shows pretty clearly that slaps on the wrist do not work. I've blocked him for two weeks. As Ed Fitzgerald doesn't have a similar history, I'm going to stick with a warning not to edit war in the future. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please remember to put the result in the header so that other admins patrolling the noticeboard will see you have already handled the issue. Thanks. --B (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:BigGabriel555 reported by User:SamEV (Result: Page protected)
. : Time reported: 02:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:20, 18 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 16:50, 19 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:36, 19 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:45, 19 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:06, 19 January 2008
 * 5th revert: 00:22, 20 January 2008
 * 6th revert: 03:52, 20 January 2008
 * 7th revert: 02:22, 21 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: admin warning 22:18, 19 January 2008, 22:47, 19 January 2008 and 22:52, 19 January 2008

User BigGabriel555 edits capriciously and is currently opposed to all changes to the geography section. He first objected to the figure for the country's total area. So his figure was added along with another. But somehow that wasn't enough, as now he says vaguely that the previous version was better and more detailed, even though everything in his version is still the new, but with needed copyediting and reorganization of the text for clarity. I must point out that the geography changes BigGabriel555 opposes were made by a Dominican geographer, User:Pepemar2. SamEV (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * User has made a fifth revert within a 24-hour span, even after being warned he is already in violation of 3RR.--RosicrucianTalk 04:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The 5th revert introduced some possible vandalism into the mix, as it changed an IPA symbol and many interwiki links. SamEV (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, some assistance would be appreciated. He is still reverting.--RosicrucianTalk 02:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Page protected, talk it out on the talk page, please. --B (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Eschoir reported by User:Veritas (Result: Eschoir and Samurai Commuter blocked 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 05:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:24, 17 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 01:25, 20 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 20:02, 20 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 22:39, 20 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 23:56, 20 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 11:01, 17 January 2008

Note that the 3rd and 4th reversions are slightly different because they include a strange edit where the words "Free Republic" are turned into one word - I believe this was done in order to throw off reviewers from noticing the 3RR violation that focuses on the removal of cited information. Veritas (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Good work, Veritas. You barely beat me to it. I put a 3RR warning on his Talk page just a day or two ago, and then he almost nailed me for a 3RR violation cleaning up after him, and he quoted chapter and verse about "in whole or in part" and "whether involving the same or different material." Furthermore, he's an experienced editor with nearly a year at Wikipedia and thousands of edits. He is fully familiar with the 3RR rule. No warning was necessary. Admins, please do your duty.


 * When contemplating the length of his block, please review the compiled evidence (diffs) of his extensive and, to Arbitrator Newyorkbrad, "troubling" pattern of disruptive edits as provided at WP:RFAR. I recommend two weeks. Samurai Commuter (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm blocking Eschoir and Samurai Commuter both 24 hours. You guys have been going at it revert warring with each other for a week.  Stop it and take it to the talk page.  As you are both aware from your WP:RFARB discussion, this article is on probation.  If you are disruptive, you can and will be blocked or can be banned from editing the article. --B (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * B, SC has repeatedly tried that and his edit summaries have repeatedly asked Eschoir to take it to the Talk page. He views the Talk page as an opportunity to bait people. Neutral Good (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Leaving an invitation to discuss in a reversion is not an exemption from 3RR. It's somewhat of an unhelpful gesture if you think about it - "please discuss, but leave the page on my version while you do" isn't a good way to go about resolving a dispute. --B (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you consider reading this? WP:RFAR Neutral Good (talk) 07:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read it but it's mostly irrelevant to this question. Both sides violated 3RR.  Neither side was committing blatant vandalism or anything that could be construed as allowing an exemption from revert limitations. --B (talk) 07:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you thought about page protection? Neutral Good (talk) 07:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:ViperNerd reported by User:Thör (Result: protected)
. : Time reported: 07:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: Multiple versions reverted to, has been edit warring this article for several hours today.


 * 1st revert: 17:10, 20 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:32, 20 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:09, 20 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 03:05, 21 January 2008
 * 5th revert: 01:13, 21 January 2008
 * 6th revert: 23:46, 20 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: See explanation.

This account is a sock of multiple IPs blocked 3 times over the last month or so. The other sock IPs are: 65.188.38.31, 65.188.37.65, 62.232.41.140, 66.56.149.230, 201.155.32.234, 69.60.114.58, 89.96.176.162, and possibly 161.156.99.11 One of the reverts above is using one of the socks. The behavior is clearly disruptive. Much effort to game the system. Constant, disruptive edit warring and reverting of well cited material for POV purposes. I will also submit the necessary sock request for all of these. Request made at WP:RFP to protect article, which has been done. 24 hour block will not be enough, user recently returned from 7 day block as 65.188.38.31 and jumped right back at it. Thör hammer 07:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * by . Please seek dispute resolution with your fellow editors on the page. -- slakr  \ talk / 07:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Aleenf1 reported by User:Carl.bunderson (Result: Protected)
. : Time reported: 08:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:26, 21 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 06:10, 21 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 06:12, 21 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 06:18, 21 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 08:26, 21 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 08:45 20 January 2008

He is reverting something that not cause an issues, he censored out the section that have notability (but link dead) and claim is not notability. Where got this kind of policy in Wikipedia? Aleen f 1  08:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note that he is in violation as well. And looking at the talk page, he has refused to address my concerns, and now has declared an intention of ignoring the suggestion he was given in response to his report of me. Carl.bunderson (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I could block both of you but seems like it'd be pretty punitive at this point so I've protected the page. John Reaves 13:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist reported by User:Itub (Result:No action )

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 13:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: see details below; initial action was not reversion but deletion of text, followed by three reverts.


 * 1st revert: 2008-01-19T17:15:06
 * 2nd revert: 2008-01-19T18:57:00
 * 3rd revert: 2008-01-20T00:18:08
 * 4th revert: 2008-01-20T02:28:30


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Considered unnecessary, given that the editor has plenty of experience and has even been through arbitration before.

First removed--without discussion--a sentence about the homeopathic uses of strontium chloride that had been in the article for a long time (first added by on 2005 ), and then engaged on a revert war with  and  over it. Itub (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No action for now, you're all guilty of edit warring (i.e. blockable) so I suggest taking it to the talk page and if that doesn't work, ask for page protection. John Reaves 13:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is stale anyway and ScienceApologist has already been blocked as a part of arbcom enforcement. --B (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that he is not blocked anymore and the arbcom enforcement issue was unrelated (civility, as opposed to edit warring). As for staleness, how "fresh" does a violation need to be when it is reported? This one was just one day old. --Itub (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) He was blocked for 24 hours for arbcom enforcement, so consider that to be concurrent with the 24 hours he might have received here. (2) He removed an unsourced claim three times.  We should thank people who do that, not block them. "Strontium chlorii" gets a whopping 7 g-hits, four of which are from Wikipedia.  Color me unimpressed. --B (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Point (1) doesn't seem convincing given that he was blocked 72 hours for edit warring one week ago and 3RR blocks for repeat offenses are supposed to increase in length. As for point (2), the last revert included a source, and removing sourced information because one doesn't think the source is reliable is not in the list of exceptions given at WP:3RR. I agree that the name "strontium chlorii" is probably not the correct one, but that is irrelevant to this edit war. --Itub (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you talking to me? I have never even edited this article. The extent of my involvement was posting a couple of comments on Talk:Potassium dichromate, an article which I haven't edited either except to fix typos and such. It was during that discussion that I learned of the editing war going on at strontium chloride. --Itub (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:23prootie reported by User:Howard the Duck (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 10:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:45, 22 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 15:43, 22 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 15:55, 22 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:15, 22 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 17:25, 22 January 2008
 * 5th revert: 17:40, 22 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 16:35, 22 January 2008

23prootie, myself and User:Starczamora are in a discussion on how to best display the "Auditions" section. 23prootie reverted to his version, without discussion, consensus and can't even wait for a few minutes for me to reply on the talk page ("no response in discussion" on 16:15 while I replied 16:17, two minutes later) -- Howard  the   Duck  10:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I second this report. The user insisted on putting anything Manila (as a city, Metro Manila, even Mega Manila) into the audition section while the audition venue SM Mall of Asia is in Pasay City and outside of Manila.  The user also insists on including regions into that section, which would include Metro Manila.  However, such information is unnecessary as compared to other Idol-related articles. Starczamora (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 24 hours. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 15:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Anastrophe. reported by User:Laurusnobilis (Result: No violation; warning )
. : Time reported: 12:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:31, 20 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 18:53, 21 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 23:50, 21 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 00:18, 22 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 00:22, 22 January 2008

At the end this user seems to agree with my edit: his/her edit on 00:49, 22 January 2008.

. : Time reported: 12:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:16, 21 January 2008
 * Previous version reverted to: 07:06, 22 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 23:53, 21 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 00:20, 22 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 08:57, 22 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: This user seems to already know Wikipedia policy, because he/she cited it: his/her edit on 01:15, 22 January 2008

Laurusnobilis (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see a violation in the second example you gave -- we would need to see clear diffs showing three reverts, not just one edit and two reverts. Also, in the first example, his first revert was his first edit, unless the Sicko inclusion had already been removed and restored before. Other admins may disagree with me on this point, but I tend not to block where the first edit was a simple removal of recently added material -- even though, strictly speaking, it was a revert to a previous version that didn't contain it, but that is necessarily the case for material that has just been added.


 * I'll leave a warning on his page about reverting so much. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 16:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:DarkFierceDeityLink reported by User:HeaveTheClay (Result: No violation )
. : Time reported: 15:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 02:38, 22 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 14:59, 22 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 15:07, 22 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 15:14, 22 January 2008

The first edit he reverted by altering the previous editor's work. The last 3 he reverted due to fact I asked for reliable sources for those statements in the article. HeaveTheClay (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We would need a diff showing that the first edit was a revert. I'm marking this "no violation" in the meantime. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 16:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Kirev reported by User:Yannismarou (Result: Warning)
. : Time reported: 13:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 12:43, 22 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 12:45, 22 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 12:50, 22 January 2008 and 12:50, 22 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 12:56, 22 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:56, 22 January 2008

After the 4th revert, User:Kirev came back adding fact tags on the same parts of the article he previously disputed, and for which he initiated his reverts (13:17, 22 January 2008). I let the admin reviewers here to judge the nature of this edit. His reverts came to undermine a consensus we strove to agree (check the relevant long discussions and talks). User:Kirev should initiate a dialogue in the article's talk page, before acting unilaterally, reverting and adding fact tags everywhere. To be honest and fair with him: the fourth revert took place simultaneously with my warning.Yannismarou (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Admins, you can see from the diffs there is no violation of the rule, as he edited different sections of the page. There is no 3 edit rule is there ...? Also, I spoke to Kirev about the best way to handle these things (i.e. unsourced info) on his talk page.  Balkan <font color="#008">Fever  13:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on! He may have edited, but he was also reverting at the same time. After all, it is User:Kirev himself who admits that and retorts to your arguments ("::And I did revert.": at the end, in his own words!).--Yannismarou (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * He did not revert more than 3 times in 24 hours.  Balkan <font color="#008">Fever  14:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, 4 reverts can't be 3 as you wish, unless our arithmetics differ. And, as a matter of fact you are correct: He did not violate the rule within 24 hours; he violated it within 17 minutes! Anyway, if you wish to defend User:Kirev you chose the wrong path. I myself admitted some alleviatings for him, but please do not try to convince us that 4=3 and that a revert is not a revert, because it is accompanied by an edit as well or that the 3R does not actually tell us what we read! Please!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are taking the wrong path by attacking him. And don't deny that it has nothing to do with your Greek POV. I have no interest in continuing this discussion as it is moving away from the point: Kirev did not break 3RR.  Balkan <font color="#008">Fever  14:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This was a borderline violation -- a series of complex, partial reverts. Reverts do not have to involve the same material to count toward 3RR violations. However, I can't see that he continued after being warning, so I'm going to leave him another warning, rather than blocking. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ophois reported by User:Xndr (Result: Stale)
. : Time reported: 15:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:52, 20 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 18:39, 20 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 20:10, 20 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 00:13, 21 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:28, 21 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 06:15, 4 January 2008

Ophios continues the edit despite cited evidence to the contrary from the show's creator/producer. Ophios has not cited evidence to back up the continued edit. The discussion on the talk page has mentioned 3RR. Ophios has been blocked before for 3RR so is aware of the rule. Xndr (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Ophios has characterized his revisions as reverting vandalism, but I do not believe the anonymous IPs are vandalizing. It appears that they may be misguided, but it appears to be a content dispute. In the event that the IPs are the same person, there may be multiple parties in violation here. - Revolving Bugbear  18:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This seems to have been passed over. I am closing it as stale (as the purpose of 3RR blocks is to prevent edit warring not punish people) but if I had seen it earlier I would have issued a block - it is definitely not a revert of simple vandalism. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Spookee reported by User:KelleyCook (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 16:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:56, January 20, 2008


 * 1st revert: 17:53, January 20, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 07:52, January 21, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:13, January 21, 2008
 * 4th revert: 07:20, January 22, 2008
 * 5th revert: 08:54, January 22, 2008
 * 6th revert: 10:28, January 22, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 09:05, January 22, 2008 and previously 07:44, November 15, 2007

Notice this user has been reported for having created a sockpuppet account (User:Sevenneed) at Suspected sock puppets/Spookee which were included in the above list. KelleyCook (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've blocked both and  for violating the 3RR rule using sockpuppets.  It's likely that one of them needs an indefinite block for being the sockpuppet of the other, but I haven't researched that situation much yet.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Anton Tudor & User:Gligan reported by User:Eurocopter tigre (Result: No block, page protected)
. & : Time reported: 18:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:

User:Anton Tudor
and so on............
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:

User:Gligan

 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:

3RR violation, disruptivity, incivility and personal attacks, no other explanations needed... Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've warned both of them for violating the 3RR and requested page protection see here while I was on my RC patrol. The page is now protected see here. <b style="color:#33CC33;">LightAnkh</b>C|MSG 19:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As the page is now protected, there is no need for a block. Both parties appear to have been suitably warned. I will monitor the situation for changes. - Revolving Bugbear  19:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Strider12 reported by User:MastCell (Result: Blocked 24 hours, Photouploaded not blocked)
. : Time reported: 23:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:50, 21 January 2008 (and see below for specific details of reverts)


 * 1st revert: 16:27, 21 January 2008 (undoes this preceding edit)
 * 2nd revert: 14:59, 22 January 2008 (undoes this preceding edit, among others)
 * 3rd revert: 15:11, 22 January 2008 (undoes preceding edit)
 * 4th revert: 15:17, 22 January 2008 (undoes this preceding edit)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Experienced editor, well aware of WP:3RR (see this warning she left me in December).

There are one or two other reverts by Strider12 in this time frame, but the 4 listed above are the clearest and easiest to document. For what it's worth, is a single-purpose account dedicated to promoting a particular agenda on this article. She has frequently gone right up to 3 reverts, has been reverted and cautioned by numerous outside editors, and managed to get the article protected once - so this is not an isolated incident. MastCell Talk 23:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24 hours, but is there anything I should know about why should or should not be blocked as well?  I count, , , , but a case could be made that the second was reverting an obvious accidental edit, not edit warring. I'd like to hear from MastCell (who has looked this over more than I) before making a decision. --B (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with your review; the second of those 4 reverts by appears to be a good-faith correction of another editor's mistake, rather than a revert as part of a content dispute (for what it's worth). On the other hand, the subsequent (consecutive) edit by Photouploaded was a revert . I'll leave it up to your discretion, which I trust and respect, as to whether anyone else needs to be sanctioned. I'm not neutral, in that I'm frankly exasperated by several months of dealing with what I view as textbook tendentious editing by Strider12; I brought this here mainly because it's the tip of iceberg regarding that particular editor, but it's entirely possible as a result that I have a bit of tunnel vision regarding other editors who ought to also be better-behaved. MastCell Talk 05:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok ... based on this and based on the fact that Photouploaded was attempting to discuss issues on the talk page, I think we can close it as is. If Photouploaded continues to revert war, please let me know and I'll take another look. --B (talk) 06:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Davidking24 reported by User:Zpb52 (Result: Not blocked)
. : Time reported: 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:21, 22 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 16:09, January 22, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:25, January 22, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 17:39, January 22, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:40, January 22, 2008 - Official warning came after informal warnings against making Wikipedia a fansite or memorial site: 16:50, January 22, 2008

Two third opinions from neutral parties on Talk:Rick and Bubba argued against including information about death of talk show host's son. User Davidking24, a fan of the radio show, engaged in this discussion and continues to revert to include the information after warning. Zpb52 (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Only three reverts and in the last few minutes, he has removed his comments saying that he wants to close his account and blanked his talk page. There is thus nothing to prevent.  If he reverts again, please reopen this issue and we will address it. --B (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:C.Logan reported by User:GabrielVelasquez (Result: Stale; reporter blocked for 24 hours for more active vio)
. : Time reported: 21:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

I may have done this wrong, perhaps someone can help. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but it appears to me that both users have each made 5 reverts in a 24-hour period, violating the 3RR policy. The last revert by was about 14 hours ago, therefore admin action against that user specifically may not be required; the user has received warnings on their talk page, with links to 3RR policy etc., around the time the user stopped reverting. However, in the case of, the last revert, violating 3RR, was recent, at 20:56 UT Jan 23; the user is clearly aware of the 3RR policy, mentioning it in the edit summary, so a block of this user would be justified, though page protection may be a better idea. Both users should discuss the situation calmly on the talk page rather than editwarring. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) The instructions are at the bottom of the page. Regardless, you were the one who violated 3RR – the other editor hasn't edited in 10 hours. Think about it for 24 hours and come back in the spirit of cooperation. - Krakatoa  Katie  21:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Zenwhat reported by User:Pundit (Result: No block. Both users warned.)
. : Time reported: 22:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:10, 23 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 23:21, 22 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 14:35, 23 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:36, 23 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 17:10, 23 January 2008

User Zenwhat was an ardent proponent of Chocolate Thai deletion. The AfD result was to merge the information into Cannabis. The information was merged, but the user Zenwhat seems to be unhappy about the result. Although an RfC discussion on the reliability of sources brought two other editors supporting the references, and none against them, user Zenwhat insists it is unencyclopedic nonsense and repeatedly deletes the same paragraph. This user is experienced and knowledgeable about Wikipedia rules (he often cites them, although sometimes with unusual interpretations), and it is clear he is familiar with 3RR, as he was warned about it, but seems not to care. I don't want an edit war, and I am in general already by far disinterested in the subject of the article, but I believe some correctional block may play an educational role here. Pundit | utter 22:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This edit is not a "revert." It was something I did after noticing that Pundit's claims didn't appear to have consensus. I did this early in the morning at 4 a.m., before I went to sleep, so technically it's within the "24 hours" limit, but there's only three reverts today.

According to WP:V, the burden of proof lies on editors who are adding or restoring material. I posted this on the WP:RS noticeboard and asked Pundit to patiently wait for their response. She decided to edit-war instead, then posted this here.

For a brief review of this situation and the actual consensus, see:
 * User talk:Zenwhat

For more detailed background, see:
 * User talk:Pundit (the thread on Chocolate Thai)

&#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I reported the clear violation and, by courtesy, informed the user, but I'm not going to discuss the issue here, as it is not the right place for a debate.  Pundit | utter  23:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * However, I cannot but be surprised by the user's quick judgement expressed here and deleted minutes afterwards. I am glad, though, that I am at least not accused of personal attacks anymore. Pundit | utter  23:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I misread your edit, Pundit and acknowledge my mistake, which was why I removed it. Bringing it up after it was removed seems rather inappropriate. You made a similar mistake here and acknowledged that mistake here, the same way I just did now. To err is to be human. It's not particularly relevant to the issue of the 3RR violation. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

'''No block. Both users warned:''' There does appear to have a been a technical violation by Zenwhat (who reverted four times), but they did eventually revert themselves (albeit after the incident was raised here) - so a block on this occassion does not seem appropriate. Pundit appears to have reverted a total of three times. Both users are warned that continued edit warring, regardless of whether there are more than three reverts, will result in a block. TigerShark (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Larry Dunn reported by User:Pejman47 (Result: page protected)
. : Time reported: 22:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:46, 23 January 2008
 * from this in his talk page, he knows about 3rr rule. --Pejman47 (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I fully protected the page. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:VivianDarkbloom reported by User:Kww (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 00:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:15, 9 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 22:53, 23 January 2007
 * 2nd revert: 23:21, 23 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 23:28, 24 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 23:33, 24 January 2008

User deleting a 3RR warning
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:58, 7 January 2008

Vivian has refused to accept a redirect on the Pee-Wee's Playhouse Christmas Special, and has edit-warred over it for some time. It's even gone to ANI. It has sat stably at the redirect since the last time I restored the redirect two weeks ago. Today, 4 redirects, so today, I think it's time for a block. Looks like the page has gone to protected status while I was typing, but that isn't the cure for this.Kww (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Result: Blocked for 24 hours. TigerShark (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. 3RR blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. As the article in question had been fully protected (before this request was granted), there's no need for other intervention in the form of blocks. - PeaceNT (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Protection didn't mean much, though. PeaceNT decided to edit it in its protected state, and restore what she thought was the more appropriate version.Kww (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The redirected version was evidently not endorsed by talk page discussion, one would see it as a fair reason for the redirection to be reverted. - PeaceNT (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But editing a protected version? That's only supposed to be done when there's clear consensus for the edit, which, given that there's just been an edit war on this, can't be the case here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to discuss my edits, and for the record I still think the block was done without good reason, and intended to punish the user. - PeaceNT (talk) 05:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Talessman reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result: Overtaken by events )
. : Time reported: 21:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:43, 18 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 16:46, 23 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:49, 23 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 20:19, 23 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 20:29, 23 January 2008

Also edit warring in a similar way on Western Roman Empire. One Night In Hackney 303  21:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly this report does document a breach of the 3RR and a block could have been justified last night when I first looked at this but decided to hang fire. The reported user does appear to have taken the warning to stop edit warring to heart although there appears to be ongoing concern about whether they are using wikipedia for self-promotion. Be that as it may, that problem is outside AN3 and I think that a block now would serve no purpose. Spartaz Humbug! 17:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Kvanko reported by User:Master of Puppets (Result:24 hours )
. : Time reported: 05:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:19, 24 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 01:04, 24 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 04:09, 24 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 04:32, 24 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 04:36, 24 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 04:47, 24 January 2008

User has repeatedly reverted to his version (at least 10 times) regardless of warnings by at least three editors. <font color="#7d7d7d">Master of Puppets  <font color="#7d7d7d">Call me MoP! ☺  05:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment added after report filing: User proceeded to be uncivil towards editors; see here and here. <font color="#7d7d7d">Master of Puppets  <font color="#7d7d7d">Call me MoP! ☺  05:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours due to continual addition of inappropriate content. Seeing as this is a new user who could be unaware of 3RR, I initially intended to only give a warning. However, there was already a clear warning on their talk, and the user showed no attempt to discuss, so newbie's unawareness of 3RR is no longer grounds for toleration. - PeaceNT (talk) 06:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Mccready reported by User:Hughgr (Result:no violation yet)
. : Time reported: 08:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 06:04, 23 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 06:04, 23 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 07:34, 24 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 08:07, 24 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 08:30, 24 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User has been previously warned

Editing against a long standing consensus. User:Mccready has a history of this type of editing behavior. Hughgr (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked 24 hours. Krakatoa  Katie  09:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no violation yet – only three reverts, because the report improperly counts the version reverted to as the first revert – so I unblocked Mccready. I've warned him to be careful at that article for the next 24 hours. Krakatoa  Katie  09:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you don't know this user. This is his 'feature edit.' He comes to that page and makes the same edit repeatedly against well established consensus. Since he is aware of this, perhaps this repeat edit is actually vandalism. Perhaps that would be the appropriate venue to report this issue? As it stands, he is likely to take this decision as a justification to do it again. According to WP:REVERT


 * I think the first edit counts as a revert? Anthon01 (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not permission to do it again. All I can do as the admin who deals with a 3RR report is look at the information and make the best decision I can. Perhaps an RFC/U is needed to discuss his behavior. - Krakatoa  Katie  21:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Rikara reported by User:Jéské Couriano (Result:protected)
. : Time reported: 22:19, 24 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:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Edit war over unconfirmed characters at Super Smash Bros. (series) He refuses to provide cites for any of the characters he's adding in; has breached 3RR to keep them in. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 22:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Added further violations, Abuser still seems to be at it. Will continue adding further violations. Dengarde ► Complaints 22:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is bullshit. They were refusing to listen to me. Don't punish ME for this. And I'm a guy, genius. -Rikara (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We've told you time and time again that what you're reverting is speculation most of which was completely un-supported, yet you refused to listen. Dengarde ► Complaints 22:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: User:Rikara has been temporarily blocked from editing by User:Jéské Couriano for personal attacks. Dengarde ► Complaints 22:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Article has been protected, and as listed above, user has been blocked for another reason, although to be quite fair, probably should not have been done by an admin who'd been in conflict with the user. Not to say it wasn't justified, since it clearly was. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of the implications; hence I asked for a review of my block at AN/I. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 03:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Anthon01 reported by User:RG2 (Result:protected)
. : Time reported: 00:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:28, 24 January 2008
 * 1st revert: 20:45, 24 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 21:25, 24 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:41, 24 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:59, 24 January 2008
 * Diff of 3RR warning: Unnecessary. User has previously been warned about the 3RR rule. Additionally, the user was blocked for edit warring last month.

removed what he felt was questionable content from Thuja at 19:55, 24 January 2008. reintroduced the blanked content, albeit with a new reference, four times in a row. Partial reversions are still considered reverts, and four partial reverts still constitute a 3RR violation.

Looking through the page history, there seems to have been quite a bit of reverting over the past few days. However, it has usually been accompanied by talk page discussion from editors on all sides of the debate. It appears to me that nobody but Anthon01 has violated the 3RR, although some of the others have come very close. -- RG<sup style="color:#CC5500;">2 00:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But if you look a little closer you'll see editors are working together to defeat the addition of RS material. My response has been to try to find increasing better sources, but it appears that no sources, even from the most prestigious journals, like Rheumatology, will do. Anthon01 (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The first diff was accompanied with the explanation that I had added a new source. I didn't consider it a revert in the sense of an edit war. On the other hand SA and his co-editors are not allowing any RS that mention homeopathy to be included on this or any other plant related articles. They are removing well-sourced text from the article. Anthon01 (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there's a case to be made not to consider the first edit a revert. At any rate, other users, such as Science Apologist, have reverted almost as much, and the edit war is widespread, so I'm protecting the article. Please work on resolving this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note a similar history of edit warring at the related article Thuja occidentalis, although with a slightly different cast of characters. MrDarwin (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:CreazySuit reported by User:Jewish-wargamer (Result: page protected)
. : Time reported: 15:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:43, 21 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 17:39, 23 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 21:50, 23 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:59, 23 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:17, 23 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:32, 23 January 2008

This template, a map, seems to have been the site of a major edit war last year over the description of territorial extent of an empire. Edit war appears to have ended once the territory was included but was described as temporarily held or words to that effect. The user being reported appears to have created the account to start the edit war up again (note edit history) and is edit warring on the article that the template resides in as well. Continued to edit war after 3RR warning. Jewish-wargamer (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have fully protected the page. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Would request that another admin look at this. Protecting the page is rewarding edit warring. Jewish-wargamer (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)