Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive65

User:Whisper1234 reported by User:Shoy (Result: protected)
. : Time reported: 04:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:25, January 24, 2008


 * 1st revert: 17:17, January 24, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 19:29, January 24, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 22:50, January 24, 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:58, January 24, 2008
 * 5th revert: 23:04, January 24, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:53, January 24, 2008

Looks like edit-warring to keep a promotional link in the article. sho y  04:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And extremely inane edit-warring at that. Page protected by User:Flyguy649. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User: Milsorgen reported by User:Aboutmovies (Result: 8 hours)
. : Time reported: 08:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:39, January 24, 2008.


 * 1st revert: 22:34, January 24, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 22:39, January 24, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 23:00, January 24, 2008
 * 4th revert: 23:31, January 24, 2008
 * 5th revert: 23:50, January 24, 2008
 * 6th revert: 23:56, January 24, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 23:06, January 24, 2008

Listed editor continues to revert three other editors to include a person in the notable residents section of this town. Has ignored warnings, and now seems to be taunting the editors. Oregon consensus has been don’t add them unless they are a blue link. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 8 hours. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Adraeus reported by User:Serendipodous (Result:31 hours )
. : Time reported: 23:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:17, 25 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 22:25, 25 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 22:33, 25 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 23:03, 25 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 23:17, 25 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 23:10, 25 January 2008

User:Adraeus has been conducting an edit war on Solar System. He has also been combative and aggressive and engaged in personal attacks on my talk page.  Serendi pod ous  23:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You 4th diff links to this AN3 page, but I looked at the hist and there is another revert he did recently, so 31 hour block. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 00:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed diff 4 anyway.  Serendi pod ous  11:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User:66.158.4.69 reported by User:Arzel (Result:24 hours to IP )
. : Time reported: 23:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

A short explanation of the incident.

Not sure if I did this correctly, so sorry in advance. This user continues to insert material in violation of BLP policies. Arzel (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Funeral reported by User:192.45.72.26 (Result: Page protected)
. : Time reported: 00:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: N/A, this is an experienced user and knows what he is doing.

This user seems to not respect other editor's edits what-so-ever. Instead, he just reverts edits as if this page belongs to him, and him only. I've made changes to try and satisfy him, added citations, etc. He just brings up NOR, NPOV and talks about edit wars. It is this type of editor who believes others' edits are not as worthy, that instigates edit wars, and makes Wikipedia an unpleasant experience. Check out this uncivil discussion, with himself maybe? Now him and this anon (himself?) gang up on other editors to keep the page exactly as he wants. 192.45.72.26 (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Page protected. John Reaves 00:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the 142.167 IP is not mine (see this diff in my userspace: ). I've also contacted the reporting user to try and reach a comprimise, which included asking him not to revert me . When I "just bring up" WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:EW, I feel I'm perfectly right to do so; the user originally used no sources in his edits and he later proclaimed who the most famous line-up of Guns N' Roses are. Which is why I linked to WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Funeral 00:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What? Is your memory not functioning? You were the one who brought up the words famous first, and I tried to please you by changing my edit.  You don't discuss things, from your edit history you just go around reverting many edits which are not your own.  You don't appear to have any sense of compromise.  I clarified the statement, and started to add citations that show that in popular media they are referred to (wrongly or rightly so) as the original lineup. Still you reverted.  So you were intersted in compromise??  I doubt it.  Users like yourself should get a nice week ban for all your reversions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.45.72.26 (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, they were the most famous line-up of the band, but that's still considered point of view. I didn't mean to say we should put that in the article. And I deserve a band for reverting a lot of/mostly vandalism? Sounds fair. Funeral 01:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing is Funeral, is I don't know if you have a good sense of what is really vandalism. Edits that "Funeral doesn't like" do not necessarily constitute vandalism.  I was there trying to satisfy you, you were making good points.  I added citations, and then all I get is these harsh comments that you make towards me and your anon friend.  What is the need to act like that dude?  I am on here trying to make some edits and I get accused of being a fanboy or of fancruft.  Please be professional.  It is common usage in the media to rever to those guys as the "original line-up".  I didn't say these guys ARE THE ORIGINAL LINEUP, I merely clarified.  Most people, fans or not, who know Guns N' Roses, do think of these five as the original members.  The article is very precise in how the group was formed, but there is no disaster with adding the sentence I did.  You should really be more open-minded to others' edits, or you just get this needless battling, with people who probably just want good articles like I assume you do!  Assume good faith, and try being friendly to new people on here.  Man...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.45.72.26 (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But your citations didn't actually support your claim: you just linked to a news article which referred to the 1986-1989 band as the original line-up - you weren't actually supporting your claim that they are "often referred to as the 'original lineup'". Funeral 01:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, then you could of simply asked me to look for more or better citations if you had issue with them. You don't have to just wipe out others' edits and make disparaging remarks like "fan boy".
 * Hey folks. This page isn't really for disputes. Could you move this to your talk pages or the article talk page or something? Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:DeathMark reported by User:penubag (Result:24 hours)
Advance Wars: Days of Ruin by : Time reported: 01:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

This is inverted, 11th was first revert:
 * 1st revert: (ip sock)
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:
 * there may be some more I missed
 * Diff of 3RR warning: and

A short explanation of the incident. Deathmark is continuously reverting edits mad by 3 other editors. After 2 warnings, still continues even after consensus was reached by the 3 editors. penubag  01:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ugh, a mess. Give me some time to process this one. Will get it ASAP. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - penubag  01:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This was a pretty extensive edit war, with DeathMark reverting against several other users. As such, I've blocked him for 24 hours. Some of his opponents in the edit war have also reverted quite a bit, especially Comandante42‎. I've warned him not to do so in the future, and left a less stern reminder for Geoff B. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:WebHamster reported by User:Skyring (Result: 8 hours; reporter blocked for 6 hours)
. : Time reported: 14:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:18, 28 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 00:20, 28 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 00:31, 28 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 00:35, 28 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 00:43, 28 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 00:59, 28 January 2008

One of the "wikignome" tasks I enjoy is improving the overall standard of the project by setting wikidates to either International Dating or American Dating format, as per the Manual of Style. I noticed that the birthdate in Alan Parsons was displaying incorrectly, and corrected it. User:WebHamster reverted it, and revealed in an extraordinary series of abusive messages that he was unaware of how date preferences work, whilst accusing me of the same, ignoring my explanations and suggestions that he inform himself as to the MoS guidelines and the template instructions. I have been doing this minor work for some time, as anyone may see, and I keep myself informed. Given the attitude of this user, as shown in the following diffs, I request some action be taken.

Pete (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * Anyone also perusing those diffs will also notice that Skyring has also breached the 3RR limit. I perceived his changes as vandalism due to his deleting the in the infobox and hard-coding the date in spite of the fact that the preferred method in the musical artist infobox is to use the template. I considered this to be vandalism and reverted accordingly. If an interested admin will also note that I did not revert any of the hard-coded dates which were changed by Skyring. In messages to me I try to explain, unsuccessfully, that template derived dates display differently depending upon user preferences or system settings. Also that WP:MOS does not applied to template derived dates, and it most certainly doesn't recommend deleting template inclusions in favour of a hard-coded world date format. -- Web H amster  14:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears that WebHamster is unaware of the documentation of the template he uses, which contradicts his forceful statements here and elsewhere. --Pete (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm aware of the documentation, though I would like you to narrow down in it where you think I've gone wrong, then whilst you're at it point me at the related bit in WP:MOS that justifies what you are doing deleting the recommended templated age/date code. I consider your changes with regard to deleting the template inclusion as out and out vandalism based on a skewed understanding of MoS. Whilst you have a minute I recommend you re-read the link I gave you with regard to the "Born" element of the musical artist infobox-- Web H amster  15:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * None of the edits qualify as simple vandalism, which is to say vandalism that would be obvious to someone who has never edited the page before. WebHamster has violated 3RR and is blocked for 8 hours. Skyring, while he has not strictly violated 3RR, has definitely used reverting instead of discussion and is blocked for 6 hours for edit warring. Stifle (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Pointoflight reported by User:Propol (Result: Warning and protected)
. : Time reported: 18:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 1/27/2008 12:03
 * 2nd revert: 1/27/2008 12:24
 * 3rd revert: 1/27/2008 12:47
 * 4th revert: 1/27/2008 12:53
 * 5th revert: 1/27/2008 13:10


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 1/27/2008 13:04

This user is also a suspected sock puppet of blocked User:Joehazelton, is a single-purpose account, and has made personal attacks as well. I appreciate your help. Propol (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This editor uses the abuses of the process bully his point of view. Further more, 3 revert rule don't apply to badly written "Attack bios"  masquerading as "Encyclopedic".

This whole charge of Propol sockpuppet is an "abuse of process".Pointoflight (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just left a warning for him. Propol, he does have a point about that section, which really is problematic BLP-wise. Can you please find a way to rewrite it, so that it relies only on very good sources, and is written in a less breathless tone? I see that someone other than Pointofflight has objected to it on the talk page too. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 18:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've also protected the page. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 18:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:24.60.254.74 reported by User:Atlan (Result: 48 hours)
and. : Time reported: 20:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Boston College: 1/25/2008 15:28 Boston College Eagles: 1/25/2008 15:48
 * Previous version reverted to:

Boston College:
 * 1st revert: 1/26/2008 18:41
 * 2nd revert: 1/27/2008 3:23
 * 3rd revert: 1/27/2008 19:22
 * 4th revert: 1/27/2008 19:31
 * 5th revert: 1/27/2008 19:49

Boston College Eagles:
 * 1st revert: 1/27/2008 19:25
 * 2nd revert: 1/27/2008 19:35
 * 3rd revert: 1/27/2008 19:51
 * 4th revert: 1/27/2008 20:03


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User is well aware of 3RR, as his edit summaries and talk page point out, but feels the rule doesn't apply to him.

The anon has a history of edit warring over Boston College related articles and was blocked for it earlier this month. In this case, the anon keeps putting back a long list of lyrics of songs, which I have removed because no background information or any indication of their notability and relation to the article is provided, per WP:NOT. The anon feels I should go out of my way to save the lyrics (put them elsewhere and then link them as he says it), while he is content to sit back and do nothing of the sort. Atlan (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 48 hours. --B (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Enverite reported by User:Pairadox (Result: 8 hours)
. : Time reported: 21:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:32, 24 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 17:44, 24 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:11, 24 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 18:51, 24 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 20:03, 24 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:28, 21 January 2008

While these may not appear to be strict reverts, I feel a close examination will show otherwise. is suspected of being a sock of. The apparent goal of these editors is to give Davis Roberts equal credit for starting G&D's and/or deny George Stroup sole billing. Their only edits are in relation to this article. had previously reverted twice in the last 24 hours, here and here. Enverite then pick up the task. It's only when their combined reverts approach the fourth in 24 hours does Enverite switch to blanking the paragraph about the founders entirely. Either combined with the suspected sock or alone, it seems clear the intent to violate 3RR is there.

A SSP report has been filed but not acted upon at this time. 21:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 5th revert: 01:38, 25 January 2008
 * 8 hour block. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Something doesn't smell right. I don't think either of these versions are true. If it was all one guy doing everything, then why are there two names in the brand? Something's missing.  BE  TA  02:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:21stCenturyBuoy reported by User:RolandR (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 15:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:38, 27 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 13:37, 27 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 14:20, 27 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 14:43, 27 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 15:10, 27 January 2008
 * 5th revert: 15:44, 27 January 2008
 * 6th revert: 16:07, 27 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:18, 27 January 2008

Constantly adding defamatory material, in violation of BLP, against consensus of other editors, and despite warnings from another editor. RolandR (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours with a strong warning on BLP issues. Stifle (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * User had already been blocked by another admin 20 minutes earlier, for "edit warring". So this block, although announced on the Usertalk page, does not appear in the block log. RolandR (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oopsie. Still, edit warring was the same summary as I would have given, so no harm done. Stifle (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Pietervhuis reported by User:Alaexis (Result: Protected)
. : Time reported: 22:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:43, 26 January 2008

The reverts were not to this version exactly but this text was removed every time.


 * 1st revert: 14:36, 27 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:09, 27 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 18:24, 27 January 2008

Previous version reverted to: 21:17, 27 January 2008


 * 4th revert: 21:35, 27 January 2008)

Again, it's not a simple revert but essentially it's the undoing of this edit (please examine this carefully).


 * Diff of the second 3RR warning: 18:29, 27 January 2008


 * Diff of the first 3RR warning: 16:47, 26 January 2008

The first warning was given after the user reverted the article 4 times in a day:


 * 1st revert: 11:33, 26 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 12:17, 26 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:06, 26 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 16:43, 26 January 2008

Alæxis¿question? 22:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Page protected. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:VegardNorman reported by User:EliasAlucard (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 01:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 2008-01-27T02:41:58


 * 1st revert: 2008-01-27T22:39:55
 * 2nd revert: 2008-01-27T22:46:28
 * 3rd revert: 2008-01-28T00:29:20
 * 4th revert: 2008-01-28T00:58:32 (this one is by an anon IP but most likely his in order to bypass the WP:3RR rule. Should be checked up.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-01-11T12:25:12

User:VegardNorman is POV-pushing a semi-religious/ethnic agenda by using dubious sources, taking quotes out of context, etc., in order to attack the ethnicity of the Assyrian people. His sources are for example, an indopedia link, which is a direct copy of an old revision of the Aramaeans article. He's also citing Megalommatis, a fringe web-publicist who has claimed that modern Europeans are Assyrians (another attack on the Assyrian identity). User:VegardNorman is also involved in pushing his agenda and revert wars on other articles, such as Western Assyrians (which he's trying to redirect to Western Syriacs), Aramaeans, and so on. He should be given a 24h block to cool him down. EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 01:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fourth revert was not by the same user, so no block. Blocks are also not used to cool people down. If you believe that the IP is VegardNorman as well, list a code E case on WP:RFCU. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Gilabrand reported by User:Colourinthemeaning (Result: No violation made out)
. : Time reported: 07:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:42, 27 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 20:42, 27 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 06:09, 28 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 06:55, 28 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 07:04, 28 January 2008

I have tried to come to a compramise and incorporate a short explination of the very contentious legal dispute but every addition and new source i have added has simply been removed and replaced with only the view of the Israeli Government. This has become a nationalist POV page which doesnt so much as mention the view of the rest of the world or the international community. Gilo has a very contentious legal foundation which has come to the worlds and medias attention. I think it is important to note this and not simply the view of one government - who, at least in this case, uses the term 'neighborhood' to conjure up images of an area of a city having been rightfully inhabited for a long time, when this is simply not the case. He has made more than 4 full reverts in less than 12 hours and something like 12 edits in 12 hours which further reverted valid additions and sources. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 07:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The first alleged revert and the previous version are the same. It is not proven that the first alleged revert is in fact a revert. There does not seem to be any further edit warring on the page as things stand, but if it restarts, I would recommend WP:RFPP for an expedient solution. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Atlan reported by User:YOUR_NAME (Result: Malformed)
. : Time reported: 13:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 20:06, 27 January 2008 Atlan
 * 2nd revert: 19:45, 27 January 2008 Atlan
 * 3rd revert: 13:26, 27 January 2008 Atlan
 * 4th revert: 19:33, 26 January 2008 Atlan
 * 5th revert: 14:47, 26 January 2008 Atlan


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

"Atlan" continues to delete relevent information without providing any reason. He has misinterpreted the WP rule regarding song lyrics, and is using that as an excuse to randomly delete information. He constantly monitors the Boston College page and seems to treat it as his own personal webpage. He has flatly refused to engage in any discussion of the matter (when I suggested he start a discussion to explain why he keeps randomly deleting information, he replied "do it yourself.") He has also refused to compromise. When I suggested that we could compromise by posting the disputed BC fight song lyrics elsewhere and simply linking to them from the main BC page, he just continued to "undo" my changes without compromise or discussion. 170.63.96.108 (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This report is missing most of the relevant information, including the username of the user you are reporting, the diffs of the alleged reverts, the previous version reverted to (which is mandatory), and a link to a warning. Please see below as to how to properly format the report. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just investigated the history of the page, and no four reverts took place within a 24-hour period, so there is no breach of the 3RR anyway. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that this anon was blocked as User:24.60.254.74 for 3RR and disruption (see report 3.13) and is thus evading a block to report me here.--Atlan (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:82.17.183.68 reported by User:PeeJay2K3 (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 15:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:20, 27 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 09:39, 28 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 11:21, 28 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 12:24, 28 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 13:56, 28 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:51, 28 January 2008

An anonymous user has been editing the Ritchie Jones article to state that Jones has been allowed a free transfer from Manchester United. They also claim that this has been reported on Manchester United's official television channel, Manchester United TV. However, I have been unable to find a source for this on the internet, and so I reverted the anon's edit. They then undid my edit, stating that I was vandalising the article. After their third revert, I issued them with a 3RR warning, and reverted their edit. They have now reverted my edits for a fourth time in the last seven hours, so I am reporting the issue here. The anon claims to be Jones' agent, but this cannot be verified either, and also represents a Conflict of Interest issue. – PeeJay 15:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User: Robertcoogan/User: 210.233.211.96 reported by User:Doczilla (Result: page protected)
. : Time reported: 01:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:15, 26 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 22:56, 27 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 22:59, 27 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:16, 28 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 16:17, 28 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 00:12, 28 January 2008

User:Robertcoogan has identified him/herself as the anonymous User:210.233.211.96.

A short explanation of the incident. As the edit history shows, he reverted the article 8 times on the 27th and continued reverting on the 28th despite a 3RR warning along the way. The reverts listed above are only those that occurred during the last 24 hours in which the individual edited the article. The 3rd and 4th of those came after the 3RR warning. Doczilla (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have fully protected the page. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Clyde4210 reported by User:RMHED (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
. : Time reported: 03:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 02.00, 29 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 02.24, 29 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 02.46, 29 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 02.52, 29 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 02.58, 29 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 03.20, 29 January 2008

User:Clyde4210 is in an edit war with an IP, Clyde4210 keeps removing external links and the IP replaces them. RMHED (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked 31 hours, I would also block the IP for a similar length but it's dynamic. --B (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked and the IP is AOL and I would basically have to range block all of AOL to block him/her. As tempting as that is, some people might complain.  If this user continues to disrupt or edits the article during the next 31 hours, please block the new IP or s-protect the article. --B (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Teleomatic reported by User:Octavian history (Result: no block)
. : Time reported: 05:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 00:12, 26 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 06:22, 26 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 13:26, 26 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 00:04, 27 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

A short explanation of the incident. Octavian history (talk) 05:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC) User Teleomatic has reverted the same section on Hajj Amin Elahi page 4 times within 24 hours. I have warned him many times in the past about the 3RR rule, but he simply deleted my warning. He keeps removing valid citations and will not stop. I need help stoping this guy. Thanks--Octavian history (talk) 05:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not sure this qualifies as 3RR, though I would say that there is an edit war in progress. Teleomatic reported that he checked these citations, and that the given page numbers do not corroborate the assertions made in the article. He tagged the article with , and a few days later, removed the citations and replaced them with  .  Octavian_history has since replaced the  tags with the original citations, but this time without the page numbers .  The last such undo of Teleomatic's edits was made by a brand new account, User:Kurdestani .  The article's talk page will quickly reveal that there is an edit war in progress (Octavian_history also received a 3RR warning, from me ; yesterday the article itself was re-posted to AfD. If anyone else would care to weigh in on that article's talk page, it would be appreciated.  Also note that one of the warnings Octavian_history gave to Teleomatic was an actual block notification (, reposted: ; as of this writing, Teleomatic has not received a block). -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * NOTE Please do not listen to gyrofrog, it absolutely is 3RR. Gyrofrog has a long history of stocking me and attacks my every move. It is 100% obvious that this does qualify as 3RR. --Octavian history (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hence my suggestion that someone else might weigh in... -- Gyrofrog (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly believe Gyrofrog is a sockpuppet for Teleomatic. What is 100% obvious is the fact the tele did brake the 3RR rule.--Octavian history (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, This a violation of the 3RR rule   Compwhiz II ( Talk )( Contribs )  16:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Gyrofrog is an admin and has declined to block. No previous version reverted to has been quoted therefore it is not clear that the first edit above is a revert and not a legitimate edit. This report is closed. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It should not matter that he is an admin according to wiki rules, I strongly believe Gyrofrog is a sockpuppet for Teleomatic, plus tel broke the 3RR rules. Just look at history I placed or on the history page. You must act fairly and according to wiki rules.--Octavian history (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a place for discussion. We have considered your report and declined to take any further action. If you believe there are sockpuppets, list them at WP:SSP or WP:RFCU. This report is closed (really). Stifle (talk) 09:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Benjiboi reported by User:Str1977 (Result:No action; Page Protected)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 16:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Procedural note: I have adjusted the title of the article to the correct one. Previously was Rosie O'Donnel, correct one is Rosie O'Donnell.  - Philippe &#124; Talk 16:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the typo. Str1977 (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:19, 26 January 2008


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 22:52, 27 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 10:54, 28 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 11:45, 28 January 2008
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 12:00, 28 January 2008
 * 5th revert: Revision as of 12:04, 28 January 2008
 * 6th revert: Revision as of 12:17, 28 January 2008


 * Benjiboi is an editor for almost two years. I have been in trouble with him about this before so he positively knows the rule. If any diff is needed, then this proves that he has been warned before and acknowledged the warning.

Benjiboi is very protective of his cherished version of the Rosie O'Donnel article, trying (for reasons unknown, probably POV) to retain certain not actually relevant information and certain wordings. His behaviour is a also a clear violation of WP:OWN as he repeatedly asks those editors to revert to brings to talk to "decide" the issue (apparently with him as final arbiter) without posting on talk himself. He did this to me (even though we have been through the issues some time last year), he did this to another editor today. He also uses false statements in his edit summaries (talking about changing a quote when there is no quote) while ignoring other people's edit summaries.

Str1977 (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that I have protected the page due to edit warring, but I am recusing myself from blocks on this issue. - Philippe &#124; Talk 17:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a good move. Now the perpetrator has his way in any case. Str1977 (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As I've explained to you - ad nauseum - administrators protect the version of the page that's there when they get there. We don't revert to get to a different version.  See the protection policy for more info.  I stand by my actions.  - Philippe &#124; Talk 17:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I need no explanation for that. I know how things work. Still, I stand by my criticism. If you recuse yourself, then stay recused. Str1977 (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I will accept a certain knowledge on that particular article as I have personally gone through most every bit of that article sourcing items that needed it and verifying interesting items being removed as a part of vandalism or POV-pushing in any direction. I don't see that I have prohibited anyone from editing but I will take a firm stance against removing sources, altering quotes to switch out "pedophilia" for "child abuse" and otherwise violating BLP issues I will also do the same and have done so on other BLP. Str1977 and I have been on this page before on nearly identical content with this article because they were edit warring and, as in this case, continued to do so until encouraged to utilize talk pages before again deleting content and altering quotes etc. I turned to 3rr last time as a last resort because no amount of reasoning would convince them that a press release and a right-wing blog were rather poor sources. The article remain stable for some time then they appeared again to change content to show the subject in a less than stellar light. On the article's talk pages seems filled with this user's determination to prove O'Donnell is anti-Catholic. I have consistently persisted that reliable sources were and are the best way to demonstrate this and have stated so and remained extremely communicative with anyone wishing to have open discussion. Str1977's has tended to simply delete material until compelled to dialog. I have also show a good faith effort, I believe, to trim material and add clarity so content was more neutral and hopefully more acceptable. In fairness I can see that Str1977 and Mamalujo, another ardent pro-Catholic editor would be upset about assertions of pedophile priests existing but that is the subject of Deliver Us from Evil and that is what was discussed. Benjiboi 17:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please also see user's post to my talk page. Benjiboi 17:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Benjiboi, don't try to switch the subject. That your accusations of other people changig quotes is false is beside the point here - you have violated the 3R-rule. No, you continue by personal attacks on mine and another editors religion and issue nonsensical, off-topic demands. Str1977 (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I take strong offense that you have continued to claim that I have lied/deceived and engage in personal attacks. Those were sourced quotes (both in quotation marks) you both were changing to edit out "pedophilia". You were also continually removing sources which I continue to see as problematic. I never attacked you or your religion and, in fact, stated I think it's a diservice to Catholics to characterize O'Donnell as anti-Catholic as that mitigates the damage actual anti-Catholics do. I'm also not changing the subject nor have I "issue nonsensical, off-topic demands". On my talk page you also wrote "Probably some POV nonsense. But please don't bother explaining as I actually don't care." Well I do care and have worked many months to improve the article and add sourcing, clarity and to correct errors. If something on the article is wrong we should correct it but that doesn't mean we change history to our liking. If something she said isn't true then we should produce a WP:RS to demonstrate that and figure out how to neutrally present both aspects. "O'Donnell said X but Y is actually true." Benjiboi 17:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if all this were true (and it isn't), you still are not allowed to revert six times. Get it? Now stop this futile discussion. 3RR applies to all, even if they think they are in the right. Str1977 (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is NOT a place for discussion. There are multiple ways to stop edit wars, which include blocking users, protecting the page, and hitting with sticks. The page was listed here because there was an edit war, the edit war has been stopped. Please discuss the page on its talk page and user conduct on the users' talk pages, an RFC, or elsewhere. Report closed. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not discussing, I am merely protesting admin misbehaviour. You get your facts wrong: not a page but a user has been reported not just for edit warring but for violating the 3RR. Apparently that doesn't mean anything anymore. Inserting a passage into the 3RR rules afterwards to justify this behaviour after the fact is also quite underhanded. End. Str1977 (talk) 13:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:202.103.242.100 reported by User:Precious Roy (Result: page protected)
. : Time reported: 00:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC


 * 1st revert: 20:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2nd revert: 01:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3rd revert: 06:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 4th revert: 00:40, 29 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Contentious unsourced content removed from BLP article is being reverted by various IP editors. Though these four edits took place over 28 hours rather than 24, it obviously violates the spirit of the rule. Precious Roy (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * has semi-protected the page. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Colourinthemeaning reported by User:Robertert (Result: Protected)
. : Time reported: 17:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTimehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilo&diff=187477842&oldid=187474997


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilo&diff=187640504&oldid=187531194
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilo&diff=187642901&oldid=187642536
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilo&diff=187723716&oldid=187721251
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilo&diff=187728901&oldid=187725910


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME This user went ahead and reported someone else yesterday and is now doing exactly the opposite thing.

A short explanation of the incident. Robertert (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC) They insist on repeating one side of an issue instead of just giving the link to an article on Wikipedia that deals with both sides. --RobertRobertert (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the second time I've seen this page here in a very short space of time. Protected. Stifle (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jboi11x reported by User:Cobaltbluetony (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 19:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:43, January 29, 2008


 * 1st revert: 11:35, January 29, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 12:13, January 29, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 13:06, January 29, 2008
 * 4th revert: 14:09, January 29, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 14:17, January 29, 2008

User insists his link must be added in talk page then persists in reverting anyone who removes it/ without discussion These are this account's ONLY edits. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Farsiwan22 reported by User:Kitabi420 (Result:24h for both)
. : Time reported: 20:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

A short explanation of the incident. Kitabi420 (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC) This user continues to ignore discussions and refuses to cease pushing POV based edits. Furthermore, he is a well known sockpuppeteer who has hampered the efforts of most honest editors on various articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitabi420 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Both users blocked 24 hours. For the record, Kitabi420's reverts are: 21:25 1/28/08, 17:04 1/29/08, 19:55 1/29/08, and 20:28 1/29/08. POV-pushing is not vandalism, so reverting it is not an exception to 3RR. After the block expires I hope both users will pursue discussion instead of edit warring, rather than simply in addition to it. Kafziel Ask me for rollback 20:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist reported by User:Dlabtot (Result: Not a violation, only 3 reverts given)
. : Time reported: 21:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:10, 28 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 13:37, 29 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 20:30, 29 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 20:32, 29 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:36, 29 January 2008

Edit warring on Deadly nightshade. Dlabtot (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I only see 3 diffs. AN3 is for reverts in excess of 3.  If this is an issue relating to arbcom enforcement or something, it should go to WP:AE. If you believe the page should be protected because of an edit war, you can make that request at WP:RFP.  To be honest, though, having the same argument repeatedly occur across every article dealing with homeopathy or that someone claims is a homeopathic remedy is silly. --B (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)This is not an issue with ArbCom enforcement as it clearly has nothing to do with incivility (which is what the remedies have prescribed please see Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist for details) and SA seems to have stopped edit warring and has begun talking. No action needed here. nat.utoronto 21:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is yet another in the series of unending complaints against Science Apologist, who is under civility patrol from arbcom but no other editing restrictions. Because SA has made great strides to improve his civility over time, editors who are opposed to his strong views on content have sought other remedies to distract and anger him either in the hopes an adminstrator will be duped into agreement or that he will be brought to anger, and thus violate his patrol. There are serious deficiencies in this report that lead me to believe that the complainer should be strongly warned that such behavior not continue. I will list them below.


 * 1) The warning listed is dated after the reverts. Why would someone warn someone, have that person not revert again, and still report them?
 * 2) The warning listed is not even a warning! It's a notification that this thread has been filed. Why no warning?
 * 3) There are only three reverts, not four. Not an entitlement blah blah blah blah. The reporter chose not to report the reverts of User:Levine2112, nor User:Anthon01 - because this is not an attempt to stop edit warring, but to silence one side of a pathetic edit war.

As SA's unofficial civility mentor and advocate, I will not warn Dlabtot for his disruptive behavior, as it would be seen as unnecessarily combative, but I certainly hope someone does. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize, at first I thought this edit was included, but I see that it's technically not a revert. The edit-warring on this article by User:ScienceApologist,  User:PouponOnToast, User:Orangemarlin, User:Anthon01 and User:Levine2112 does not technically violate the 3 revert rule, I suppose because of the tag-team editing that is taking place.  My apologies for raising a false report. Dlabtot (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you thought that edit was included, why didn't you include it in your report? Any comment as to your "warning?" How about your failure to report, or even mention Travisthurston, who ground out three reverts from 18:15, 19 January 2008 to 20:04, 20 January 2008 and specifically mentioned his intent to game 3rr? . PouponOnToast (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a case of take yes for an answer. I don't know what the right answer is for addressing the nonsense/tagteaming/edit warring/everything else that is playing itself out across every article remotely related to someone's concept of homeopathy, but this noticeboard is soley for dealing with actual violations of 3RR, not for solving all of Wikipedia's ills. --B (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfair and quite possibly a personal attack on those of us trying to maintain NPOV across the project, but that's what I always expect out of a Virgina Basketweaving Tech grad. Thanks.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you manage to get a personal attack from that or why you persist in making attacks against my school. --B (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ottava Rima reported by User:Vary (Result:24 hours, article s-protected)
, using IPs and  to circumvent: Time reported: 02:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on.


 * 1st revert: 05:11, January 29
 * 2nd revert: 14:09, January 29
 * 3rd revert: 19:53, January 29
 * 4th revert: 00:55, January 30
 * 5th revert: 02:01, January 30


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Showed understanding of the rule by warning other users of it at 14:22, January 29, 2008 and 00:57, January 30, as well as in edit summaries.

I think that the abuse of IPs is self-evident - 136's only edits are today, picking up ongoing arguments by the main account on two different pages. 75 is a little less glaringly obvious, but also shares intrests in the same articles (ie Woman Holding a Balance) and a similar prose style to the main account. I'm happy to file a SSP if anyone thinks it's necessary, but this seemed straightforward enough to me that I didn't want to waste their time. -- Vary | Talk 02:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Added fifth, made while I was putting together the report. -- Vary | Talk 02:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that Vary has clones on that page. He has reverted the page multiple times using multiple names. Most of the edits done were not the same edit, except his removal which is the same. If you noticed, the wording for each time changed. User Vary is User "Bkonrad" and "WGoldfarb". Notice that not one addresses the issue, and that they keep trying to remove cited information. They have used multiple accounts to try and hide this fact. They are breaking Wikipedia NPOV which demands that both sides of an issue are heard, and they are deleting items which meet Wikipedia Verifiability. 75.104.140.74 (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's rich. Very entertaining accusations. For more amusement, see this edit by the IP, (restoring vandalized statistics) made just a few minutes after leaving this nugget on my talk page. How charming. older ≠ wiser 03:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "19:53, 29 January 2008 136.242.32.174 (Talk) (8,941 bytes) (If tone is an issue, why not rewrite instead of removing sources that are proper and verifiable? You are producing OR.) (undo)" This is a different edit to the page, and all edits after are responding to a completely different rewrite, but each revert from that goes back to the same rewrite. The above user refuses to listen to other's points of view and refuses to accept change in languages. The above user, Vary, user has claimed ownership over the page. 75.104.140.74 (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't the place to debate issues with the article. Ottava Rima is blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR and the article is semi-protected. Kafziel Ask me for rollback 03:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User:121.220.6.59 reported by User:Relata refero (Result: blocked for 24 hours )
. : Time reported: 12:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:27 January 29


 * 1st revert: 09:24 January 30
 * 2nd revert: 12:29 January 30
 * 3rd revert: 16:14 January 30
 * 4th revert: 17:21 January 30


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:12 January 30

BLP. User warring for some time over inclusion of tabloid material. Issue discussed at WP:BLP/N with a consensus that the source is unreliable. Has reverted several different established users. Relata refero (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation → Aza Toth 13:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist reported by User:TheDoctorIsIn (Result:Page Protected)

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made somewhere else, but not here

. : Time reported: 20:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:48, 30 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 19:14, 30 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 19:25, 30 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 19:32, 30 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 19:42, 30 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:10, 20 January 2008


 * The first two look like perfectly normal edits. This is a piling on to SA by another POV pusher.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 20:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Those are obviously four reverts by an editor hellbent on keeping homeopathy out of the article. . . What is a Pov pusher and why are you calling it?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

is not a revert. However edit warring entitlement blah blah blah. Why is there no report about the other party in this two-to-tango forray? PouponOnToast (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I imagine that, because he did not violate 3RR, no one felt it necessary to address the potential. ScienceApologist initiated the reversion, indicating his dislike of the insertion. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure it is a revert. . . Reverts apply to in whole or in part on a single page. . . This editor states in his edit summaries he is reverting to remove "homeopathy". I did not report Levine because he did not violate 3rr. . . right?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Doubful. And quit the personal attacks.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 21:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we should do a checkuser on User:TheDoctorIsIn. Anyone want to request it? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What personal attack? Orangemarlin called me a Pov pusher and I do not even know what that is. . . Now I have a hoard of editors calling me a puppet account. . . please do request it or do whatever you have to do. I gone through this before and this silliness is why I do not edit here so much.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made somewhere else, but not here

User:Wednesday Next reported by User:Neparis (Result:24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 02:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

00:10, 31 January 2008
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 00:00, 31 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 00:19, 31 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 00:27, 31 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 00:38, 31 January 2008
 * 5th revert: 01:12, 31 January 2008
 * 6th revert: 01:23, 31 January 2008
 * 7th revert: 01:27, 31 January 2008
 * 8th revert: 01:34, 31 January 2008
 * 9th revert: 01:39, 31 January 2008
 * 10th revert: 01:51, 31 January 2008
 * 11th revert: 01:57, 31 January 2008

(issued by User:Wednesday Next)
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 23:09, 30 January 2008

The other user involved has also violated 3RR in this dispute, but has remained civil throughout,


 * Not true, see

unlike Wednesday Next who has made personal attacks:


 * Figure it out yourself. You've pissed me off, asshole. Wednesday Next (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2008
 * NO I DON'T BECAUSE THE STATEMENT DOESN'T MAKE THAT CLAIM. IT IS PRESENT TENSE. ASSHOLE. Wednesday Next (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am independent of this content dispute.
 * Both User:Wednesday Next (cool name, btw) and User:Wfgh66 blocked 24 hours for edit warring. Ronnotel (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:AL2TB reported by User:NE2 (Result: no enforcement necessary)
. : Time reported: 03:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:58, 29 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 00:23, 30 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 19:41, 30 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 22:00, 30 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:11, 30 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:06, 30 January 2008

In each of the reverts, AL2TB restored the county abbreviations in the postmile column (despite the county name and abbreviation already appearing in the county column). He claims to be doing it per consensus at WT:CASH, but there was no consensus there. NE2 03:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I meant from WT:ELG. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 04:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * After a bit of discussion AL2TB reverted his final revert, so no followup is necessary. --NE2 04:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Tomixdf reported by User:Leaveout (Result: Page protected for two weeks)
11:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on.


 * 1st revert: 08:23, 30 January
 * 2nd revert: 10:05, 30 January
 * 3rd revert: 10:35, 30 January
 * 4th revert: 10:54, 30 January
 * 5th revert: 11:15, 30 January

Tomixdf is a long-term but not very productive editor.


 * I think Leaveout is a sock puppet of 76.220.202.205 because they have both been making the same large edits to a controversial article without building consensus on the talk page.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That was some heavy kind of revert warring, I decided that the best if to protect the page for two weeks. → Aza Toth 13:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The admin, at first, protected the latest version of the article but then turned around and deeply reverted it. I did not request page protection. I requested that something be done about the person who blatantly violated three. The admin has opted instead sided with the rule-breaker and impose page protection. Why should we have any rule if admins can just ignore it? Are admins just instructed to ignore all rules?--Leaveout (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if said person broke 3RR, all the participants in the dispute is guilty of an edit war, and I think you can solve this on the talk page. → Aza Toth 15:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The reverters have simply attacked the editor on the talk page. They never dealt with the issues. No progress can be made if lazy editors and administrators are just going to attack the editor on the talk page and hit the undo button. Tomixdf deliberately and blatantly broke the rules and the administrator has supported his action and is ever more guilty of violating the rules. Tomixdf received not so much as a warning for his blatant violation of the rules. This can only mean that there is something terribly wrong about AzaToth being an administrator at all.--Leaveout (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note that the above report was filed by a banned editor and yes, socking is ✅. Please leave the article protected - A l is o n  ❤ 18:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Sumerophile reported by User:Til Eulenspiegel (Result:Both blocked )
. : Time reported: 03:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:25, 28 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 14:34, 30 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 19:23, 30 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 20:56, 30 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:22, 30 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:16, 30 January 2008

User was warned but does not take 3RR seriously. User is repeatedly enforcing his unilateral idea that templates always have to be right-justified instead of centered, which is having dire consequences for the layout on most of the articles where it appears. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Both blocked to stop the edit war. John Reaves 06:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Nealparr reported by User:Lucyintheskywithdada (Result: 48 hours; some protection)
,
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Previous version reverted to: 29 January 2008
 * Previous version reverted to: 29 January 2008

and identically to numerous other related WP:3RRs, e.g.


 * Time reported: 10:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 23:32, 30 January 200
 * 2nd revert: 23:42, 30 January 200
 * 3rd revert: 3:02, 31 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 04:22, 31 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 10:09, 31 January 2008

The editor is undertaking wholescale removal involving numerous WP:3RRs over a number of articles removing an infobox relating to spiritualistic topics. [ without prior discussion. he is also making numerous page revisionary page moves to support his position. . , ... the last of which I underline as it demonstrates a SERIOUS misunderstanding of the use of the term Spiritualism (philosophy) Spiritualism within philosophy, see '''Feuerbach, Ludwig Andreas (1863/4). "Concerning Spiritualism and Materialism, 1863/4".''' and spiritualism as animism.

I have since engaged him in discussion and he appears to be having specific issue with the use of the term spiritualism or spiritualistic, which he appears to appreciate solely as used to refer to Modern Spiritualism or Modern American Spiritualism. Of course, the literature, of which there are numerous citations on the topic page disagrees with him.

I have attempted to discuss this with him but am unable to gain any opposing citations and so have to presume that he has some personal issue with the use of the terminology. To attempt to underline the specificity of my argument, I empasise his confusion over the use of the world Spiritualism in philosophy (as relating to the opposing school of Materalism) with spiritualism as a religion or even animism.

In his defence, this may be cultural as the history of European philosophy has given quite a different meaning to the one he has limited his mind to, e.g. the American religion (and I am not promoting it!) but I am absolute in the references I have provided to demonstrate the widespread use of the word elsewhere and its international history and connections. I also note that Neal has never entered into any of the discussion on the topic pages themselves but rather demonstrates too broad or blunt understanding of the words usuage and continues to make confused assertions about claims that I have never made, e.g. spiritualist as Hindusim, or ridiculously that Modern Spiritualism (C19th) was the root of all religions! .

The template was also a subject of a nomination for deletion and survived.

Help ... Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This user doesn't appear to understand what reverts are. I removed an info box per WP:WEIGHT because it placed a heavy emphasis on spiritualism despite it being a New Age subject. That's an edit. I noticed a second info box and removed that, an edit (that's the first two diffs listed). These are not reverts, they are edits. This user then came in and reverted my edits for the first time (1RR), to which I reverted theirs (1RR). The user then came in and reverted me again (2RR), to which I made my second revert (2RR). I made no other reverts after that. In fact, I posted a notice to my talk page explaining my two reverts, why I did them, and that I wouldn't be doing any more. However, the user then came in and reverted me again (3RR) and then filed this complaint after I warned him/her of 3RR. I made two initial edits, not reverts, and two reverts of his/her reverts. He/she reverted me three times. This complaint was filed after my warning him/her, so it was filed in 1) bad faith and 2) without reason, because I told him/her explicitly that I was tired of dealing with his/her POV pushing through info boxes and wasn't going to bother with it for now, even after their last revert. They're clearly on a crusade of some sort that I don't understand. If you read the user's talk page, you'll see that other editors have complained about the info boxes as well, and the editor edit warred with them too. Also note that other editors have started to remove these misplaced info boxes as well   (after my edits) when he/she seems to be the only one who thinks they should be there, enough to revert me three times stopping short only when I call her on it. For the editor to be assuming some sort of moral high ground after making 3 reverts to my 2 is ridiculous.


 * Further, another user has suggested that User:Lucyintheskywithdada is a sock puppet of User:Lwachowski, an editor banned for trolling. So while assuming good faith and just a misunderstanding of what reverts are, I'd like to see a WP:CHECKUSER to confirm one way or the other because his/her actions certainly seem like trolling to me. If any action is taken on me for my two reverts, I request that a private or public check user be performed first (per "reverts to undo actions performed by banned users or currently blocked users evading their block" from WP:3RR).


 * -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 11:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The user also threatens to continue reverting edits every day, Action started without any discussion, never mind provocation.


 * A similar ding-ding happened on the main topic page Spiritualism where Neal moved it without any discussion or seeking consensus and confusing history etc. The first entirely inappropriate from an academic point of view,, then rvs and here;.


 * The user also accused me of starting this page, which I did not; and it being split from Spiritualism (religious movement) without discussion, when there was a month's discussion on that page. Again, no references or citation to substantiate position. I think he might have an issue with the American religion attached to spiritualism but, again, that is not my position nor the general usage in academia these days as the references show very well. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, bad faith filing. The user complains about my 2 reverts, when the editor is still reverting on these articles HOURS AFTER FILING THIS on Extrasensory perception.
 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert
 * 4th revert (after filing this 3RR)
 * Talk about glass houses. The user is on a POV crusade. I said after 2 reverts that I won't be dealing with her/him at this time and stopped removing these info boxes, despite their obvious desire to stamp this stupid info box everywhere (spam). But he/she apparently can't stop what they're doing, and they file this why?


 * Please also look at the infobox template I was removing (the template the user is edit warring to include): Spiritualistic_small, which contains links to a minor religious view and the Spiritualist Church. It also says "Part of a series on Spiritualistic topics", claiming categorical ownership of the article. I only removed it from articles not directly related by prominence to Spiritualism, for example the article on Spirit and non-religious paranormal related articles. Lucyintheskywithdada has been placing this info box on any article with the smallest connection to Spiritualism (like the article shared by all religions, spirit) and this is completely non-commercial spamming of the Spiritualist Church and beliefs. And the user is STILL edit warring to put this spam in (4th revert)! It's spam when placed on articles not predominantly related to Spiritualism. I wasted a lot of time in good faith trying to explain that to Lucyintheskywithdada last night, but she apparently just doesn't care. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 17:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The template in question is clearly being spammed into inappropriate articles by User:Lucyintheskywithdada. For example, she placed the template at the top of the page in the Edward Burnett Tylor article--Tylor was a founding figure in anthropology, who happened to do some work on animism. User:Lucyintheskywithdada apparently thinks that the first thing the reader needs to see when looking up Tylor is her massive template on Spiritualistic topics. Nealparr  was doing good work in removing the template from unrelated articles. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The disruption from both users is patently obvious. Both have been blocked for forty-eight hours. I have also move-protected Spiritualism (beliefs) and fully-protected Spiritualism for ten days. --  tariq abjotu  19:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:74.77.222.188 reported by User:156.34.217.154 (Result:)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 11:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:58, 30 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 23:11, 30 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 00:27, 31 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 05:44, 31 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 10:26, 31 January 2008

Comment IP user has been blanking referenced from the Led Zeppelin article (and others) over the past few days. The user has been issued warnings for vandalism and has a previous block for 3RR violation. The user has also been issued warnings for WP:CIVIL vios and edit history shows an ignorance of WP:NPA both in edit summaries and posted talk page messages. Identically worded edit summaries and edit histories indicate the IP user also edits under the account User:CHawke and an WP:SSP report may have to be filed. 156.34.217.154 (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Donchev reported by User:AdrianTM (Result: Indefblocked by Riana)
. : Time reported: 13:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:52, 29 January 2008 (not sure what I'm supposed to put here)


 * 1st revert: 05:54, 31 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 08:34, 31 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 09:03, 31 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 09:15, 31 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:04, 27 January 2008

The users is just a SPA that is involved edit warring of Romanians and accusations of racism (reported him to WP:ANI too) AdrianTM (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indefblocked by . --B (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:213.47.60.134 reported by User:Quizimodo (Result: No action - user was warned after the last revert)
. : Time reported: 13:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:17, 30 January 2008 (not sure what I'm supposed to put here; see article history)


 * 1st revert: 18:12, 31 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:37, 31 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 18:46, 31 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:58, 31 January 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (on 'Europe' talk page)

Comment This editor (IP) continues to add an excessive list of territories affiliated with Europe but not of Europe. Seems to be confused of the difference between Europe and the European Union, which are not synonymous. He initiated discussion, but only after I suggested it (see edit comments) and continues to insert the list despite no support to do so: in addition to myself, at least two other editors have removed this list. Quizimodo (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Result: No action to be taken as the warning was given after the final revert. I have added a warning on the IP's talk page too, so if there are further reverts the IP has had fair warning. TigerShark (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This seems a rather evasive response, which is analogous to using ignorance of the law as a defense for breaking it. (I was preparing my response on the talk page without any knowledge of the 4th revert.)  Nonetheless, this doesn't excuse that editor's actions. Quizimodo (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We do not block users without warning them first, this is not the Old Bailey. TigerShark (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, perhaps it should be -- after all, he persisted despite my and other edit summaries. Anyhow, I see that another user has since removed the list which was reinsinuated by a User:Pgreenfinch, so you may want to consider further actions or scrutiny regarding this. Quizimodo (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Another user, User:Lodp, has reinserted the list, with similar reasons and phrasing as other supporters of this list. I find it highly unlikely that the anon IP, Pgreenfinch, and Lodp have taken the same position regarding this 'list' and suspect sockpuppetry of some sort.  Will an admin please look into this and take action, or do you wish to stand idly by amidst an edit war? Quizimodo (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit War on United Kingdom reported by User:Dan1980 (Result: No violation by any party)

 * User:Sarah777, User:JdeJ and User:Keizuko are involved in an edit war on United Kingdom, and are "teaming-up" to continuously replace the same controversial statement despite there being no consensus on the article talk page. Time reported: 14:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph in question is backed up by a citation, howvever, the article that this links to appears to be sensationalism and is contradicted by several other reliable sources. I have previously warned User:Sarah777 and User:JdeJ with regard to the 3RR, which resulted in personal attacks against myself from both users and a frivolous sockpuppetry claim from User:JdeJ. All of the parties involved have been invited on several occasions to gain consensus on the article talk page, however they have so far declined to do this and have instead opted to continue reverting edits without entering further discussion. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 14:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Result: No party listed here appears to have violated, even the spirit, of 3RR. There have been no more than a couple of reverts by any of the users over the last few days. It may be that greater effort to engage in dialogue would be useful, but there is no edit warring that I can see. TigerShark (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Stymiee reported by Onorem♠Dil (Result: No action - see below)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 15:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 02:32,  1 February 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Revert to revision 188045725 dated 2008-01-31 00:50:27 by Stymiee using popups")
 * 2) 12:15,  1 February 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 188358113 by GBYehuda (talk)")
 * 3) 13:29,  1 February 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 188367403 by GBYehuda (talk)")
 * 4) 14:42,  1 February 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Revert to revision 188373750 dated 2008-02-01 13:29:35 by Stymiee using popups")
 * 5) 14:59,  1 February 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Removed link spam and bias")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Onorem♠Dil 15:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've also requested page protection, so a block may not be needed based on the result of that. --Onorem♠Dil 15:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a dispute and has been taken to Arbcom by User:Stymiee which I don't think is necessary. I will talk to the parties involved.  Tbo 157   (talk)  17:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Dibol reported by User:Roguegeek (Result: 72 hours)
. : Time reported: 21:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:36, January 31, 2008


 * 1st revert: 17:10, January 31, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:25, January 31, 2008
 * 3st revert: 17:41, January 31, 2008
 * 4nd revert: 17:55, January 31, 2008
 * 5rd revert: 13:48, February 1, 2008
 * 6th revert: 14:42, February 1, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 14:47, February 1, 2008


 * Previous diff of 3RR warning: 16:52, January 31, 2008

Very disrupive behavior on the Xbox 360 article. Been blocked before due to 3RR. Roguegeek (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 72 hours. Longer than usual block but 6RR after a recent warning doesn't wash. Defiance shown to warning on talk page suggests that I was even lenient with this one. I forsee longer blocks in this editors future if they don't quickly start respecting the opinions of the other editors on these pages. Spartaz Humbug! 22:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Jossi reported by User:ScienceApologist (Result:No action)
. : Time reported: 00:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:57, 1 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 13:05, 1 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 13:46, 1 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 13:47, 1 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 17:32, 1 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 17:54, 1 February 2008

Note that the 5th revert was technically not a true revert since intervening edits were made, but the 5th revert's effect was to readd content removed by another user.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 14:03, 1 February 2008

Note that Jossi removed the warning: with the edit summary: ''rv trolling. I am not editing that page''

Jossi has been attempting to force the listing/delisting of certain individuals and himself at this page and in so doing has violated 3RR. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I find that Jossi has been acting within adminstrative discretion. The page is question pertains to procedure, not content, and admins must have latitude to enforce policy. Action declined. Ronnotel (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it fair to say then that this "no action" was an invocation of ignore all rules? ScienceApologist (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, in part, and that Jossi is a well-respected admin trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to de-escalate a tense situation. Can you tell us what you are doing to de-escalate? Ronnotel (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not responding to baiting, for one. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:86.161.95.248 reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result: Protected, IP blocked 31 hours)
. : Time reported: 18:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:40, 2 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 17:43, 2 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:51, 2 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 17:56, 2 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:42, 2 February 2008


 * Same editor was previously editing as and was warned. 18:12, 20 January 2008

Latest batch of edit warring on this article by this editor using a dynamic IP One Night In Hackney  303  18:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The same editor is also edit warring on Continuity Irish Republican Army.--Padraig (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I know who this IP is, M62 coach bombing protected, IP will shortly be receiving a 31 hour Timeout. SirFozzie (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

user:ElectAnalysis reported by Jd2718 (talk) (Result:24h)
This is a non-standard report. user:ElectAnalysis has reverted images on Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007 five times in the last two hours. In fact, the editor's entire 2 hours of existence have been devoted to reverting this article and several additional edits supporting these reverts. See his contribution list.

There is a report at WP:Sockpuppetry but I do not know how quickly that will be resolved, which is why I am reporting the 3RR here. Jd2718 (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Malformed report but I have blocked the user anyway. The fact that his warning was mistakenly placed on his user page instead of his talk page doesn't matter; he is clearly aware of 3RR. 24 hours, possibly more pending outcome of the checkuser. Kafziel Take a number 21:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Reddybrek reported by User:Spinningspark (Result:Already blocked)
. : Time reported: 21:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:44, 2 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 20:48, 2 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 21:12, 2 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:19, 2 February 2008
 * 4th revert: DIFFTIME


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

A short explanation of the incident. Ongoing attempt to spam pages with Brian ReddyB links, which user was previously blocked by PrimeHunter and the current 3RR is probably a sockpuppet  Sp in ni ng  Spark  21:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh never mind, someone just blocked him in the time it took to write this  Sp in ni ng  Spark  21:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup. Already blocked as a sockpuppet. Kafziel Take a number 22:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:76.14.21.128 reported by User:El Greco (Result:Article protected)
. : Time reported: 22:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:09 Jan 31 2008


 * 1st revert: 20:44, February 2, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 20:56, February 2, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:02, February 2, 2008
 * 4th revert: 21:56, February 2, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:08, February 2, 2008

The IP user keeps changing the make year of a vehicle used on the show. The IP user insists it is 1964 from (IMCDB), yet the most verified reference (Popular Mechanics) states 1963. El Greco(talk) 22:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Both of you are edit warring. Article protected for 24 hours. I'm not blocking anyone so both parties can use this time to discuss the disagreement, rather than reverting each other. Kafziel Take a number 23:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have already started a dialogue on the talk page, and am waiting for the IP user to discuss. El Greco(talk) 00:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User:ILike2BeAnonymous reported by User:Tom94022 (Result:malformed)
Apparently because as first reported the report was non-conforming it has been moved and updated Tom94022 (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * malformed Spartaz Humbug! 07:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User:G2bambino reported by User:Lonewolf BC (Result: two weeks )
. : Time reported: 05:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:28, 28 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 19:45, 1 February
 * 2nd revert: 20:24
 * 3rd revert: 20:35
 * 4th revert: 21:29 (a revert both substantially and technically, though not perfectly identically; see below)


 * No 3rr warning was given to G2bambino this time, but the he is well aware of 3rr, having had many past warnings and blocks, and he even warned the other party of having breached 3rr, after he'd made his own 4th revert.

This edit-war was between a monarchist, G2bambino, and a republican, MC Rufus, over the latter's deletion of the sentence beginning, "However, attendance was...". The reverts shown above restored the sentence (or at least its substance and some of its particular words). The first two reverts simply restored the sentence as-was. The third did likewise, but was followed consecutively with two more edits by G2, which added a reference and then moved the sentence's last few words into the reference. The diff above is that of the restoration, leaving aside the two follow-ups edits. The 4th revert restores most of the same material, but re-written to say the exact same thing in almost none of the exact same words: "However" becomes "though", "low" becomes "not numerous", and so on. It restores "Andrew Nichols", though, so it is also a revert technically, even if the revert-in-substance is not enough.

MC Rufus also broke 3rr, and even did so first. On the other hand, MC does not have G2's long history of edit-warring, 3rr violations, and consequent blocks.

See also G2's recent edit-warring on Citizens for a Canadian Republic:
 * 3 reverts of the same thing on 31 January
 * 4 reverts between 18:14, 28 January and 19:46, 29 January, including repeated re-addings of a plainly unencyclopedic external link to a video mocking CCR.

Lonewolf BC (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * G2bambino blocked. MC Rufus only has 100 edits and is clearly still learning so no action taken Spartaz Humbug! 11:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * IMHO, G2bambino's block should be shortened. G2 & MC should both be on probation concerning those Republican articles in question. I'd say have them barred for '2-weeks' from those Republican articles in question. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Admins can't impose article bans unless the article has been placed on probation by the arbitration committee so a block is the only tool I have here. I left a more detailed explanation of my thinking at my talk page. Spartaz Humbug! 07:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Compwhizii reported by User:66.152.198.210 (Result: 24h & page protected)
. : Time reported: 03:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


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


 * not a new user, is familiar with rules

violated 3rr on article. 66.152.198.210 (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * looks like no-one is innocent there as a brand new user comes to make the 4th revert on yourside. I have locked the page for 72 hours. Please use the talk page to reach a consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 07:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Kafzial has blocked for 24 hours as well. Spartaz Humbug! 07:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User:ILike2BeAnonymous reported by User:Tom94022 (Result: no vio/no action )

 * Three-revert rule violation on SCSI.
 * Time reported: 06:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Three rule violation and additional excessive reversions:


 * 1st revert: 23:09, 29 January 2008


 * 2nd revert:10:57, 30 January 2008


 * 3rd revert: 20:46, 30 January 2008


 * 4th revert: 00:08, 31 January 2008


 * 5th revert: 14:46, 1 February 2008


 * 6th revert: 15:20, 1 February 2008


 * 7th revert: 01:30, 3 February 2008

See also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SCSI#Edit_war_by_tom94022_and_ILike2BeAnonymous

Notification of violation of 3RR: 0:743 21 January 2008


 * My first proposed edit, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SCSI&diff=187797480&oldid=187688266
 * His first revision,

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SCSI&diff=187797480&oldid=187688266

We both violated the rule on Jan 30th, in my case unknowingly. Note that unaware of the policy I none the less posted to his talk page, to which he never responded. Following the policy, I backed off and then after a cooling off period stating my intentions in the [SCSI talk page] and then made what i believe to clearly be a set of meaningful changes, consistent with the 3RR policy. I changed the page back to a corrected version of the original text, added a correction to the date and other additional information. ILike2BeAnonymous in his zeal to own this page immediately reverted the entire edit and again on 3 Feb; he has even gone so far as to suppress the date correction supported by a reference. He seems to think he has the right to decide that any mention of SASI other than what he wants to say cannot be posted. In the section marked history, it seems to me that the initmate relationship between SASI and SCSI is not TMI as he asserts. FWIW, the principal differences between SASI and SCSI-1 was the name change, with a some feature additions. He has made this assertion a number of times without justification and continues to do so in spite of the referenced citations added. He continues to not respond to comments on the talk page and simply reverts saying he does not accept or agree or words to that effect. I request that he be blocked from further changes.Tom94022 (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * its not clear that a violation has taken place 3RR in a 24 hour period are required. Please can you both use the article talk page to discuss the edits in question and reach a consensus. If you need outside input you can ask for a third opinion. If this dispute doesn't settle down I'll lock the page. Spartaz Humbug! 07:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User:208.40.192.194 User:TiconderogaCCB reported by User:InMyDreamsJojo (Result:4 blocked)
. : Time reported: 10:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

also edits under 165.190.89.172 (similiarity in edits  Duquesne University), 71.240.94.64 (pittsburgh area) another 3rr reversion here as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.240.94.64. All of them are owned by user TiconderogaCCB who has edited all of these places as can be seen by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=TiconderogaCCB and has been blocked on numerous occasions.

That article's edit history, and the protection log, are sickening. Evidently protection doesn't work, so a large number of blocks are about to be handed out here. Consider these warnings&mdash;future edit warriors there are likely to get a much longer timeout, whether or not they technically violate 3RR. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

4 blocked (including the reporter, whose first edit was "one more revert", and whose second and third edits were here. I will also leave a warning on the article's talk page that future behavior of this type will be dealt with swiftly and harshly; that edit war has gone on for long enough. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User:24.12.248.13 reported by User:68.155.97.188 (Result:no action, malformed )
. : Time reported: 11:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

. : Time reported: 11:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

There are way too many revisions to list them all. Simply put, take a look at the history of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_Nation&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Folk_Nation&action=history

User Chicagofacts was spamming his Google ad-driven website and constantly removing citation request tags from multiple pages. He was blocked numerous times and finally indefinitely banned. An anon with an IP resolving to Chicago is now making identical edits, being blocked temporarily and already labeled as a sockpuppet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.12.248.13

Temporary blocks have solved nothing, that IP needs a permanent block as he's editing half a dozen pages. 68.155.97.188 (talk) 11:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not submitted properly, no action. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 23:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Kalamrir reported by User:MrStalker (Result:24h)
. : Time reported: 13:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:11, 1 February 2008


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

We have a bit of edit war crossing over several pages and it's beginning to get out of control, as my "opponent" just broke the 3RR for the second time (I didn't report him the first time). I think we need some help from admins or other experienced users, preferebly with an expertise in Command & Conquer, to solve this. Block us both if deemed appropriate, I'm beginning to get tired of this.  Mr Stalker  ( talk ) 13:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This might even go into the book of the lamest edit wars of all time. -- Mr Stalker  ( talk ) 13:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Kalamrir blocked for 24 hours. Kafziel Take a number 16:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Miyokan reported by User:Pietervhuis (Result: blocked 24h )
. : Time reported: 11:29, 4 February 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:

This user keeps inserting information that I and other users find irrelevant. The information is from years before and after the actual event the page is about. I've tried to explain him on the talk page but it doesn't seem to help. He reverted both my and another users effort. User complains of vandalism and warns us instead. - PietervHuis (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Reverting vandalism doesn't count, which I gave 2 warnings to this user for. See reporting of this user below. He vandalizes content which he doesn't find agreeable. The only other user who removed this content as well is someone who has admitted that he is a believer of the FSB theory, so these users are removing the counterargument. If user wants to say that this information is irrelevant then how does he explain the "other user who finds it irrelevant"'s reversion which reinserted these entries to the chronology which have nothing to do with the chronology of the bombings - "July 1998: Vladimir Putin was appointed Director of the FSB." "September 1998: Yevgeny Primakov, a KGB veteran, becomes Prime Minister of Russia." "May 12, 1999: Sergei Stepashin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia" "August 9, 1999: Vladimir Putin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia" "March 26, 2000: Vladimir Putin is elected President."--Miyokan (talk) 12:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The information that I added is no more "irrelevant" than a lot of the other information on the chronology.--Miyokan (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Both parties blocked for 24 hours. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 13:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Pietervhuis reported by User:Miyokan (Result: blocked 24h )
. : Time reported: 12:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:27 4 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 01:52 4 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 01:52, 4 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 10:36, 4 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 10:52, 4 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 11:02, 4 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 10:53, 4 February 2008
 * Last warning: 11:05, 4 February 2008

This user keep removing content which he doesn't like while including the other "irrelevant" information in the article along with another user who has admitted that he believes the FSB theory.Miyokan (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't add any other information like you're claiming. Your information is irrelevant as its from years before and after the event which the page is about. The other user is allowed to have his personal opinion. - PietervHuis (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If user wants to claim that this information is irrelevant then how does he explain the "other user who finds it irrelevant"'s reversion which reinserted these entries to the chronology which have nothing to do with the chronology of the bombings - "July 1998: Vladimir Putin was appointed Director of the FSB." "September 1998: Yevgeny Primakov, a KGB veteran, becomes Prime Minister of Russia." "May 12, 1999: Sergei Stepashin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia" "August 9, 1999: Vladimir Putin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia" "March 26, 2000: Vladimir Putin is elected President."--Miyokan (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What reversion? I didn't reinsert any of those entries. Also this dispute is about your entries, not these entries. - PietervHuis (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I was referring to User:Biophys who is the only "other users" that you invoked as part of your argument. This report is about your violation of 3RR, you do not have a right to violate 3RR to remove what you claim is "irrelevant content".--Miyokan (talk) 12:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Why don't you just ask him or discuss it with him? - PietervHuis (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Both parties blocked 24 hours. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 13:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Musiclover565 reported by User:BanRay (Result: Blocked, for 12 hours)
. : Time reported: 19:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: January 25 23:12
 * 2nd revert: January 26 00:34
 * 3rd revert: January 26 01:30
 * 4th revert: January 26 16:09
 * Diff of 3RR warning (1st): January 26 19:04
 * 5th revert: February 03 01:13
 * 6th revert: February 03 13:22
 * Diff of 3RR warning (2nd): February 3 18:19
 * 7th revert: February 03 18:30
 * 8th revert: February 04 20:52

User:Tennis expert rewrote the article, after proposing his changes on the talk page (the previous version was widely seen as unencyclopedic). User:Musiclover565 then reverted Tennis expert's edits altogether (the new version was apparently too long for his liking. The user has been approached by four established editors. I have also left the user two 3RR warnings, both were ignored, cheers.   Ban  Ray  19:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Anthøny 19:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

User:82.5.133.228 reported by User:Compwhizii (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 23:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:41, 4 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 17:41, 4 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:58, 4 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 18:02, 4 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:05, 4 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 18:25, 4 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 18:42, 4 February 2008

Continued adding of links even after disagreement by editors. A discussion is on the talk page.   Compwhiz II ( Talk )( Contribs )  23:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24 hours. Kafziel Complaint Department 00:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Styrofoam1994 (Result:Both users blocked)
This user has been abusing a couple of times.


 * 1st revert:


 * 2nd revert:


 * 3rd revert:


 * 4th revert:

Another Abuse was deleting evidence in a sockpuppetry case.


 * 1st revert:


 * 2nd revert:


 * 3rd revert:


 * 4th revert:


 * 5th revert:


 * 6th revert:

Please solve this situation as efficiently as possible. Best regards-- Durza Twink TALK 03:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As for the new case of sockpuppets against Durzatwink, see here. The older version that he posted is deprecated, and I already got warned for that. contribs STYROFOAM☭1994 TALK 03:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have blocked Styrofoam for 48 hours for various reasons, and Durza indefinitely as a sockpuppet of User:Nku pyrodragon per the checkuser. Keilana | Parlez ici 04:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User:156.110.42.10 reported by User:The Rogue Penguin (Result:User blocked 48 hours )
. : Time reported: 01:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:50, February 3, 2008


 * 1st revert: 16:35, February 3, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:41, February 3, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:46, February 3, 2008
 * 4th revert: 16:49, February 3, 2008
 * 5th revert: 16:54, February 3, 2008
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 16:57, February 3, 2008 - Warned after #5.
 * 6th revert: 16:58, February 3, 2008
 * 7th revert: 17:02, February 3, 2008
 * 8th revert: 17:16, February 3, 2008
 * 9th revert: 17:24, February 3, 2008
 * 10th revert: 17:44, February 3, 2008

This user continues to insert a list of facts about the characters (height, weight, etc.) which other users have insisted is unnecessary. The page has also been protected because of it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * User has been blocked 48 hours, thanks for not violating 3RR yourself. Keilana | Parlez ici 02:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:82.6.15.4 reported by User:Morrismaciver (Result: already blocked )
Barra. : Time reported: 18:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 13h19
 * 2nd revert: 13h22
 * 3rd revert: 14h14
 * 4th revert: 16h00
 * 5th revert: 19h26


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (sole entry on user's talk page, won't let me use a "diff")

A short explanation of the incident: User has added a flag that is generally regarded as not accurate; however, the other editors to the page are willing to be convinced if proof is available. Other editors have removed this user's edits for various reasons such as positioning of edit and reliability of content, user reverts without explanation.

Since this, user has placed several edits that would appear to be in bad faith as a result of the other reversions. Changing "village" to "city", changing the Scottish clans associated with the place, removing pronounciations, removing Gaidhlig equivalents. Normally, this behaviour would result in a vandalism warning.


 * He's continuing to vandalise, I don't see any constructive edits in his edit history. Lurker  (said · done) 18:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There have been several subsequent reversions that would take too long to add.MRM (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * User has now progressed to article Stornoway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morrismaciver (talk • contribs) 19:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

-- slakr \ talk / 15:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Bleek25 reported by User:IrishLass0128 (Result: Blocked 55 hours.)
. : Time reported: 21:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:45, 3 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 23:04, 3 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 23:11, 3 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 15:56, 4 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:44, 4 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 21:21, 4 February 2008
 * 6th revert: 11:19, 5 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:05, 4 February 2008

User insists on removing information from episodes and leaving it his way and no others' even after discussion took place on article talk page. IrishLass (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * S/he's been reverting to his/her version all weekend even though there are two discussions going on on the talk page. I fixed this notice with the times for the reverts, there are more but they are over the entire weekend not just the past 24 hours. I also tried to discuss it on his page and just got told I hadn't watched the episode. KellyAna (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * He reverted again this morning. He's determined to remove content others have put in several times. IrishLass (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No violation; must have four edits in a twenty-four hour period to violate 3RR. · AndonicO  Hail!  02:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it that you don't see 5 edits? He had 5 between 23:04 on the 3rd and 21:21 on the 4th. How is that not a violation? Please explain so I understand because I was going to report him for his reverts. KellyAna (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Right you are, sorry. I think I need to sleep more, it's really getting to me... · AndonicO  Hail!  02:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User:IrishLass0128 reported by User:Bleek25 (Result: no vio)
. : Time reported: 00:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Previous version reverted to:


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

User has been deleting and putting there own information on the page.Bleek25 (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply - only two of three of those are direct reverts. The first and second are a rewrite of what happened and actually could be considered one edit if I hadn't hit save page too quickly before reading exactly what I wrote, and, may I point out, there's no revision in between #1 and #2, therefore #2 cannot be a separate revert.  I have not surpassed 3RR but am dangerously close.  Regardless, it is obvious this report is out of spite over the fact that Bleek25 has over 6 reverts to the page, has received the appropriate warnings, been requested to discuss the matter, and still continues to revert twice now after the warning.  An investigation will show, I have followed all guidelines while Bleek25 chooses to ignore them. IrishLass (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 15:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User:70.54.1.78 reported by User:twsl (Result: already blocked)
. : Time reported: 01:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: []

User insists on having it his way. The publishers description of the manga/comic says it's shonen(instead of seinen), but user disagrees, saying: "Slipknot calls themself metal. It doesn't make them metal though, does it? Fuck." as seen at   Twsl (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 15:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Arsonist's Daughter reported by User:Compwhizii (Result: blocked indef)
. : Time reported: 02:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:27, 2 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 15:24, 3 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 15:29, 3 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 15:39, 3 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 15:52, 3 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 16:42, 3 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 16:00, 3 February 2008

Even if this isn't today, a violation is a violation.   Compwhiz II ( Talk )( Contribs )  02:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * - spam account/WP:SPA as well. -- slakr \ talk / 15:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :)   Compwhiz II ( Talk )( Contribs )  18:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Rerom1 reported by User:Schwalker (Result: 31 hours)
. : Time reported: 12:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:24, 4. February 2008


 * 1st at 14:44, 4 February 2008,
 * 2nd at 22:04, 4 February 2008,
 * 3rd at 2:21, 5 February 2008
 * 4th at 11:32, 5 February 2008

There had been one revision of this kind before.
 * warning at 2:30, 5 February 2008 by User:Viriditas

A single purpose account is trying to change article content against the opinion of other users. Schwalker (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 15:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User:76.87.47.110 reported by User:Griot (Result: no vio )
. : Time reported: 12:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: Feb 4, 10:56


 * 1st revert: Jan 23, 19:10
 * 2nd revert: Jan 24, 17:01
 * 3rd revert: Jan 26, 1:18
 * 4th revert: Jan 27, 20:00
 * 5th revert: Jan 30, 17:29
 * 6th revert: Jan 31, 19:46
 * 7th revert: Feb 1, 14:55
 * 8th revert: Feb 3, 12:37
 * 9th revert: Feb 3, 15:08
 * 10th revert: Feb 4, 10:56

This editor drops into this article everyday and does a wholesale revert of one of the lead paragraphs. He/she’s been doing it for some time. I warned him/her about 3RR on his/her Talk page. BTW, does this constitute longterm vandalism? Griot (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 15:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Pietervhuis reported by User:Miyokan (Result: 1 week )
. : Time reported: 15:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:24, 5 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 14:10, 5 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 14:42, 5 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 14:49, 5 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 14:50, 5 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 14:55, 5 February 2008

Edit warring. User just came off a 24 hour block for edit warring no less than a couple of hours ago. Miyokan (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * &mdash; Apparently he wasted no time in getting back to reverting people. -- slakr \ talk / 15:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Navnløs reported by User:Twsx (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 23:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:24, 24 January 2008


 * 1st revert: 23:56, 4 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 00:18, 5 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:58, 5 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:17, 5 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:19, 5 February 2008

This is about an heated, endless and inconclusive debate about whether line breaks or commas should be used to delimit genres in infoboxes (see here). In this case, editor is enforcing his preferred version rather harshly. Multiple reverts since middle of January. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 23:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I partly agree with Twsx (about the inconclusive issue) he has no right to report me. First of all yes, I was reverting someone on the Rush page because they were violating an armistice. I warned them about 3RR and edit warring first only to then be warned myself that I was violating both (utterly ridiculous since I'm only keeping up an agreed armistce to stop edit warring). Twsx also has no right to report me as he has been warned many times and is a known edit warrer who, until a couple days ago, has continued to edit war on at least two pages only to be reverted by me and others. I would like a definitive answer to the genre delimiter issue, but since one is not forthcoming, I protect pages and make sure that they stay in their form (whether its comma breaks or line breaks) so this: "editor is enforcing his preferred version rather harshly" is ridiculous. I do prefer line breaks but I try to keep allpages they way they are (whether that be line breaks or comma breaks). I should not even have to defend myself against these claims but I have no choice as I have reported users like Twsx in the past only to be laughed at (since the editors thought the genre delimiter deabte trivial). I reall don't know what else to say.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 23:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I should add that User:Twsx has many many times over broken 3RR and that the 156-multiple-IP-user who I am having this issue with on Rush has also broken 3RR.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 23:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * – Multiple editors seemed to have a problem with the formatting changes, yet this user was the only one reverting them (presumably against consensus). For the record, an article won't get demoted from featured article status over such a minor formatting issue (honestly, I've seen both formatting methods on various pages), but it is more likely to get demoted for constant edit warring and instability.  I also would, in the future, avoid using the term "armistice," since this encyclopedia is not a battleground, so there aren't any treaties.  We work on consensus and the process of changing consensus&mdash; not military treaties set in stone.  Consider using the talk page in the future. -- slakr  \ talk / 00:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User:NrDg reported by User:NimiTize (Result:No violation )
. : Time reported: 00:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:02, 6 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 23:37, 5 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 23:41, 5 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 23:49, 5 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 00:02, 6 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 00:03, 6 February 2008

This is a feud between, if Sean Flynn, is the part of the main cast (Zoey 101) or not, which he isn't, because he is not suppose to be in anymore episodes of Season 4, till the end. And, NrDg keeps telling me that (s)he's getting info from IMDB, which IMDB is not a reliable source, and theres no SOURCE. Also I warned the user, but that didn't seem to do anything and he reverted once again.
 * No violation; NrDg has only reverted 3 times. Keilana | Parlez ici 00:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on Plovdiv by User:Avidius and User:ILike2BeAnonymous reported by User:CoJaBo (Result: Users asked to cease edit war.)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . and : Time reported: 20:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: Avidius, ILike2BeAnonymous


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Avidius, ILike2BeAnonymous

Edit war involving the link Plovdiv: Granada of the East on Plovdiv. Attempts have been made to discuss the issue on the talk page, yet the reverting still goes on. Avidius insists the link is unnecessarily biased.  ILike2BeAnonymous insists the link should remain because it presents an alternative view.  Most of the last 100 edits to Plovdiv are Avidius and ILike2BeAnonymous (and a few others) reverting between the version with the link, and the version without. CoJaBo (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Couldn't find a technical violation but the edit war is way out of hand. Users asked to cease disruptive edit war: and . Page will be watched. CIreland (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Bueller reported by User:Commodore Sloat (Result: No action)
. : Time reported: 09:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:32, 4 February 2008
 * (Note - there were some intermediate changes by an anon ip, but the material that Bueller keeps deleting is contained in these edits).


 * 1st revert: 14:15, 5 February 2008 (sequence of several edits)
 * 2nd revert: 19:11, 5 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 01:16, 6 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 01:46, 6 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 01:49, 6 February 2008

I think the user should be blocked if he fails to heed the 3RR warning. If he self-reverts I do not think he should be blocked. But that is my opinion; I don't know what the usual practice is; he's been a user for 2 years and appears familiar enough with the rules. The fact that he has edited for two years as basically a single-purpose account may be relevant (he has mostly edited this article alone). csloat (talk) 09:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The edit war seems to have stopped and Bueller has not touched the page since the warning. It's customary to warn someone before reporting them. Closing with no action for now. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So 4 reverts is OK then? Shouldn't bueller have self-reverted?  Is it ok for me to revert him now (which would be my fourth revert)?  Can an admin at least explain to bueller that he has violated the rule and that such action normally would lead to a block?  The only reason he stopped reverting is because his last revert is the last change on the page. csloat (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)  PS I did warn Bueller before reporting him. csloat (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Explanation given.
 * The intention given is that a warning should be given and ignored (i.e. a further revert made afterwards) before a relatively new user is reported and blocked. Stifle (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is two years still considered relatively new around here? I didn't even think a warning was necessary given the user seemed familiar with the rules but I gave one anyway just because I didn't want to seem punitive about it.  Anyway I appreciate you commenting on his talk page; a warning from the person he's edit warring with is not nearly as likely to be heeded as a warning from an uninvolved admin. csloat (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User:74.77.222.188 reported by User:Fair Deal (Result:24h block)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 11:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 09:28, 6 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 09:38, 6 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 09:44, 6 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 09:53, 6 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 10:59, 6 February 2008

Comment IP user has been edit warring across several articles over the past few weeks. Has a previous history of warnings and blocks.(previous block log) Editor has also ignored WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA on both article talk pages and user talk pages. Fair Deal (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * User blocked 24 hours. CIreland (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Svetovid reported by User:Squash Racket (Result: Blocked, 12 hours; parties cautioned)
. : Time reported: 15:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:34, 5 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 20:02, 5 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 10:57, 6 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 13:16, 6 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 13:45, 6 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 13:12, 6 February 2008, although he had already made a report himself.

This user broke 3RR. These are his main reverts, but actually he deleted others' contributions many times during the day. Among others he is deleting text from the article and the references supporting them. He made controversial changes without discussion first. On the 17th/18th of January he already broke 3RR at the article Trenčín without being reported, but this time he doesn't seem to stop. He called my 3RR warning 'inflammatory, rude' and a 'personal attack'. Squash Racket (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Is the third revert a real revert? It seems more like expansion and the "fourth" revert is the real revert to this new version. That would make only three reverts in 24 hours. The edit war between Svetovid, Hobartimus, and Squash Racket appears to be over now anyway because the article is now listed in Requested moves and users are engaged in a discussion on the article's talk page. But I might be too optimistic, of course. Tankred (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The third revert is just like the others and in fact he made way more disruptive edits in 24 hours than just four. Squash Racket (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Svetovid has engaged in disruptive behaviour, and it cannot be permitted to continue: the user is Additionally, I have issued a warning to Squash Racket, who was also engaging in edit warring, although admittedly to less a degree than that to which Svet. was. Hopefully all the parties can move on, and engage in meaningful discussion, with the aim of working towards a compromise, rather than disrupting the article.  Anthøny  20:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Lear 21 reported by User:Sandpiper (Result:3 weeks)
. : Time reported: 01:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:21


 * 1st revert: 13:56
 * 2nd revert: 14:59
 * 3rd revert: 22:34
 * 4th revert: 23:41
 * 5th revert:23:48


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:54 12 November 2007

User Lear 21 has persistently edited this page agressively including violations of 3RR whenever the page is not to his liking. The page has twice been locked from editing over content disputes where Lear was the major party on one side of the dispute, and he engaged in multiple violation reverts. It is no more likely that locking the page for a third time will discourage lear from continuing this behaviour in the future than it has been thus far. Last time this happened I checked and noted policy that locking a page for a content dispute is discouraged. Perhaps some other action can be taken this time? Sandpiper (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * User Lear 21 has not violated 3RR according to Wikipedia policies. The user has reestablished a consensus layout/section-heading already existing for more than half a year and is supported by several editors. User Lear 21 has argued for this consensus version at the talk page this time and is still supported by a majority. The accusing User Sandpiper and another user have instead developed a long history of disruptive editing vandalizing majority consensus at the EU article. Without gaining support of their proposals at the discussion forum. The listed 5 reverts are different edits and indicate no violation of any suggested policy. Lear 21 (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite the contrary. There is no requirement that all edits be the same in order for them to qualify: any four reverts, in whole or in part, count. More importantly, Lear is very clearly edit warring. This is to say, he is essentially attempting to force his version (the one saying "Economy") through by repeatedly reverting. Because of the rather long history he has with edit warring, I have blocked for three weeks. SouthernElectric has also been edit warring, and therefore I have blocked for 24 hours (this being a first offence). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

What policy justifies a 3 week block? All edits are clearly different, are backed at the talk page by the majority of editors and have argued in detail by myself !!!! I am merely upholding a consensus layout. There is clearly no violation. Please reconsider the decision. Lear 21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.10.76 (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've answered you on my talk. I've also already told you how to contest your block. Now, please stop using IPs to get around the block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:GeeAlice reported by User:Zerida (Result:Indef. block)
. : Time reported: 23:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:46


 * 1st revert: 00:48
 * 2nd revert: 9:37
 * 3rd revert: 15:20
 * 4th revert: 15:30

I've had to supply a url because the page in question is for an image, not an article. User is aware of 3RR because it's almost definitely a sockpuppet of banned User:Jeeny, but also because I found a post where she mentions it. User:Jeeny had a history of disruption on Egypt-related articles, so it was only a matter of time before this was going to happen. I plan to file an RFCU. — Zerida 23:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * RFCU filed. — Zerida 00:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This person is retaliating over a tag I placed for an image rename Image:Egyptians.jpg to Egyptian collage.jpg. I first had Egyptian people collage, but shortened it because of his revert, and rude edit summary. No communication from him, except for short rude comments. In fact, he is the one who kept reverting after I tried to explain the reason, and broke the 3RR rule. It is NOT an article, it is a tag to leave to the admin to decide if it is better to name it to the new, more DESCRIPTIVE name. That's all. ← Gee ♥ Alice  01:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not willing to block because both users are edit warring. Of course, if it turns out that GeeAlice is an abusive sock, it will be fine to revert him/her again, but in the meantime, please don't edit war here. I'll be watching the page to make sure no one does. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * CheckUser confirmed identity and user was indefinitely blocked. And I wouldn't be "editing warring" if I wasn't certain it was an abusive sockpuppet, though this should be mor patently obvious to someone who's interacted with the user. — Zerida 19:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Quizimodo and reported by User:Soulscanner (Result: Warning)
. : Time reported: 04:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

A short explanation of the incident. Soulscanner (talk) 04:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Removal of various POV tags that identify passages and sources currently being verified and discussed on talk page.
 * This report is not unexpected, rather limited in scope, and of course one-sided. This disruptive editor has been placing 'dubious' and 'neutrality' tags on various assertions in 'Dominion' that said editor disagrees with despite the sources fully conforming with Wikipedia policies (some accompanied by quotes) and with little justification, doing so without good faith or salient reason, and with misleading commentaries on the talk page.  In essence, this editor is unable to compel through argument and/or sourcing, with similar behaviour going back to related edits on 'Canada' in Sep./Oct., and said placement of tags on selected notions herein is a a hyper-reaction.  This editor has also initiated an arbitration case regarding this, without making salient attempts to seek mediation despite claims -- again, a hyper-reaction.  As per my request on the RfA page and as a result of said editor's continual dickery, I hereby request the 'Dominion' article be locked until further notice.  Moreover, since it takes two to tango, any administrative actions taken against me (and I may have violated 3RR) should be exacted upon Soulscanner too.  I contend this report is arguably an attempt to quell opposition.  In any event, I hereby pledge to refrain from edit warring on this article, and to not be drawn into additional edit wars with this editor.  Quizimodo (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's customary to warn people and give them a final chance before reporting them here. As Quizimodo was not warned and has agreed to stop edit warring, I am not going to block on this occasion. Soulscanner did not violate 3RR, stopping before the fourth revert. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fourth generation jet fighter
Fourth generation jet fighter has degenerated into an editwar and requires an admin to step in. Various parties have abused the 3R rule. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC).
 * Please use the report template at the bottom of this page to make reports. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Guest2610 reported by User:V-train (Result: 48 hours)
. : Time reported: 08:54, 7 February 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:

User keeps adding links that do not meet WP:EL and are WP:LINKSPAM, including discussion forums and multiple links to the same websites. V-train (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Users only edits are to that one page; blocking for 48 hours with a strong warning. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Ó Flannagáin reported by User:Hankwang (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 12:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:46, 4 February 2008


 * 4th revert: 12:28, 7 February 2008
 * 3rd revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 1st revert: 13:54, 6 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 6 Feb 2008

Re-adding of inappropriate external links; 9 times since 4 Feb, 2 of them as User:67.9.62.131. Han-Kwang (t) 12:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. Stifle (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:ScrotalRaphe reported by User:Nandesuka (Result:Blocked )
. : Time reported: 16:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 06:19, February 7, 2008


 * 1st revert: 07:12, February 7, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 07:16, February 7, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:10, February 7, 2008
 * 4th revert: 16:13, February 7, 2008

User User:ScrotalRaphe has decided that a large number of articles need a photo of his genitals. He has violated the 3RR on Perineal raphe and is well on the way towards doing so on Erection, Glans penis, and Glans. Suggestions that he discuss his additions on the talk pages of the articles have, thus far, been fruitless. Nandesuka (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 16:16, February 7, 2008
 * Jayron32 beat me to the indef block. Nandesuka, I don't think anyone would have objected if you had just blocked him yourself. Spartaz Humbug! 16:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:G2bambino and reported by User:Soulscanner (Result: Protected Reporter warned not to drag up old grievances)
. : Time reported: 04:19, 7 February 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: DIFFTIME

A short explanation of the incident. The pattern here is clear. In this old edit war the editors in question replaced a number of descriptors for Canada (federation, federal state, etc.) with words containing the word Dominion. User:G2bambino would continue the edit war stopped by User:Quizimodo when informed of violating 3RR rule. This is over the same content issue as the current Dominion article, and the same pattern is employed. I do not wish to be drawn into a similar edit war in the case above, but I do not want relevant neutrality tags removed in the case above either. I did not put this 3RR violation here before because it was the first time I'd seen it, and made a request to pp-dispute lock on the page, which was granted and made the 3RR report unnecessary. Please see link to Edit history page. Soulscanner (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Multiple users edit warring - page protected for a week. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't bothered to check the validity of the report, but really, bringing up something from four months ago? Truly, what more can this be than retaliation for my report against Soulscanner above? --G2bambino (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I misread the dates and have unprotected the page since. I am going to warn Soulscanner about the purpose of this noticeboard. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User EBDCM (Result:no violation)
 Multiple reverts. Report by Mccready (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please use the report template at the bottom of the page if you would like your report acted on. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record EBDCM has made several edits in a row, some of which are reverts. This is not edit-warring and the sequence of edits counts as one revert for 3RR purposes. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Would be grateful Stifle if you could check again on this These are reverts. Mccready (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * has not violated the 3-revert-rule in any recent edits to Chiropractic. Hence, no action. CIreland (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Huaiwei reported by 203.218.45.144 (talk) (Result: Incomplete)
. : Time reported: 21:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:

 


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

Comments: You did not warn the user. Also, reverting meatpuppet edits is not part of WP:3RR, thus, I don't think this qualifies as a violation. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What meatpuppet edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.96.58 (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This report doesn't show any reverts. The third and fourth diffs are no change. Please see below for the correct format. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Re-report:
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * And he ignored most useful edits in between. E.g. he kept removing East Star Air, and he insisted to have some names displayed in simplified Chinese characters, and some in traditional characters. This is simple vandalism. 203.218.46.16 (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User:SchmuckyTheCat reported by 203.218.46.16 (talk) (Result: Exempt)
. : Time reported: 22:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:

 


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

Reverts exempt from 3RR as they are reverting contributions of a banned user. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Who is the banned user? 203.218.46.16 (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why am I a banned user? 203.218.46.16 (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User:SamEV reported by 150.210.226.6 (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC) (Result: Closed; page semi-protected)
. : Time reported: 01:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominican_Republic&diff=prev&oldid=189410834

Also has made 3rr reports on others
 * Diff of 3RR warning: No need not a new user and has been blocked many times in the past for 3rr violations

Utilizes a style of ownership of articles and attempts to force an opinion on an article. Seems to edit in a very pro-caucasian style as can be seen by his edits. One example being removing the ethnic catagory of an African placing him as being portuguese (White). Has made reports on others concerning non consensus behavior as well even though many of his edits are reversion of others. Also almost solely edits on racial type catagories on all his edits. Please watch him. 150.210.226.6 (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The person who had the audacity to file that frivolous report is none other that the banned User:Mykungfu/ReadyToLive/UnclePaco, etc, etc.


 * He's been using several IPs to revert the Dominican Republic article to the same basic version, in the process undoing the work several good-faith editors have done over the past week. Here's a list of his reverts:


 * 00:11, 7 February 2008 IP: 67.87.197.9
 * 23:55, 6 February 2008 IP: 67.87.197.9
 * 15:14, 6 February 2008) IP: 4.20.74.62
 * 06:05, 6 February 2008 IP: 74.65.240.183
 * 02:00, 6 February 2008) IP: 150.210.226.2 (note it's the one he used on this noticeboard)
 * 03:30, 3 February 2008 IP: 66.152.198.210


 * Other vandalism also by 66.152.198.210:
 * 08:32, 3 February 2008
 * 05:05, 3 February 2008 (notice he actually calls it vandalism himself)
 * 03:28, 3 February 2008.


 * And also this, by 150.210.176.64, which seems related to 150.210.226.2:
 * 22:31, 1 February 2008.


 * I'm not the only one who's found this behavior offensive. The last editor to revert him was another of the article's principal editors.


 * User 150.210.226.6 is a net negative to Wikipedia, and I'm very confident that he is in fact the banned user Mykungfu.
 * SamEV (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not at all convinced that your reverts are exempt from 3RR, but I am going to close this report with no further action as the report is frivolous or vexatious. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Noting also that the page has been semiprotected by Rjd0060. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Skyring reported by User:Wm (Result: 31 hours)
. : Time reported: 08:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:41, 22 January 2008

Text being reverted to is:
 * David Matthew Hicks (born 7 August 1975) is an Australian who, after five years detention by the United States government for involvement with terrorism, entered into a plea bargain to become the first and only Guantanamo Bay detainee to be convicted under the U.S. Military Commissions Act of 2006. Hicks's treatment, trial process and outcome, and the newly created legal system under which these events took place, drew widespread criticisms and controversy.


 * 1st revert: 13:50, 23 January 2008
 * 2nd revert: 07:23, 24 January 2008
 * 3rd revert: 09:58, 25 January 2008
 * 4th revert: 05:02, 26 January 2008
 * 5th revert: 16:08, 27 January 2008
 * 6th revert: 18:07, 28 January 2008
 * 7th revert: 22:40, 28 January 2008
 * 8th revert: 05:58, 1 February 2008
 * 9th revert: 06:11, 5 February 2008
 * 10th revert: 13:54, 5 February 2008
 * 11th revert: 12:27, 8 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warnings
 * 16:07, 5 February 2008


 * Diff of no revert policy warning in article talk page:
 * 22:18, 4 February 2008

A short explanation of the incident: I am submitting this notice because WP:3RR says: '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. The above reverts apply to the work of several users who have all tried and failed to moderate the opening paragraph away from User:Skyring's preferred wording. User:Skyring claims his preffered wording is "consensual" but active editors want to change it and have been consistently prevented from doing so by no-compromise reverting over several weeks.

Please note also that the 10th revert was marked by User:Skyring as "minor". Wm (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Given Skyring's block log, a 31-hour block for edit warring is warranted. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User:172.189.51.193 reported by User:JdeJ (Result: Semi-protected)
. : Time reported: 10:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16.41 5 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 19.40 7 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 04.56 8 February
 * 3rd revert: 05.03 8 February
 * 4th revert: 05.13 8 February


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 05.10 8 February

Apart from violating the rule, the user's edit is very close to vandalism S/he inserts fictional data instead of that found in the sources. JdeJ (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Semi-protected. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mtracy9 reported by User:Gamaliel (Result:24 hours )
. : Time reported: 20:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:46, 7 February 2008

Reverts made after report filed:
 * 1st revert: 20:01, 7 February 2008 as User:68.108.54.5
 * 2nd revert: 08:06, 8 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 14:57, 8 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 15:48, 8 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 22:05, 8 February 2008
 * 6th revert: 23:16, 8 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:39, 6 January 2008

Repeated reversions to edits removing fringe conspiracy theory] material from unreliable sources. User:68.108.54.5 and User:Mtracy9 are the same user. They edit the same articles, they both made the same threat to "report me" for "violating policy". See the history of Talk:Trial of Clay Shaw, where the IP corrects typos in Mtracy9's comments ten minutes later. Gamaliel (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: User has made a 5th and 6th revert since this report was originally filed. Gamaliel (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24 hours. Kafziel Complaint Department 04:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:RJ CG reported by User:Martintg (Result: both blocked )
. : Time reported: 21:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:29, 6 February 2008e


 * 1st revert: 17:57, 8 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:03, 8 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 18:34, 8 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 19:04, 8 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 19:19, 8 February 2008


 * 3RR warning: User:RJ CG has previous history of edit warring Estonia related articles and has been repeatedly blocked in the past. There is also a finding of fact for sustained editwarring in a recent ArbCom case.

Combative edit warring and reverting content and tags in section concerning Geopolitical reorientation. Martintg (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've blocked both: the IP for 48 hours and RJ CG for 2 weeks. The IP wasn't warned but from his edit summaries it's very apparent he's a reincarnation of someone or other in the Estonian sock stable. Not a Tartu IP from what I can see, which leads me to think it's not Digwuren evading his ban. Tricky one, this. I'll keep an eye on it. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 22:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User:24.30.38.213 reported by User:Amatulic (Result:article protected)
. : Time reported: 21:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 15:01 2008-02-04
 * 2nt revert: 20:56 2008-02-05
 * 3rd revert: 11:35 2008-02-06
 * 4th revert: 13:29 2008-02-06
 * (editor receives 24-hour block on 2008-02-07, and immediately resumes edit warring when block expires)
 * 5th revert: 13:05 2008-02-08
 * 6th revert: 18:25 2008-02-08
 * 7th revert: 20:50 2008-02-08 - still not participating in talk page discussion, but accuses others of bias on user talk page.
 * 8th revert: 21:43 2008-02-08 Second 3RR violation (4 reverts in less than 24 hours)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:57 2008-02-05

User received several warnings about adding unsourced editorial comments on shadow people. User doesn't appreciate warnings, and doesn't respond except to blank his talk page each time he receives a new warning. The reverts are somewhat under the radar for 4 reverts in 24 hours, but he's consistently reverting about 3 times per day. (Well, if you count his talk page blankings, he's reversion rate is above 4 per day.)

"Last version reverted to" is dated later than 1st revert because of improvements people are attempting to make to the article while the reversion war continues. Amatulić (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Although the first revert is different from the others, the anon is clearly edit warring. 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Issue still unresolved. Anon resumed edit warring immediately after 24-hour block expired. -Amatulić (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Update: user is no longer silent; finally engaging on his talk page, but not addressing concerns, rather accusing others of bias. -Amatulić (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is already semi-protected. No need for a 3RR block at this point. Kafziel Complaint Department 04:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Karaku reported by User:the Rogue Penguin (Result:24 hours )
. : Time reported: 03:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:25, February 7, 200


 * 1st revert: 07:26, February 8, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 15:32, February 8, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 18:50, February 8, 2008
 * 4th revert: 19:13, February 8, 2008
 * 5th revert: 19:34, February 8, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:19, February 8, 2008 - Includes warning that 3RR report would follow.

Continued removal of self-published source tag for a forum. The user doesn't address the issue when removing it, merely claiming that it's reliable because of who posts. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24 hours. Kafziel Complaint Department 04:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Momento reported by User:24.98.132.123 (Result: semi-protected)
Prem Rawat. : Time reported: 19:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Despite requests on user's talk page [User:Momento] has not discussed issue and instead has performed multiple reverts. 24.98.132.123 (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I repeatedly deleted 24.98.132.123 inclusion of this article []. as a violation of BLP. It has since been deleted on  21:20, 6 February 2008 by David D. (Talk | contribs) (52,115 bytes) (→Media: this has nothing to do with the subject) (undo). Thanks.Momento (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Observation from the sidelines: Both editors appear to be acting in good faith, although I am disturbed at the apparent bias displayed by Momento in zealously eliminating all traces of sourced and notable criticism of the subject. The criticism exists, it comes from notable sources such as ex-members of the organization, and respectable publications (books and newspapers) are available to back it up. Citing WP:BLP as a catch-all excuse for deleting criticism doesn't seem proper. If the criticism is valid (and it appears to be) then it should be included, with sources, and improved rather than deleted repeatedly. If it were me, I'd block both editors for a week so that others can make positive contributions to the article. =Axlq (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ex-members and tabloid newspapers are not suitable sources for a BLP when there are many noted sociologists and religious scholars to use. In this case The Register article is completely innappropriate.Momento (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Speaking as someone with no involvement in this article: On the contrary, ex-members (especially an organized group of them) have a perspective and experience that sociologists and religious scholars sorely lack. When it comes to criticism, Momento appears to have a double standard regarding sources; this comment is telling. Verifiability and reliability are sufficient; academic credentials aren't a requirement. Ex-members are verifiable and reliable sources for their own criticisms.
 * I see no need to continue this conversation further. I stand by my comment that both editors should be banned for a week, for violating 3RR. =Axlq (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As the article has been semi-protected, apparently due to vandalism concerns, there's probably no block necessary, but I'll leave this up for a bit in case another admin disagrees. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether IP 24.98.132.123 relates to any of the editors of the article. At the time he couldn't have edited the article without logging in as the article was already semi-protected before this incident (I think... a semi-protection tag was up all the time and I saw no IP's edit the article in that period). Anyway, I also issued a 3RR warning for, who was Momento's counter-part edit-warrior most of the time for (re-)insertion of the material deleted by Momento in the same period.

As an alleviating circumstance, both engaged in talk page discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

My contentions were incorrect for the 6 february incident, which I know nothing of. They apply to the 8 february incident which is reported by user:cirt below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:206.174.18.117 reported by User:Maxamegalon2000 (Result: 24 hours )
. : Time reported: 06:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 2008-02-07T18:50:24


 * 1st revert: 2008-02-08T13:18:02
 * 2nd revert: 2008-02-08T19:41:19
 * 3rd revert: 2008-02-08T20:44:15
 * 4th revert: 2008-02-08T22:11:01
 * 5th revert: 2008-02-08T23:04:35


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-02-08T20:47:28

Repeatedly adding a comparatively nonnotable detail to the article's lead, despite consistent calls from multiple editors to discuss such an addition first. Maxamegalon2000 06:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll block for 24 hours, but you'll need semi-protection if he comes back as another IP. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 13:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Momento reported by User:Cirt (Result: Blocked 24 hrs)
. : Time reported: 13:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:42, 8 February 2008


 * Removing image
 * 1) 19:42, 8 February 2008
 * 2) 20:31, 8 February 2008
 * 3) 05:32, 9 February 2008
 * 4) 11:31, 9 February 2008


 * Removing external links
 * 1) 19:42, 8 February 2008
 * 2) 20:56, 8 February 2008
 * 3) 21:12, 8 February 2008
 * 4) 22:07, 8 February 2008
 * 5) 05:34, 9 February 2008
 * 6) 11:31, 9 February 2008


 * Previous warnings for 3RR
 * 1) 23:31, 12 March 2006, by
 * 2) 00:00, 21 May 2007, by
 * 3) 19:38, 6 February 2008, by . (Reported to here for 3RR, was not blocked, as described below.)
 * 4) 19:47, 6 February 2008, by
 * 5) 13:09, 9 February 2008, by (This also serves as notice of report here, see DIFF.)

was already previously reported to WP:ANI/3RR on this article 19:38, 6 February 2008, by. had suggested a block to both parties. No one was blocked because he was edit-warring with an IP address, and the article was then semi-protected. He continues to revert, edit-war with multiple other editors, even after the semi-protect was put into place. Cirt (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There was no edit war with an IP address IN THE SAME PERIOD, the page was semi-protected at the time. See my comments here: (WP:AN3) --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes, there was. Just check the contribs for .  Cirt (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * These edits were from two days earlier. Semi-protection occurred 20:29, 6 February 2008. In the period you're speaking of for Momento's edit-warring on this content (8 february) the re-insertions of the material were most often by, although I didn't count.
 * If you think IP 24.98.132.123 could/should be linked to any of the other editors of that page in roughly the same period, it is always possible to file a checkuser request. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood me? I was only citing the prior case involving  here because that IP had recently reported  for 3RR.  After the semi-protection,  continues to be disruptive and edit war.  Cirt (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I recognised my error above. I only intended to comment on the 8 february incident. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. My point was just that  was not blocked after the first 3RR report (as you mentioned, still on this page, above) and continues disruption after the article was semi-protected.  Cirt (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and maybe links to one of the other editors reverting the same material a few days later, so a checkuser would probably not be completely out of order here, in order not to be one-sided. I leave that to the admins assessing this incident. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Momento does appear to be somewhat disruptive here and recommend the admin to review his edits here. Lawrence  §  t / e  20:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Further above the initial 3rr report; this user has continued removing material that myself and another editor have added. He needs a break. Here adding material to disqualify a source; here again scrubbing material with a reversion/deletion. Lawrence  §  t / e  20:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24 hours. Nakon  20:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)