Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive66

User:Tasc0 reported by User:Chubbles (Result: Page protected)
. : Time reported: 14:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:53, February 6, 2008


 * 1st revert: 23:35, February 6, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 15:37, February 7, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 23:57, February 7, 2008
 * 4th revert: 01:51, February 8, 2008
 * 5th revert: 17:40, February 8, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 01:53, February 8, 2008

The edits fall technically outside the 24 hour rule, but this appears to be a clear attempt to game the system. Editor keeps redirecting this page about a collaborative effort between two rap groups to one of their albums. However, the collaboration released two albums, both of which charted hits in the USA, clearly establishing them notable per WP:MUSIC, and references were provided. User simply reverts and stops discussion when confronted with this information. Chubbles (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Page protected. Talk it out on the talk page.  Use dispute resolution. --B (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are making false accusations of me stopping the discussion, when you haven't discussed anything with me and I started a thread on the article starter's talk page where I hardly get responses.
 * It's clearly enough to see that I want to put a solution to this matter. By just reading User_talk:Same_As_It_Ever_Was. Thanks. Tasc0 It's a zero! 04:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And just for the record, the admin who took action in this issue stated that I haven't broke the third revert rule. Diff. Tasc0 It's a zero! 04:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Pfistermeister reported by User:AndyJones (Result: No action - No reverts after warning)
. : Time reported: 15:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 03:41, 8 February 2008


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 02:13, 9 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 05:48, 9 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 06:13, 9 February 2008
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 07:06, 9 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (10:31, 9 February 2008) Although this warning (by User:ThuranX post-dates the last revert. Does that in some way invalidate this report? Making it anyway: I want to lay a marker down on this user's intemperate edit warring.

Edit war over some information which an exceedigly uncivil editor wishes to include. See also Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. AndyJones (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Decision: No action. As the reporting user states, the warning was given after the last revert. Pfistermeister did edit the article once more after the warning, but it does not seem to have been a revert. TigerShark (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Blackeagles reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: No action - Stale request)
. : Time reported: 15:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 02:38, 7 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 02:40, 7 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 02:48, 7 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 23:16, 7 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:53, 9 February 2008

Despite at least three editors reverting his edit about the fictional character Superman being a Methodist, and talk-page warnings about unreliable sources, an apparent zealot with a talk-page history of contentious and questionable edits has continued to make the same poorly sourced POV edit. As explained on his talk page: "the cite does not reach the bar of reliability. The cite is a[n]... opinion columnist [who] simply claims that "superhero scholars" say Superman is Methodist, but he doesn't provide any examples. And the website he points to, adherents.com, doesn't seem to have anything about Superman or superhero under "S". Given that this is a claim never made by the creators or the company that publishes Superman, there is a very high bar in terms of authoritative sourcing." --Tenebrae (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Decision: Blackeagles has not edited since February 7th, making this request stale. As far as I can see, the user was also not given the 3RR warning until today (a day and a half after they last edited) so did not revert after the warning. TigerShark (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters reported by User:Verklempt (Result: 48 hours)
. : Time reported: 21:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:

User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters reverted Ward_Churchill_misconduct_issues five times on February 8. Given that this editor was once proposed to be an administrator, and given that he has been blocked several times before for violating 3RR, a warning should not be necessary. He knows the rules, but just doesn't care.


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

Verklempt (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This may well be a BLP issue. Enormous amounts of possibly undue weighted criticism being added. Relata refero (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (1)The disputed material is not being added. It has been there for years. Rather, Lulu is attempting to delete it, repeatedly. Furthermore, Lulu himself is the editor who created this child article in order to separate critical opinions out of the main bio. Since then, he has been attempting to remove as much critical material as possible, even though it is all sourced to mainstream newspaper articles. (2) Even if there were a BLP issue, it should be negotiated in good faith on the talk page. Lulu has yet to specify which sentences violate BLP and how. I don't think he or anyone else can succesfully make that argument, given the airtight sourcing.Verklempt (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, please notify him of this so he can respond if you haven't already. Relata refero (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Decision: Although there is clearly a debate taking place at the article's talk page with concerns from various editors, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters is reverting extensively and is clearly in breach of 3RR. He has not clearly justified his claims of BLP violations, and his accusations of soapboxing and sockpuppetry are doing nothing to help consensus. His history of blocks for 3RR on related articles indicates that he is fully aware of the policy and warrant a longer block than previously applied. TigerShark (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Arthur Rubin reported by User:Snowfire51 (Result: Blocked 3 days)
. : Time reported: 23:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:25 7 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 10:24, 9 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 12:23 9 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 14:56 9 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 15:42 9 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:49 9 February 2008
 * 5th revert, after warning: 16:45 9 February 2008

User clearly warned, but unrepentant in ownership of this article. I've tried several times to ask him to slow down and explain, but he insists an AP article is not a reliable source and continues to revert changes with no productive discussion. When asked for clarification on why he distrusts the AP source, he threatened to blank the article just to make his point. 

User has been blocked before for edit warring. Snowfire51 (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked for three days as this is the second time he's edit warred on this article. Nakon  23:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I affirm this block and was about to make it when Nakon beat me to it. --B (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am also bringing this to ANI for further discussion. Nakon  23:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I must agree, unfortunately. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Bakasuprman reported by User:Wiki Raja (Result: Not blocked)
. : Time reported: 01:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:39, 5 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 12:21, 9 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 13:32, 9 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 13:52, 9 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 13:50, 9 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 14:08, 9 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 14:16, 9 February 2008
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 14:26, 9 February 2008

This user has broken the 3RR and has been notified by another user of his actions. During reverts, mispellings are overlooked which goes to show that he is not there to improve the article, but as a grudge against a particular faith. This is not the first time he has engaged in such acts. Wiki Raja (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There aren't five but I do count 1, 2, 3, 4. My inclination is to block Bakasuprman and for edit warring, but Nishkid64 seems to be working with both users to try and diffuse this, so I'm more inclined to let that try to work.  Please quit reverting each other. --B (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, this same admin who says he is trying to work this out with Bakaman also blocked me for a 3RR here without even blinking. I deem this as favoritism. Wiki Raja (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither party has edited the article in 4 hours. They have, on the other hand, been discussing it in that time.  I'm not sure what purpose a block would serve. As for NishKid64 and favoritism?  You're not a party to this particular dispute so I'm not sure that would be an issue even if he were inclined to be partial one way or the other.  In any event, he frequently patrols this page so I seriously doubt his block of you was anything personal. --B (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Soulscanner and reported by User:G2bambino (Result: )
. : Time reported: 04:47, 7 February 2008
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 04:40, 6 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 03:20, 7 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 03:37, 7 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 03:47, 7 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 04:01, 7 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: No warning issued, but as this user reported User:Quizimodo above, he's obviously aware of 3RR.

A short explanation of the incident. Restoring original complaint by User:G2bambino. I'd unintentionally deleted it as a duplicate upon posting the complaint below. Consequently, no administrator has viewed this. I'm hoping all accept these restorations. They are all done in good faith to set the record straight on a complicated set of mishaps. --soulscanner (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

User:G2bambino reported by User:Soulscanner (Result:See above)
. : Time reported: 04:47, 7 February 2008
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: 04:40, 6 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 03:20, 7 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 03:37, 7 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 03:47, 7 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 04:01, 7 February 2008
 * Diff of 3RR warning: No warning issued, but as this user reported User:Quizimodo above, he's obviously aware of 3RR.

A short explanation of the incident. A brief inspection of User:G2bambino and User:Quizimodo talk page histories, and patterns of reverts above show that two cited editors are colluding to remove neutrality tags placed by me on that page. I've already pointed them to Wiki's policy that if there is a dispute about neutrality tags on an article, there probably is a neutrality issue. [User:Quizimodo]]'s pledge above seems somewhat disingenuous given this context. Again, tags in question identify pertinent claims and sources currently being debated by various editors at relevant talk page. Soulscanner (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Quizimodo hasn't contacted me for months. Since he did yesterday, I've taken one look at Dominion, and offered a comment at talk. That's hardly collusion; perhaps you need to tone down the conspiracy theories? Regardless, I believe you've violated 3RR, in the process of an antagonistic edit war, no less. But, we shall let more experienced people be the judge. --G2bambino (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Folded into the above report. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Later protected for a week by me. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've blocked G2bambino for doing this, which is completely out of order. Stifle (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I should most certainly think not. --G2bambino (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite. It arose from another user and me taking edits out of conflict, and G2bambino was not out of order. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying, Stifle. --G2bambino (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * G2bambino acted in good faith when he switched the names, but they still needed to be switched back. I've taken the liberty of restoring the original posting here. The incident report on this error is here --soulscanner (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Hyperbole reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result: 24 hrs)
. : Time reported: 22:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:48, 8 February 2008


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_inquiries_into_chiropractic_care&diff=190059269&oldid=190055450
 * 2nd revert: 00:53, 9 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 10:07, 9 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 14:44, 9 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 13:36, 9 February 2008

Continues to edit war after warning. In addition, should be warned for personal attacks.. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 22:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Decision: I cannot see a 3RR violation here, as the first edit listed above is unrelated to the last three. TigerShark (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not touching this one with a 10' pole, but 3RR applies to ANY reverts or partial on the same page, not merely repeating the same action. --B (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, correct. The problem: I'm not seeing how the first one is a revert; could someone show what it's reverting? Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Removing anything is at least a partial revert (3RR applies to any revert, in whole or in part). Someone must have added the tag at some point and removing that tag is a revert. --B (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_chiropractic_care&diff=next&oldid=189411588 Original edit by QuackGuru adding POV tag. Quack   Guru  23:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, yes, it looks like there is a violation here. I really have to go AFK now, so I can't finish this, but I'd support a block, especially if TigerShark consents (sorry not to take action myself, but family calls). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, on a very strict interpretation of 3RR that could indeed be viewed as the first of four reverts, but achieving the goal of the policy is the aim here and the goal of the policy is to avoid edit warring not to actually prevent more than 3 reverts. The first revert is sufficiently unrelated to the other that I cannot interpret this as edit warring. TigerShark (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A "strict interpretation"? It's the only interpretation.  The first paragraph of WP:3RR says, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time."  That's pretty clear. Under the policy, you do have the discretion to (a) block Hyperbole up to 24 hours, (b) block both users, (c) protect the page, or (d) warn one or both users.  You've chosen a solution without blocking and that's fine ... but the fact that 3RR applies to any four reverts is not an obscure technicality. --B (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course there is discretion here, as with any policy the goal is key. If somebody had incorrectly changed the spelling of a word and the user changed it back, along with three other reverts, would the goal of 3RR be achieved by blocking that user? There may be a time when admins are replaced by bots that blindly follow the criteria, but until then we have to apply common sense as to what the wording of the policy is trying to convey. You have only picked out one paragraph from the policy, rather than the whole wording and therefore taken it out of context. TigerShark (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The reverts continue! Quack   Guru  02:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The first diff you gave was a removal of a link to Citizendium. No way in heck is that an acceptable source - it's just Wikipedia for people who are disgruntled with Wikipedia.  The second does not appear to be a revert. --B (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for continued edit warring. Vsmith (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Luke4545 reported by User:SmartisSexy (Result: No additional action)
. : Time reported:11:14pm 06:21, 10 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

This article has been locked, but regardless the user Luke4545 is guilty of 3RR as he reverted more than three times.Smartissexy (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocks are preventative, not punitive. With the article protected, there is no conceivable preventative purpose a block could serve. --  tariq abjotu  06:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Even though this report has been resolved, I would just like to add that the 3RR report seemed to be a bait attempt. Notice how the IP 209.244.42.82 stated after my second revert that I would be reported for 3RR if I attempted to revert revisions again that were already deemed unconstructive by other users and bots (as evidenced by their own reverts), and then posted the same message again to seemingly bait me into reverting a fourth time. I tried to explain that the reverts by the IP 67.11.187.178 (which appears to be the user Smartissexy) were not viewed as being constructive, which once again, was evidenced by other users and bots reverting the edits by 67.11.187.178. Anyway, I don't want this to turn into some in-depth fight, but I thought I should present my case on the matter. -- Luke4545 (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Coloane reported by User:huaiwei (Result: blocked both editors for 24 hrs)
. : Time reported: 13:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

The said user is not new to the 3RR policy, having been blocked for 3RR violation before, including a past attempt to evade the block. Without waiting for a resolution to be established in the talkpages, he proceeded to repeatedly revert the edits, despite my requests for him to explain his edit. This comment in particular suggests to me that he is gaming the 3RR policy.--Huaiwei (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This message should be posted by me not Huaiwei himself. He keeps reverted what I edited on that page.  He tried to vandalise the table by changing the flag from HKSAR to PRC without reason.  And I already explained to him that the title of the table is "airport", but not "country".  I personally think that he is fully aware of 3RR policy.  I also mentioned this on his talk page. Coloane (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is inconsequential who makes the nomination, for both parties will be scrutinised for 3RR violation. I am certainly aware of the 3RR policy, and I do not attempt to discount my responsibility in this affair as well, as alluded in . If you are going to abuse the 3RR policy just to force others to accede to your demands as what you have done in my talkpage, then a report is a must, even if it costs me my editing freedom. This is gangsterism behavior, and is not acceptable in wikipedia.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Huaiwei reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coloane (talk • contribs) 14:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked both editors for 24 hours for edit warring. - Revolving Bugbear  15:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Karaku reported by User:The Rogue Penguin (Result: Karaku 48 hours, Rogue Penguin 31 hours)
. : Time reported: 19:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:47, February 9, 2008


 * 1st revert: 01:24, February 10, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 09:04, February 10, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 09:43, February 10, 2008
 * 4th revert: 10:45, February 10, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 09:32, February 10, 2008

This user continues to add original research to the article in spite of repeated explanations about why it is so. The user also attempted to file a Wikiquette alert against me to have me blocked, which found that the violation was in fact on his side. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Karaku has reverted at least four times today, trying to push his POV and misinterpreting a source which is questionable at best. He has been warned by at least three other editors about his disruptive style, and pointed towards policies on consensus and reliable sources. Yet he refuses to accept any of this, and insists that he is right and everyone else is wrong. He has already received a 24 hour block for edit warring and has not changed his ways. Harry the Dog (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to make a comment- I'm rving it back to the proper version. I have explained to him and TrP why that revision should stay, they won't listen. I gave sources/references. I would take it to the discussion page, but I know that doing so will only lead to more of them not listening to me and thinking the official site isn't reliable, and also, i tried doing similar things before, like on Talk:Matoran, Talk:Garage Kids, and it proved to fail at discussion. I do not deserve a block here, but If somehow I do, you might as well block TrP and Harry. -Karaku (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Both of you have edit warred repeatedly over the article - this is ridiculous. My count - Rogue Penguin 1, Rogue Penguin 2, Rogue Penguin 3, Rogue Penguin 4, Rogue Penguin 5, Karaku 1, Karaku 2, Karaku 3, Karaku 4, Karaku 5, Karaku 6, Karaku 7.  Blocking Karaku 48 hours (as this is a second offense) and Rogue Penguin 31 hours. --B (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Jcmenal reported by User:Corticopia (Result: Warning)
. : Time reported: 19:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:47, January 20, 2008 (not sure what to put here)


 * 1st revert: 05:49, February 10, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:01, February 10, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 18:22, February 10, 2008
 * 4th revert: 19:16, February 10, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:10, February 10, 2008 (before 4th diffs, I might add)

This user continues to insinuate a minority interpretation of what comprises 'Middle America', despite source matter to the contrary, in this article and others. User is fixated on what few sources indicate, despite others. The article was previously untouched for some three weeks. Corticopia (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The "first" one is a sourced edit, then Corticopia started to revert it. JC 11:35, 10 February 2008 (PST)
 * Ok ... this is worthy of WP:LAME. My decision would be to block both but honestly, is that necessary? If you are both willing to stop editing it and talk it out on the talk page, I don't think a block is needed. --B (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with B's decision, was going to do the same when my internet connection crapped on me. Writing to say I will also be watchlisting the article to be sure the edit war does stop. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User:PIO (Result: No violation)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Reported by: THUG CHILD z  22:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments:
 * This User is very disruptive and has been blocked for 3rr and several other reasonsbefore. He continues to be disruptive, and is hard to communicate with. He received several warnings on his talk page but doesn't seem to care.--THUG CHILD z  22:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not view the behaviour of the editor on that article as disruptive enough to warrant a withdrawal of editing privileges. However, I do have concerns about future circumstances of edit warring that could arise, and, as such, I have issued the editor with a warning. AGK (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User: ASEOR2 (Result: 24 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: [DiffLink Time]

Plus on a number of other pages including Hyksos. Hardyplants (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Decision: No action. Apart from the fact that the report is malformed, I can see no indication that ASEOR2 has received a warning (although there has been a large amount of talk page blanking). I have now issued a warning, and this user needs watching closely. TigerShark (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that the user did receive a warning. See the bottom of this diff: .--Veritas (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ASEOR2&oldid=190416499   Hardyplants (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information. I have now blocked the user for 24 hours. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have also indef blocked User:VouzRendez‎ as a suspected sockpupper of ASEOR2. TigerShark (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Groupthink (Result: 24 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:02, 27 January 2008
 * 2st revert: 18:22, 10 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:29, 10 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 18:28, 10 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:24, 10 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 18:31, 10 February 2008
 * 6th revert: 18:38, 10 February 2008

User is continuing to revert and remove sourced content:
 * 18:44, 10 February 2008
 * article history

User has been warned about edit warring and blanking pages several times, and is aware of the 3RR policy:
 * 18:28, 10 February 2008
 * 06:47, 26 December 2007
 * 21:19, 24 December 2007

Reported by: Dreadstar †  23:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments: That's 5 reverts in 11 minutes, 24 hours for edit warring/3RR. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 00:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Asams10 (Result: 72 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
 * 1st revert: 20:02, 10 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 22:57, 10 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 23:20, 10 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 02:14, 11 February 2008

Reported by: 79.212.215.217 (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments:
 * remove's a otheruses template from "his" article because he doesn't like the other article. the last time he commented his revert with "RV per WP:HAT", even though a simple otheruses-template clearly does not violate WP:HAT.
 * Blocked 72 hours (this is his 4th 3RR block) --B (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Bleek25 reported by User:KellyAna (Result: 48 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:58, 9 February 2008
 * 1st revert: 22:21, 9 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 04:47, 10 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 23:32, 10 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 01:41, 11 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 01:48, 11 February 2008

Reported by: KellyAna (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments: Second violation in a week.

None of the edits are the same.There is no violationBleek25 (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't make that kind of comment. It's up to others to decide, not you, as the violator.  There is a discussion started, the list has, in general, not had a description of the characters.  Bleek added recent characters descriptions but not descriptions for all.  When removed for consistency he reverted 4 times.  He's had the same issue with other aspects of the article and been blocked before. KellyAna (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 3RR does not require that all edits be identical. Any reverts or partial reverts count and from looking at these edits, you were repeatedly readding the same disputed content with little variation. KellyAna, I'm not sure why you say he can't comment.  Obviously, he is allowed to comment.--B (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say he can't comment, I said he can't make that kind of comment that there's no violation. That's for an administrator to decide, not him. He can, certainly, defend himself.KellyAna (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

User:216.27.105.10 reported by User:Someguy1221 (Result: 48 hours)
. : Time reported: 05:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:28, 10 February 2008


 * 5th revert: 20:48, 10 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 15:28, 10 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 07:03, 10 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:54, 9 February 2008
 * 1st revert: 17:03, 9 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:55, 10 February 2008

This anonymous user has been persistently reverting the present version of Naveen Jain to what existed before a COIN {{case opened and closed weeks ago with consensus on the current version. His reverts amount to removing well referenced material and adding unverifiable content that serves only to glorify the subject of the article. (relevant ANI thread: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents, relevant COIN thread: Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 21) Someguy1221 (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked 48 hours for 7RR, incivility, and possible conflict of interest. --B (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

User:JacquesNguyen reported by User:Badagnani (Result: 72 hours)
4 reversions in a 24-hour period (removal of Wiktionary links at Hội An) by user JacquesNguyen. User has been asked not to do this several dozen times over the past two months.


 * 1st revert - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H%E1%BB%99i_An&diff=190757156&oldid=190753562
 * 2nd revert - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H%E1%BB%99i_An&diff=190757963&oldid=190757561
 * 3rd revert - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H%E1%BB%99i_An&diff=190759770&oldid=190758723
 * 4th revert - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H%E1%BB%99i_An&diff=190776187&oldid=190761294


 * User JacquesNguyen removes 3RR report from this page - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=190778096&oldid=190777718 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badagnani (talk • contribs) 02:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 72 hours for violating 3RR, edit warring and move warring. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Koreakorea1 reported by User:Appletrees (Result: 8 hours)
. : Time reported: 23:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 2008-02-11T00:22:18


 * 1st revert: 2008-02-11T01:07:41
 * 2008-02-11T01:08:39 (additional changing)


 * 2nd revert: 2008-02-11T10:24:35
 * 3rd revert: 2008-02-11T10:28:44
 * 4th revert: 2008-02-11T10:34:35
 * 5th revert: 2008-02-11T17:49:27
 * 6th revert: 2008-02-12T01:49:24


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-02-11T12:20:022008-02-11T12:37:46

and, seemingly new users begun editing the article as altering statics or blanking reliable sources. They seem to be very obsessive at rankings and technology of South Korea. They behave like a twin because their behavioral pattern are almost identical and I asked about explanation of the changes to Koreakorea1, but instead Cvcc answered to it.

I gave several warnings to Koreakorea1 not to blank or alter information without consensus or talking, but the user keeps ignoring. After this user made disruptive edit warrings with anonymous user,, I also gave Koreakorea1 two 3RR violation warnings (in fact he already breached to 4RR), but he ignored my warning one more time and reverted the page 5th times. He insists on changing rankings because his source is the latest CIA 2008 statics, but he doesn't stick to the original source either. According to the source, South Korea ranks the 3rd largest country in Asia and 14th in the world per GDP, so his insistence even proves wrong. I think this user needs to learn community policy even if he or she were a really new user, about which I strongly doubt.--Appletrees (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This user surely knows of my notification, but again changed the article with his/her POV. Thus, he or she totally reverts 6th reverts. --Appletrees (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 8 hours. Stifle (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User:WikiTony reported by User:Apoc2400 (Result: 8 hours)
. : Time reported: 11:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 22:58, 11 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 23:02, 11 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 23:23, 11 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 23:28, 11 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 03:49, 12 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 01:13, 12 February 2008

User:WikiTony is continually reverts the news item calling it "hate speech" --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Anonymous" protests the Church of Scientology at different locations around the world. (The Scotsman) (The Star) (Adelaid) (Indymedia) (The Guardian) (Newsweek)


 * Hi, The admin who warned me understands that because the name of the page is current events, sometimes multiple edits/reverts are required in a short time frame. After all, the information is current. Additionally, as of this writing, I am the ONLY user to discuss this matter on the talk page. I feel very much ganged up on. For my thoughts on the particular matter please see the talk page or talk page the admin who warned me (sorry i am not great at inserting all these links right now. if someone wants to, please feel free.) I consider what I did removing vandalism that is not relevant to the contemporary geopolitical affairs of the international community. I use the analogy of white supremacy groups demonstrating around the world on a particular day: Should their activites deserve merit? "protests the Church" (exact words) is not news. I am not a Scientologist, nor do i know any, but these people do not deserve to have their religion (however crazy YOU may think they are) slandered on our Current Events page. Veritas Aequitas WikiTony (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikitony gets 8 hours, and a trawl through the history finds User:Le Blue Dude and User:128.255.187.32 have been edit warring on the same page so 8 hours each to them too. Stifle (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Oren.tal reported by User:Itaqallah (Result: 36 hours)
. : Time reported: 18:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: No specific version due to intermediary edits. All reverts include the restoration of tendentious polemical external links, such as ones to "mukto-mona", "infidels.org", and so on.


 * 1st revert: 23:02, 11 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 23:36, 11 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 03:03, 12 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 15:41, 12 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 17:09, 12 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Not necessary, user has been blocked a few times previously due to 3RR violations. Even then, he had been warned about violating it on this article.

As explained above, user continues reverting to insert tendentious external links.  ITAQALLAH  18:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked, per evidence above. --  tariq abjotu  21:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Yorkshirian reported by User:David Shankbone (Result: 24 h)
. : Time reported: 19:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: No specific version due to intermediate edits


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This last weekend a worldwide protest against Scientology occurred, and was oft-reported in the press. The protesters in almost every city took to wearing Guy Fawkes masks. I included a photo of this under the "In Popular Culture" section of Guy Fawkes and one user, User:Yorkshirian, has edit-warred and left rude messages on my Talk page, even after warning, simply because he doesn't like it. David  Shankbone  19:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Still edit-warring, this time when a second User puts the photo:  -- David  Shankbone  19:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Shankbone added a piece of WP:SPAM to the article of Guy Fawkes, which has no relevence to the historical man at all. It was explained to Shankbone explicitly that this "scientology vs. athiesm" USA thing is a direct parody from a movie and was not a reference to the man. Shankbone took the picture himself and decided to keep re-adding the SPAM despite having it explained to him that it doesn't belong.


 * The masks the people are wearing in his photograph is a direct parody from the fictional movie V for Vendetta (film), its a parody of an exact scene from that movie and has nothing at all to do with the historical person at all. Despite explaining to Shankbone that such as a spamming is unacceptable and it infact, is a parody of a movie, not Fawkes' life, he continued to edit war, so he could have "his picture" on.


 * Fawkes is a very high profile historical person in the UK and this thing has absoutely nothing to do with the man at all, since its a parody of a movie. It belongs on the article on the movie, otherwise it fails WP:SPAM and WP:NOT. Guy Fawkes' article is no a bulletin board for updates on the movie V for Vendetta. The same spam would not be allowed on an article of George W. Bush or Tony Blair, ect so why should it be on here?


 * Note - removing balatant examples of SPAM does not count in 3RR according to Wikipedia. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not true. The protesters are mimicking Guy Fawkes, using a mask from a movie about a Guy Fawkes imitator (complete with blowing up Parliament).  The movie had nothing to do with Scientology, and the "pop culture" surfacing of Guy Fawkes today merits mention.  This User is edit-warring, he isn't even discussing on the Talk page.  His "explanations" are edit summaries.  Two different editors have put the photo on, noting their preference, and Yorkshirian has reverted now five times today against two users.  -- David  Shankbone  20:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What you just stated is a complete lie. First of all, I started a section on the talkpage about your SPAM, and invited you to it via your talk, which you have not joined.


 * Second of all, how on earth are internet athiests in the USA mimicking Guy Fawkes (a Catholic who revolted against the king) by copying an exact scene from a movie V for Vendetta (film)? The film is not a biographical or factual movie. Its fiction, set in the future. Please read this slowly and comprehend it, or better yet watch the film and you will see the exact scene which these people made a parody of. The masks they're wearing are even pieces of merchandise from that film.


 * SPAM is allowed to be removed as not counted as a revert according to Wikipedia's policy. You took the picture, you insisted in spamming it on an article which it has no relevence, despite having it explained to you. I removed it, simple. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not SPAM, yes I know the movie is fiction and I understand its references, and I will just wait for you to be blocked since you are edit-warring against two editors and can stand a break. -- David  Shankbone  20:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't be blocked for removing WP:SPAM, as I explained to you above. I will just wait for you to be blocked for edit warring with three users during the last two days and SPAMing. You can stand a break, perhaps to disuade from spamming more in the future. Do you have an explination for not entering a discussion on the talk?

Shankbone's warring with three users:
 * 19:32, 12 February 2008
 * 19:23, 12 February 2008
 * 13:40, 12 February 2008
 * 19:24, 11 February 2008
 * 19:06, 11 February 2008 - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's interesting. The first three are over this issue, and I didn't violate 3RR. The second two are fighting vandals.  How old are you that you continually copy and past what I write and write it back to me?  Are there any Admins around today?  -- David  Shankbone  20:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK so according to you, its fine to remove vandalism and it not count as a revert or "warring". But if somebody removed your SPAM out-of place, self-promotion then thats not OK? Interesting. Well according to Wikipedia's policy, it doesn't agree with you. In fact it explicitly states that your SPAMming on a high key article is wrong. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:3RR allows some exceptions, e.g. for simple and obvious vandalism and also for spamming. However, while I clearly see the vandalism, I cannot see David's image addition as spam. This is a simple content conflict, and, as I see it, Yorkshirian was wrong in breaking WP:3RR. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hrs - Yorkshirian, you may have a point about the content not belonging there. However, WP:3RR policy explicitly doesn't allow for content disputes being a legitimate reason for edit warring. If it was truly spam - and only spam - then it falls under vandalism, and then removing it is ok. But this isn't spam. It's a content dispute, over whether particular content is notable and applicable to a particular article or not. And for edit warring over that, you get a 3RR block. Sorry.

Please discuss on the article talk page and seek consensus rather than edit warring like this, next time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Niteshift36 reported by User:Bobblehead (Result: 24 hrs )
. : Time reported: 22:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:39, 11 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 04:51, 12 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 06:46, 12 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 20:52, 12 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:23, 12 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 23:25, 11 February 2008

The user has been involved in an edit war with named and anonymous users on United States Presidential election, 2008, Template:2008 Republican presidential primaries delegate counts, and Template:2008 Democratic presidential primaries delegate counts over the inclusion of Mike Gravel and Alan Keyes. He received a warning from User:Sarcasticidealist yesterday after violating 3RR on the election article and repeated the violation today on the Republican delegates template. Bobblehead (rants) 22:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ 24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Luke4545 reported by User:SmartisSexy (Result: No violation on Luke4545, no conclusion on Smartissexy)
. : Time reported:11:14pm 23:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:


 * 2nd revert:


 * 3rd revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

Luke4545 has been guilty of 3RR countless times on this article in the past week. He insists that the current template not be touched until the dispute is settled, unfortunately his version is not the original template, and he reverts it the second anyone else adds something to the page. I am not the only individual reverting from his template, and his constant reverting is disruptive. Not only that, he is accusing me of having multiple IP's which isn't even possible. Please look into this matter whenever possible. Thanks Smartissexy (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Countless times? Way to exaggerate the truth.  Also, I'm not the one who reverted the article WITHOUT using the discussion page FIRST, once the initial protection template was used.  You reverted the page back to your desired edit.  No one was really adding anything else; it was just constant anonymous IPs (along with a user that JUST registered) reverting back to the version that you wanted.  Using multiple IPs is possible.  Also, by your logic behind the accusation of 3RR, you would be guilty of it with your IP 67.11.187.178 as well (which was proven that you used it, given another report you issued here) in several previous edits prior to the other protection template.


 * Look, I don't want anyone to be blocked for this, I just want the discussion page used before ANYONE makes any revisions. That's it.  That's why I was hoping Smartissexy would have used the discussion page before reverting to her desired version.  -- Luke4545 (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like semi-protection was given to the article and it now appears we're moving towards a constructive resolution through the discussion page; thus, I hope this will put an end to this whole ordeal without any further action. -- Luke4545 (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No violation on Luke4545, Requests for checkuser/Case/Smartissexy filed to determine whether Smartissexy violated 3RR using socks. --B (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI to anyone keeping score, the checkuser came back inconclusive. I'm flipping a coin as to whether to block Kimokeg as this account is unquestionably either a 3RR-evading sock or an impersonator and either way a bad thing. --B (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Drstrangelove57 reported by User:Geoff B (Result: no vio)
. : Time reported: 23:44 23:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:15, 16 January


 * 1st revert: 20:47, 11 Feb
 * 2nd revert: 16:09 12 Feb
 * 3rd revert: 21:36, 12 Feb
 * 4th revert: 22:38, 12 Feb

Edit war over inclusion of original research. Geoff B (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, be sure to warn editors (i.e., using ), as they might not know our policies. -- slakr \ talk / 01:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Chairman Meow reported by User:Gamaliel (Result: 55 hours)
. : Time reported: 00:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:17, 10 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 18:25, 12 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 15:57, 12 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 01:16, 12 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 19:35, 11 February 2008

User has been fighting this edit war (and doing little else on Wikipedia) off and on since March 2007 against what appears to unanimous opposition. He has been quite rude on the talk page and prefers insult and accusation to discussion. On the article talk page s/he has declared "I won't stop, ever". Gamaliel (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Also an issue of disruptive editing. -- slakr \ talk / 01:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Soulscanner reported by User:G2bambino (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 15:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:30, 8 February 2008 (image removed; tag placed)


 * 1st revert: 18:18, 8 February 2008 (tag inserted again)
 * 2nd revert: 19:02, 8 February 2008 (image removed again)
 * 3rd revert: 20:52, 8 February 2008 (image removed again)
 * 4th revert: 21:57, 8 February 2008 (image removed again)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:25, 8 February 2008

User has been quite adamant to keep a "dubious" tag in the lead of the article; then took up the case of removing the image as well. The user was given the chance to self-revert, but did not, arguing that "there's no 3RR on removing a non-permissable photos." The user was reported yesterday for a similar incident at Dominion. I was not able to file this report until this morning due to earlier computer issues last evening. G2bambino (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Decision: No violation. It does not appear that Soulscanner reverted more than three times (the first reported revert is different to the last three). Although a continuation of this could warrant a block, even without a technical violation, such a block would not be appropriate now. TigerShark (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As in another case you handled below, any four reverts on the same page constitute a violation even if the user is not repeating the same action. This particular report is rather stale now since the user has not edited in over 24 hours (call it time served), but this is an important distinction to be aware of. --B (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, on a very strict interpretation of 3RR that could indeed be viewed as the first of four reverts, but achieving the goal of the policy is the aim here and the goal of the policy is to avoid edit warring not to actually prevent more than 3 reverts. The first revert is sufficiently unrelated to the other that I cannot interpret this as edit warring. TigerShark (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Lest anyone looking at this decide to block the user, I took a look at the particular edits in question. Soulscanner was removing an image that flagrantly violates our non-free content policy, which is exempt from revert limitations. So regardless of anything else, this is not a violation. --B (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For good measure I have deleted the image as its clearly a copy vio. I have linked the original license in the deletion summary and this clearly is neither fully free nor suitable for GFDL. As the image isn't being used in an article about the subject it clearly cannot be used under fair use. Spartaz Humbug! 08:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It is noteworthy that the filer of this report, G2bambino, (a) had lately been let out of a two-week block for 3RR violation and edit-warring, on the condition that he keep to "1RR" (one revert within 24 hours on any given article) for the rest of the two-week span; and (b) broke that pledge in this business, by reverting the image's deletion twice in one day:
 * 16:35, 8 February 2008
 * 19:08, 8 February 2008
 * The evidence you put forward contradicts your assertion. This edit put in a different picture to the one Soulscanner removed, one that had fair use rationale, thereby addressing the concerns behind Soulscanner's removal of the previous image. This edit was the one revert.
 * Really, your obsession with burning me seems to be clouding your ability to see correctly. --G2bambino (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Iziizi reported by User:Cvcc (Result:warning)
. : Time reported: 05:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

User:Iziizi is frequently removed valuable pictures. These picturees are very important sources for thinking the history of Sungnyemun. Cvcc (talk) 05:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Please provide diffs; oldids are too hard to read. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * sorry I corrected.--Cvcc (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to leave it at a warning now for two reasons: first, no four reverts technically fall into a 24-hour period (though the first four are only off by four minutes, geez), and second and more importantly, the user was only warned after the last revert. If the user continues to edit war, a block will likely be in order. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think he never stop editting. --Cvcc (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 6th revert
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User:24.191.181.245 reported by User:Mind_meal (Result: Page protected)
. : Time reported: 12:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: It isn't that simple; please see the edit history for the article, as they were not technical reverts.


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

User:24.191.181.245 has repeatedly inserted controversial information into the article. I've tried to talk about it on their talk page, I've kindly warned them, and I've manually changed countless edits. They must have an axe to grind, even though I think there is even some validity to what they've inserted (it just isn't referenced). When I asked for references, they used a site called "zensite.com" and then a response to a blog post. Mind meal (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Page protected by Tikiwont. Stifle (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Twobells reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result: 12 hour block)
. : Time reported: 13:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:13, 12 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 11:30, 13 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 11:43, 13 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 12:27, 13 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 12:55, 13 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 14:35, 13 February 2008
 * 6th revert: 15:10, 13 February 2008
 * 7th revert: 15:46, 13 February 2008
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:29, 13 February 2008

Editor repeatedly adds a POV tag in a "drive-by" fashion, refusing to provide a legitimate reason for it as required by NPOV dispute. Repeated requests here have failed to produce any meaningful reasoning, and the same editor has previously done the exact same thing on another article here. One Night In Hackney 303  13:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked, 12 hours only as user also engaged in apparently legitimate talk page discussion of the issue. CIreland (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Jrclark reported by User:NHguardian (Result:Jrclark 24, NHguardian 31 hours)
. : Time reported: 1:16 est Feb 13 2008
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert: another one 5:01PM est
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

3RR cited in private talk from user Pgagnon999^^^.

User has continued and repeatedly edited out factual and cited information with regard to the Berkshire East Ski Resort and its vertical gain. True vertical gain has been discussed in the Berkshire east discussion page and has been proven through numerous citations. User even admits original numbers (stated as 1180) are incorrect yet continues reverting to them. User was warned and continued to revert. User had refused to come up with real numbers (which to me would be fine if they did). User has also violated 3RR rule in numerous other articles while posting links to personal webpages (see user JRclark history).

Thanks, NHguardian —Preceding unsigned comment added by NHguardian (talk • contribs) 18:56, 13 February 2008


 * NHguardian at first refused to use the Discussion tab, and then continued to revert any edits or compromises made by me and another user. We advised NHguardian to take up the issue with Wiki Project Ski (designers of the template in question), which he finally did, but continued to undo our compromises and refused to wait for Wiki Project Ski to discuss prior to modifying their template (in only this one case).  It also appears that NHguardian tried to do an additional edit outside of the NHguardian account - an IP check may verify this.
 * I feel that it is unfair that NHguardian has targetted this one ski area when vertical drops across the ski industry are published using different standards. The advertised number has been published for decades and can be cited in countless in print publications as well as web sites.  I felt that it was only fair to remove the number in question until the group had decided whether or not to update their ski area template.  If they choose to add a second vertical drop number to all ski areas (and come up with a consistent way to measure this), then I am in favor of it.
 * I'm here to contribute, not to engage in edit wars. I'm confident that comparing Contribution tabs will confirm this.  Jrclark (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Both users are edit warring. Both blocked for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this isn't the place to post it, but I also suspect 71.168.80.203 is NHguardian. 71.168.80.203 posted my personal information and has been trying fabricate a conflict of interest, even making up a quote by the business owner in the article in question.  Jrclark (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm extending NHguardian's block to 31 hours as a result of edit warring by disruption on this page. appears there may also be sockpuppety involved
 * --Hu12 (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Momento reported by User:Francis Schonken (Result: 24 hours )
. : Time reported: 21:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:20, 12 February 2008

Reverts to the sentence referenced to Hunt: Complex reversions, but every 5 of them at least removes this part of the phrase "(...) turned away from asceticism (...)"
 * 1st 04:52, 13 February 2008
 * 2nd 20:08, 13 February 2008
 * 3rd 20:29, 13 February 2008 (removes the entire sentence referenced to Hunt in Line 68
 * 4th 21:01, 13 February 2008 (after 3RR warning below)
 * 5th 21:22, 13 February 2008 (after 3RR warning below)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:54, 13 February 2008

A short explanation of the incident:

Plus Momento's behaviour more and more resembles some sort of disruption or trolling: something is discussed on talk page, Momento can't win the argument, Momento does the revert again, and starts a new talk page section on the same topic as the one he couldn't win the argument on shortly before, e.g.: 20:06, 13 February 2008, starting new thread on the photo that was already discussed at Talk:Prem Rawat (to which Momento contributed the previous day, and couldn't win the argument), and yet again deletes that photograph, or moves it around etc.

Also, there was a 3RR block of Momento less than a week ago, regarding disruption on the same page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Francis, editing-by-revert does not work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi, What is Francis suppposed to do? I think that your advice to Francis to find a compromise with Momento unrealistic, because I found Momento very unreasonable and uncompromising. Andries (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) 17:03, 11 February 2008  (edit summary: "/* External links */ we don't need all sorts of qualifiers here, see talk, Talk:Prem Rawat")
 * 2) 16:19, 12 February 2008  (edit summary: "revert removal of links, per talk page, like previous time")
 * 3) 16:34, 12 February 2008  (edit summary: "per talk page, Talk:Prem_Rawat, and Talk:Prem_Rawat")
 * 4) 17:36, 13 February 2008  (edit summary: "Hunt, per talk: Talk:Prem Rawat, Talk:Prem Rawat; External links per Talk:Prem Rawat; restoring other no-consensus removals")
 * 5) 20:18, 13 February 2008  (edit summary: "rv per my previous edit summaries, and the new talk page sections, repeating topics under discussion on talk, started again by a the revertor")


 * I have requested non-involved admins to look at the possibility of page protection, if that would be helpful, at WP:RFPP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Jossi, this is nowhere near a decent method to press your indirect influence over the Prem Rawat page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Francis, that was unnecessary. I only presented data, no assertions, no assessments, no judgment. Let an uninvolved admin look at the evidence and decide what to do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether you presented wrong data or a defective assessment is a play on words, you wrote: "... edit war between two editors ..." (my bolding), you counting "two" was wrong. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. So here are also revert diffs as well. I would argue that as it seems that editors cannot agree to avoid revering each other, page protection may not be a bad idea. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 00:14, 12 February 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
 * 00:59, 13 February 2008 (edit summary: "/* Westernisation */")
 * 01:00, 13 February 2008 (edit summary: "/* Personal */")
 * 02:51, 13 February 2008 (edit summary: "/* Westernisation */)
 * 20:40, 13 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 191225268 by Momento (talk)  see talk")
 * 21:18, 13 February 2008 (edit summary: "/* Westernisation */")
 * 21:48, 13 February 2008 (edit summary: "/* Westernisation */")
 * Jossi, your counting two appears to have been right after all, but that doesn't mean your personal attack on me was justified. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

For some reason Francis Schonken has brought together two different edits to justify his 3RR and other unrelated stuff which I won't address here. This noticeboard is about 3RR and the 3RR in question is related to three legitimate edits I made to a summary of a quote by the sociologist Hunt, which I made in accord with BLP policy.onefinalstep keeps adding a very distorted summary of Hunt to the Rawat article. Hunt says "Leaving his more ascetic life behind him, he does not personally eschews material possessions. Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers." onefinalstep interprets this as "Rawat also turned away from asceticism, and no longer denounced material possessions. He began to enjoy what appeared to be a material life; a transfomation funded in part by donations from followers". Hunt doesn't say Rawat "denounced material possessions" and he doesn't say "He began to enjoy what appeared to be a material life; a transfomation funded in part by donations from followers". Hunt doesn't offer an opinion he is saying what "critics argue".onefinalstep's interpretation grossly distorts Hunt and since this is a BLP it is important that we "get it right". BLP policy is clear - Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy". In the end I inserted Hunt's quote verbatim to try to stop this blatant BLP violating distortion but that was soon reverted by onefinalstep. Momento (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Another possibility would be to ask involved editors if they will be willing to voluntarily agree on 1RR probation for period, and avoid all this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you still treating me on the same par as someone who does 5 reverts a day on the Prem Rawat article and generates multiple talk page sections on the same issue, every time he hasn't been able to win his argument in the previous section on that issue? Better stop that, it is offensive. Don't try to get hold over the article via the back door: if you don't edit it, that was your decision, and I respect it. But don't ask the same of everybody else (that's what you're doing when asking for page protection). Of course it's also fine for anyone to commit to some restriction like 1RR if they feel that would do good to their editing behaviour. But also don't try to extract self-imposed but nonetheless undue editing restrictions from others that don't exhibit a behaviour that is from far comparable with 5 reverts a day and semi-trolling on a talk page. As far as I'm concerned you'd better remove the list of 5 edits in 3 days you composed on me above, it is offensive, and in no way compares to the one I composed on Momento, with a timely given warning etc. Just a suggestion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Francis, all I can do is alert non-involved admins to look at the situation and decide what would be best to restore some normalcy to the editing process. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this, I don't see any perfect way forward. I do see a case for blocking Memento, and I hope it's clear to everyone involved that continue edit wars might well result in block(s); in the long run, I'm not sure what it will accomplish in terms of resolving the dispute, especially given the immediate revert war seems to have stopped hours ago. Page protection is starting to look appealing, if people can't work amicably and avoid excessive reverts. – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(following edit conflict) Blocked 24 hours, absurd that this was delayed by an involved admin. Vsmith (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Jack-A-Roe reported by User:Jovin Lambton (Result:12 hours )
. : Time reported: 00:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to multiple: 04:50,04:32,17:55,18:00


 * 1st revert: ,,04:32 - 04.50
 * 2nd revert: 17:51
 * 3rd revert: ,18:00
 * 4th revert: 21:00


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Experienced User.

POV warring on contentious article. User is generally civil, but def. a POV warrior. Lambton T/C 00:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Editwarring. Blocked for 12 hours.  Maxim (talk)  00:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Wndl42 reported by User:ScienceApologist (Result: protected)
. : Time reported: 14:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:07, 10 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 14:42, 10 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 14:47, 10 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 14:52, 10 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 16:14, 10 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 19:53, 10 February 2008
 * 6th revert: 09:28, 11 February 2008
 * 7th revert: 10:03, 11 February 2008
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 09:10, 11 February 2008

User:Yaf reported by User:Rezguy (Result: No violation)
. : 20:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

3RR cited in private talk from user Rezguy^^^.

User has continued and repeatedly reverted biased page back to original biased state without commentary justifying bias. Thanks, Rezguy
 * Three reverts alone don't make a violation. A fourth would be required. Additionally, your previous version is the same as the third revert. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User:KellyAna reported by User:Bleek25 (Result: Stale)
. : Time reported: 20:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:32, 9 February 2008


 * 1st Revert:14:38, 10 February 2008
 * 2nd Revert:23:44, 10 February 2008
 * 3rd Revert:00:01, 11 February 2008
 * 4th Revert:00:02, 11 February 2008
 * 5th Revert:01:42, 11 February 2008

She has clearly Broken the 3RR rule.Also deleted a warning that i but on her talk page see here. Bleek25 (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The purpose of blocks or other action for 3RR violation is to stop an edit war. These reverts happened three days before the report, so acting on it would be futile. Reports should be filed as soon as may be after the fourth revert. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Maniainc reported by User:OverlordQ (Result: Protected)
. : Time reported: 03:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 01:27, 14 February 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 191318786 by GlassCobra (talk)")
 * 2) 01:33, 14 February 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 191319878 by JetLover (talk)")
 * 3) 01:38, 14 February 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 191318786 by GlassCobra (talk)")
 * 4) 02:56, 14 February 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 191334529 by GlassCobra (talk)")
 * 5) 03:00, 14 February 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 191336862 by GlassCobra (talk)")
 * 6) 03:08, 14 February 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 191337915 by OverlordQ (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

— Q T C 03:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * User has claimed that they are Barton's official representation: see here. GlassCobra 03:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And here Q  T C 03:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Maniainc is by no means the only person to have broken 3RR on that page, several other editors have and should know better. Protected for 10 days. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikiarrangementeditor reported by Daniel J. Leivick (Result: 31 hours)
. : Time reported: 07:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User has been blocked at least once for edit warring and is at it again. Going against consensus to add an inferior image that they uploaded. Has been warned numerous times and is well aware of 3RR rule. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Editor should be well aware of the 3RR by now. Blocked for 31 hours. Stifle (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Xareu bs reported by 74.228.158.68 (Result: page protected for 4 days)
. : Time reported: 09:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

User is blatantly defacing referenced statements (ex country of origin of reggaeton), and reverting to a version with a number of obviously POV statements. User is also using POV reasoning when doing the reverts ("just go to a club and you'll see...." etc). Posted to view the discussion page, but nothing on the talk page supports any of those edits or reverts (aside from POV comments on the talk page from members, no references). User finally posted to talk page, but made a 4th revert before even waiting for anyone to respond. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see the discussion page for this article,where referencesare shown. Blatantly?. I´am attaching references and links to press news and lyrics for songs. And the subsequent reverts in the talk page, well, mere ortography&links correction, as you may check. I´m not so used to the wiki interface. Of course, all reverted by an anom. user.--Xareu bs (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For clarification, none of the references mentioned on the talk page support any of the additions made. Song lyrics about gasoline also aren't an adequate reference.  In any case, the user hasn't even attempted to actually include references in the wiki itself when reverting.  The page doesn't need to be protected, but the user could use a cool down period and a primer on proper reference use. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I added those lyrics because they are the two biggest hits of this music up to know, with blatant sexist content. Do you want to link to wiki definition of harmony&melody?. Why do you not consider a formal complain by an Spanish official bureau about this music?. This anonimous user ignores those facts; does not he consider different opinions that his?--Xareu bs (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The additions made are noticeably POV, and inarguably unsourced, end of story (look at the reverts, none of his edits are sourced). This is the last post I'm going to make about this as I don't want to share a suspension with this guy with a back-and-forth on the noticeboard.  If a user doesn't know how to include references for questionable additions, they shouldn't be editing wikis until they learn. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Second revert is to a different article. No violation. Take discussion to your talk pages or the article talk page please. Stifle (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, looking at the article history, there's an obvious edit war. Page protected for 4 days. Stifle (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Svetovid reported by User:Squash Racket (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 09:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:21, 13 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 13:09, 13 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:55, 13 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 19:13, 13 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 08:46, 14 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: No need for warning, he has been blocked for breaking 3RR at the very same article about a week ago, also made reports himself. He is well aware of the rule as I see on his talk page.

This user deletes relevant, referenced information and references from the article. He was blocked a week ago for breaking 3RR at the very same article. He reverted three different editors in the past two days and obviously won't stop voluntarily. I tried to keep his constructive edits, but he changes the structure of the article in a way that it loses basic transparency. For some reason while he is repeatedly deleting reliable references he adds "refimprove" tags. He called me a 'vandal' several times despite asking him to refrain from such behavior. Squash Racket (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. Users are encouraged to develop consensus on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Brfc97 reported by User:Bill (Result: 8 hours)
. : Time reported: 12:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 06:37, 13 February 2008


 * 1st revert: revert to orginal version 14:21, 13 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: revert to orginal version 14:25, 13 February 2008
 * Edited new version to remove citations and insert original research 15:58, 13 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: revert to edited version 16:25, 13 February 2008
 * 4th revert: re-addition of removed content 11:36, 14 February 2008
 * 5th revert: revert to edited version 12:10, 14 February 2008
 * 6th revert: revert to edited version 12:28, 14 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 10:31, 11 February 2008

This page was suffering from an edit war so I opened up a discussion on the talk page (it should be noted that Brfc97 removed previous discussion about the topic that's being warred over 07:48, 7 February 2008). A consensus was achieved by a few editors over the best way to present the information. Brfc97 has been reverting edits while myself and other editors have been requesting that he discuss his concerns on the talk page. This is quite complex as some of the changes have stuck, but others are being reverted. Also, there are possible ownership issues as Brfc97 mentions that he created the section when reverting. Bill (talk 12:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The original section in question was created over a year ago. I was the one who created it (under my IP address at that time) but I don't know whether that will show in the archives or not. I have discussed the situation on the talk page but clearly my views have not been addressed or taken under consideration. It would be best to present the list in alphabetical order only as there is clearly a dispute over the order. A survey from 5 years ago is no longer relevant in 2008 as the situation has possibly changed since then. I would be quite happy to keep the section if the order remains alphabetical only. Otherwise the section should be removed.

Also the user above is not a supporter of Blackburn Rovers therefore I would dispute his knowledge of the subject is at the same level as mine.

Brfc97 (talk 13:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not all of those are clearly reverts, but there are certainly four in there. No block history so 8 hours. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User:JK Cromwell reported by User:Serendipodous (Result: 24 hrs)
. : Time reported: 14:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 19:29, 13 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 19:54, 13 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 19:59, 13 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 14:05, 14 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 18:24, 14 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:15, 13 February 2008

JK Cromwell has been repeatedly adding unsourced information to JK Rowling despite repeated warnings. S/he has also engaged in similar behaviour on List of best-selling books, Sears Tower, and Daniel Radcliffe, despite repeated warnings on his/her talkpage.  Serendi pod ous  14:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 24 hours block, for this and other disruption. Serendipodous, next time, please use the uw-3rr template to alert users. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Edito*Magica reported by User:Collectonian (Result:Page was protected; no action)
. : Time reported: 02:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:53, 14 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 18:02, 14 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:16, 14 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 18:38, 14 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:48, 14 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 19:57, 14 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 18:50, 14 February 2008

Edito*Magica created List of Goodnight Sweetheart episodes earlier today to split out the plain episode list from the main Goodnight Sweetheart article. I cam in and fixed the name, then put the episode list in the standard episode format.. Despite his version being incomplete, Edito*Magica reverted it. We went back and forth. After the 4th revert, an administrator warned us BOTH not to revert again and at 19:27. Thirty minutes later, Edito*Magica ignored that edict and reverted the article again. In fair disclosure, this is also part of a larger on-going issue of edit warring that Edito*Magica has also been conducting List of Keeping Up Appearances episodes and that resulted in an ANI being filed against him. Edito*Magica has receive warnings on the talk page there and in the ANI to stop reverting. With KUA, he's been reverting once or twice a day, while in this case he has blatantly violated 3RR after a warning and an admin warning to stop. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Strider12 reported by User:MastCell (Result: Warning)
. : Time reported: 23:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:59, 13 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 20:22, 13 February 2008 (undoes prior edit)
 * 2nd revert: 22:37, 13 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:19, 14 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:58, 14 February 2008 (reverts this edit from the previous day)
 * 5th revert: 23:29, 14 February 2008: undoes the immediately preceding edit


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User is well aware of WP:3RR and has previously been blocked for violating it.

These are 5 reverts in just over 24 hours. Given this editor's prior block for edit-warring on this and the related abortion and mental health article, and her long-term focus on edit-warring on these ttwo articles going right up to 3 reverts per day on many occasions, I'm bringing it here as a clear violation of the spirit of WP:3RR. Note that has also been edit-warring on this article, largely over tags; though I don't see >3 reverts on her part, I'll leave the disposition of that up to the reviewing admin. MastCell Talk 23:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No violation here due to timing - issued another warning. Stifle (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mathewignash reported by User:Apostrophe (Result: No violation)
. : Time reported: 02:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:19, 6 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 01:58, 14 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 10:27, 14 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:11, 14 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 23:56, 14 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 01:37, 15 February 2008

Revert warring over adding a POV (or weasel wordy) sentence to the article. ' 02:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Diff #2 isn't a revert and #4 is a different user. Only three actual reverts == no violation. Stifle (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How is Diff #2 not a revert? He's changing it. To say the same thing. ' 17:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User:JAF1970 reported by User:MrStalker (Result: 12 hours)
. : Time reported: 12:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:36, 15 February 2008


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 01:12, 14 February 2008

Revert war between JAF1970 and Sillygostly.  Mr Stalker  ( talk ) 12:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Both blocked for 12 hours. Stifle (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Sillygostly reported by User:MrStalker (Result: 12 hours)
. : Time reported: 12:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:48, 21 January 2008


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 01:12, 14 February 2008

Revert war between JAF1970 and Sillygostly.  Mr Stalker  ( talk ) 12:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See above. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Tasc0 reported by User:Same As It Ever Was (Result:No violation, rollback removed)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . User was previously reported by User:Chubbles for the same thing on Bloods & Crips.  I tried to explain that the info on the article is not about the album but the group yet he continues to revert.Same As It Ever Was (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Only two reverts of late. I have removed this user's rollback privileges, though, as it is being used inappropriately. --B (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Secret2 reported by User:Mhking (Result: 48 hours)
. : Time reported: 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:02, 15 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 11:40, 15 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 12:08, 15 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 12:22, 15 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 12:27, 15 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 12:37, 15 February 2008
 * 6th revert: 12:50, 15 February 2008
 * 7th revert: 12:53, 15 February 2008
 * 8th revert: 12:55, 15 February 2008
 * 9th revert: 13:00, 15 February 2008
 * 10th revert: 13:18, 15 February 2008
 * 11th revert: 13:21, 15 February 2008
 * 12th revert: 13:44, 15 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:41, 15 February 2008

POV, OR edits by Secret2, reverted by multiple persons. Secret2 insists his view should be included, and calls others reversions vandalism. Mhking (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Some other editors who were removing this nonsense came close to 3RR, but it's so obviously inappropriate that I don't think it's appropriate to block anyone else. --B (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Gregs the baker reported by User:zogonthetyne (Result: Reported user already blocked)
. : Time reported: 19:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Content is being removed with a rationale on Talk:Geordie yet the user in question refuses to read the rationale and is repeatedly reverting without considering anything. An Ip is also involved, already been warned by an admin.


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User talk:Gregs the baker, user now blocked for 31 hours. Zogonthetyne (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User:88.64.91.102 reported by User:Georgette2 (Result: 12h block)
. : Time reported: 21:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:33, 14 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 20:16, 15 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 20:25, 15 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 20:30, 15 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 21:12, 15 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This IP address continually changed the name of the theme music composer. He/She did not provide any sources for these changes. Also, called users who reverted his/her edits idiots. Georgette2 (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * IP blocked for 12 hours, although it appears to be dynamic so other measures may be needed if edit warring continues. CIreland (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please block 84.56.61.154 too. It is obviously the same user that was just blocked. See . Also, this IP consistently attacks users who have reverted its changes . Georgette2 (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Article semi-protected by . CIreland (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting the article semi-protected! This ends the edit-warring on Futurama that may have continued for a long period of time. Georgette2 (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User:70.188.184.84 reported by User:Barek (Result: 3 day block)
. : Time reported: 04:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:34, 15 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 00:02, 16 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 00:13, 16 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 00:18, 16 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 02:53, 16 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 00:20, 16 February 2008

Ongoing revert war by anon regarding inclusion of a fan-site of which he is president. Aside from the WP:COI issue, it's inclusion is debated (confusingly) on the article's talk page - with no aparent concensus. Anon later made, then retracted legal threats. Note, it appears that one other user, while battling the anon, has also violated 3RR on that page. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked him for 3 days due to his repeat offender nature. Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  04:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Vera from upstairs reported by User:Southern Texas (Result: No action taken; see below )
. : Time reported: 04:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (removed 1 minute later)

User keeps removing images violating 3RR on the article.  S    TX   04:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So a user can violate 3RR for no good reason other than to disrupt and they aren't blocked? -- S    TX   05:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Vera from upstairs just violated the 1RR sanction -- S    TX   19:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Southern Texas reported by User:Vera from upstairs (Result:1RR enforced )
. : Time reported: 04:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User keeps adding random pictures to article. Vera from upstairs (talk) 04:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a 3RR violation. The images are not "random" but have a purpose in the article.-- S    TX   04:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Since blocking you both would be counterproductive, as you wouldn't be able to discuss changes, I've decided instead to give you guys one more chance. You're now on the 1 revert rule; if you revert one another again, without having the other's consent to change the page, you'll be handed a twenty-four hour block. I'm hoping this way you guys can discuss the issue at hand without edit warring yourselves to oblivion.


 * Again; discuss it amongst yourselves. Try to find a compromise. Do not, under any circumstances, start reverting the article or you will be blocked. If you can't settle the dispute yourselves, ask for a third opinion or seek dispute resolution. Thank you. Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  05:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The above user refuses to discuss.-- S    TX   05:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If she keeps reverting then she will be blocked. Please do your best to compromise. Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  05:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: Both users have been blocked for violating 1RR. Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  20:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Zipgun reported by User:Tony Sidaway (Result: 15 day block (aggravated 3rr))
. : Time reported: 18:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:29, 16 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 18:05
 * 2nd revert: 18:09
 * 3rd revert: 18:24
 * 4th revert: 18:32


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:47

User repeatedly inserting content. There have been many more reverts in the past day or so but this is the most recent set of four. Tony Sidaway 18:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Cumulus Clouds reported by User:BQZip01 (Result:warning for both)
. : Time reported: 19:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Request reversion to this version:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: This is an established user who has stated he knows about WP:3RR:

Cumulus Clouds apparently doesn't want anything in this article that anyone could deem offensive. Numerous references for such an inclusion have been provided, but rejected by this editor. I am willing to come to some sort of compromise, but Wikipedia is not censored.
 * "...the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique...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."
 * "It is disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand."

As such, this is a violation of WP:3RR, et al. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:3RR applies to more than 3 reverts made in a 24 hour period. I only count two. Sorry. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (e/c)Please read WP:3RR and the quote above from it. — BQZip01 —  talk 20:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Well, I'll leave it up for these the community to decide then. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * BQZip is correct that Cumulus Clouds is edit warring; however, he/she is equally guilty of edit warring. I'm unwilling to block only one of you, so I'm watchlisting the article and will block either of you if you revert again. Stop reverting and talk this out. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * PLEASE watchlist the page! I have tried various versions with requested materials only to have my changes reverted repeatedly. I have responded to every request on the talk page with no response. What am I supposed to do? He reverts repeatedly, I request assistance, and you say to leave the page alone until we come to an agreement? No agreement is possible when another party won't change anything. This doesn't solve anything. — BQZip01 —  talk 21:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

== Edit-warring IP Special:Contributions/62.47.23.131, Special:Contributions/62.47.2.150, Special:Contributions/62.47.25.79, Special:Contributions/62.47.23.131, Special:Contributions/62.47.13.60 (current), etc. (Telekom Austria) reported by User:Jayen466 (Result:protected) ==

. May be IPs of : Time reported: 20:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:48


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * 
 * 
 * 


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * 
 * 

Multiple reverts to POV-driven new wordings. Some are badly sourced, or do not accurately reflect the sources quoted. RfCs placed on Talk:Osho page. Jayen 466 20:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As this is a full-out edit war, with multiple IPs (though likely the same person) on one side and multiple editors on the other, I'm fully protecting the article. Please discuss this matter on the talk page and come to a consensus. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Saythetruth reported by User:Ben Tillman (Result:12 block)
. : Time reported: 20:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:56, 17 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 11:31, 16 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 05:07, 17 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 05:37, 17 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 06:02, 17 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 05:55, 17 February 2008

Despite numerous requests, both in the edit summary and users talk page, to try and reach consensus on the talk page and reversions by at least 3 editors, this user continues to insert new (and dubious) information into the article. I'm not sure if I got the diffs in the right order, but it's clear what is happening in the article history. Thanks, Ben (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * These diffs show your own edits, not SaytheTruth's. Please fix this report (note that your report must show at least four reverts, unless there is a reason you think action is needed despite no technical 3RR vio) or submit a new one. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm fixing the links up. In the mean time can you please look at the article history? Cheers, Ben (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Links should be good now, and I've added a fourth. Thanks, Ben (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * blocked for 12 hours for edit warring. CIreland (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ben Tillman, please be careful not to edit war yourself, even if you don't techincally violate 3RR. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks ... but do I revert back to the original now? Also, I'm not sure how I was edit warring. I'm not arguing that I was or was not, but I thought the idea was the stop at 3 and head over here, so am I confused? Ben (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you start up a discussion on the talk page; if your preferred version has consensus, someone else will make the edit. CIreland (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So just to clarify, despite other editors making the same reverts, I can't just revert back to the original now? I have to wait until someone else sees the talk page? That seems a bit unnecessary .. especially for a page that doesn't get a lot of traffic. Ben (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify: being blocked does not imply that the content of his edits was incorrect, only that his methods were inappropriate. It should be established by discussion whether or not the content was incorrect. CIreland (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Hempbilly reported by User:Jasont82 (Result: 24 hours)
Scott_Ritter. : Time reported: 21:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * 3RR Notice: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHempbilly&diff=191931176&oldid=191929875

Basically a good ol' edit war. --   JT   Holla! 21:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24 hours --B (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Note Although the warning above was given after the latest reverts, the user had being warned previously so was aware of policy TigerShark (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That only applies to new users anyway - this account has been around since May 2007 (not new) and from a quick glance at his contributions, it's probably not his first/only account anyway. --B (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be highly inappropriate to block a user for 3RR if it where not clear that they were aware of the policy on edit-warring. You would be on shakey ground in jumping to the conclucion that a user knew this policy simply because they had been around for a period of time. TigerShark (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Brfc97 reported by User:Bill (Result: 48 hours)
. : Time reported: 23:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:10, 16 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 17:33, 16 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:50, 16 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 19:33, 16 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 23:27, 16 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:21, 16 February 2008

This is the 2nd reporting of this user in a few days. I've attempted to open discussions on the article talk page and on the Brfc97's talk page with no success. Brfc97 repeatedly removes a citation that is sourcing a claim made in the article. Bill (talk 23:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Has been given a 48 hour block by Gwernol for edit warring. TigerShark (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Hataf and User:Hoya4life reported by User:SMC (Result: Page Protected)
. : Time reported: 00:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC) . : Time reported: 00:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 0015

I then warned both users about this time.
 * 1st revert: 00:10
 * 2nd revert: 00:10
 * 3rd revert: 00:15

An anon then interrupted and appears to have now entered the edit war.

This appears to be an edit war which has been going on for quite some time. Granted, I have not given the user all four warnings, but if you check the history and the reasons behind the edits you will see why I have reported this "early". Several editors are now entering the fray. It appears that an anon has reason to believe the information Hataf keeps re-adding is prohibited due to a court order. Apologies if I have made mistakes - this is my first 3RR report - but it's apparent things are getting out of hand. SMC (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 00:11
 * 3RR doesn’t apply until after the 3rd revert. From the article history, it appears that more reverts were done, so you should add more to this report. — Travis talk  00:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah. The page has been protected, though. I'll keep it in mind for any future 3RR reports I need to do. Thanks! SMC (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Same As It Ever Was reported by User:Tasc0 (Result:both 24h, page protected)
. : Time reported: 01:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 15:07, 16 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 20:56, 16 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 22:19, 16 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:32, 16 February 2008

I tried to approach this user on his talk page, but I just can't end this issue. The user removes content claiming it shouldn't be there because the article it's about an album, and I certainly don't agree with that. The user is awared of the 3RR rule, he reported me a few days ago but the result was that I did not break the rule. My rollback rights were revoked because I was reverting edits that were not clear vandalism, and I wasn't awared that I only could rollback vandalism. Now I have the rollback edits back and I have used the edit summary when reverting non-vandalism. Tasc0 It's a zero! 01:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Page protected due to edit warring, User:Tasc0 & User:Same As It Ever Was blocked 24 hours for persistent edit warring. Ronnotel (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Pgsylv reported by User:Soulscanner (Result:48 hours)
. : Time reported: 03:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

A short explanation of the incident. Straightforward 3RR violation. User has been warned on his user page, in history of page, and on discussion page.
 * Previous version reverted to: 01:27, 17 February 2008
 * 1st revert: 21:36, 16 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 22:26, 16 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 00:32, 17 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 01:11, 17 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 02:24, 17 February 2008
 * Diff of 3RR warning 1: 22:34, 16 February 2008
 * Diff of 3RR warning 2: 22:47, 16 February 2008
 * Diff of 3RR notification: 04:03, 17 February 2008

This continues an edit war that has been carried out by anonymous IP 70.83.226.185 over last several days. :
 * 1 revert02:44, 13 February 2008
 * 2 revert23:42, 14 February 2008
 * 3 revert20:01, 15 February 2008
 * 4 revert02:05, 16 February 2008
 * 5 revert15:28, 16 February 2008
 * 6 revert17:45, 16 February 2008
 * page semi protected 18:33, 16 February 2008

User:Pgsylv started edit warring after semi-protection was put on to prevent anonymous vandals. It's possible that User:Pgsylv was using anonymous IP to edit war. Should I report this as potential sock puppet or IP infraction? soulscanner (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Pgsylv blocked for 48 hours, seems to be a single purpose account. Please see policy at WP:SSP for information on when to file a sock puppetry report. Ronnotel (talk) 05:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User:GuffasBorgz7 reported by User:Truco9311 (Result:Warning and page protected)
. : Time reported: 04:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:02, February 16, 2008.


 * 1st revert: 17:46, February 16, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:12, February 16, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:28, February 16, 2008
 * 4th revert: 23:00, February 16, 2008


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

User believes that wikilinking the same article in the same sections is not redundant. Me, and User:Gavyn Sykes have told him that it is and I have warned him about breaking the 3RR rule. I also told him to read WP:MOS, but ignored it.  T r U C o 9 31 1 04:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit warring over MoS issues is silly. Both sides should please take a deep breath and focus on the good things in their lives instead of this nonsense. I'm protecting the page briefly to encourage this result. Ronnotel (talk) 05:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Cebactokpatop reported by User:Seminarist (Result: Article protected)
. : Time reported: 06:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:18, 15 February 2008


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:56, 15 February 2008

User:Cebactokpatop repeatedly insisting on inclusion of contentious material in biographical article of John Zizioulas, Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of Permagon. Text and references claim 'traditional Orthodox' view is that Zizioulas is 'heterodox'. This violates WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:PROVEIT. For more information, see Wikiquette_alerts. Seminarist (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure there have been more than 3 reverts by either individual in a 24 hour period and frankly, I don't consider it relevant: Both and  are edit warring. However, It is encouraging that a discussion is simultaneously taking place on the talk page. Thus, because a 3RR violation is not clear and in order to discourage further edits from either editor until a resolution can be found on the talk page, I am protecting the article for 10 days. CIreland (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Kborer at socialized medicine: 3RR violated several times: (Result: User warned)

 * User:Kborer has essentially reverted to a specific version (see also talk page), removing a key distinction (that socialized medicine is a term as opposed to a single system) four times in less than 24 hours, and and six or seven times in approximately 48 hours (more in the previous days):

one two three four five six seven
 * Note that while there have been minor changes, the primary fixation seems to be to remove a (documented and referenced) issue with respect to the use of the term. Note that this is also a repeated pattern on this particular page, reverting three times or more within a short period of time. There is a clear pattern of violation of the spirit of wp:3rr. I am not listing the numerous changes in exactly the same spirit in the previous few days, so there are actually more than these seven.
 * The use of POV sources is also more than tendentious: witness the lead sentence being changed to "Socialized medicine is any health care system that embodies the fundamental principle of socialism."--Gregalton (talk) 09:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This report is a little old and the user never received a warning. I will warn the user on his talk page for now and watchlist the page. CIreland (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Olahus reported by User:Bogdangiusca (Result: No vio 31 hours)
. : Time reported: 12:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:00, 16 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 19:17, 16 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 09:52, 17 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 10:50, 17 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 12:12, 17 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: user is not a newbie, he's aware of the policy, has been warned before.

Revert-war on whether Moldovans should include the people of the Romanian part of Romania or not. POV-pushing to prove a point. bogdan (talk) 12:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The 3RR has not been violated as the first diff does not show a revert. There was a brief edit war but it was short-lived. I would encourage both editors to continue the discussion ongoing on the talk page. If reversion rather than discussion continues at a later stage, come back to this noticeboard or request page protection at WP:RFPP. CIreland (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like a couple of hours after CIreland closed this as a novio, the user continued to revert, so I went ahead and blocked.  Cheers. -- slakr  \ talk / 00:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Pexise reported by User:Ultramarine (Result: 31 hours)
. : Time reported: 16:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:13, 12 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 10:59, 17 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 12:27, 17 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 15:56, 17 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 16:05, 17 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:58, 17 February 2008

First revert is a partial one, the rest are full reverts.Ultramarine (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 00:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Desione reported by User:Relata refero (Result: 31 hours)
. : Time reported: 19:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:24 Feb 17


 * 1st revert: 23:00 Feb 17
 * 2nd revert: 23:12 Feb 17
 * 3rd revert: 00:19 Feb 18
 * 4th revert: 00:30 Feb 18
 * 5th revert: 06:46 Feb 18
 * 6th revert: 07:06 Feb 18


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 00:23 Feb 18
 * Additional warning after he broke 3RR, requesting he revert himself.

User has been around for some time. Mainly tendentious editing; has been arguing on talkpage of previously stable article, but without providing any sources, or indeed any form of reasoned argument as far as I can see. I don't like coming here, because its such an effort and because I feel like a snitch, but I think perhaps this one needs to cool off and get some encouragement to read policy, and understand that edit-warring is bad. Judging by his response to my two requests to revert himself, he doesn't care right now.

Previously reverted several other editors, and I think its about 5-6 reverts in the past 24 hours, but counting this gives me a headache.

Relata refero (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Relata refero. Here, for example, is a "memorable" post made by user:Desione on the Talk:British Raj page: "The references should cite Indian sources. British were oppressors, racist, slave traders, and mass murders, hence the views of british publications which were part of british empire are considered biased to begin with. Stick to neutral publications of Indian (the sufferers) publications. Besides that no one gives a damn about Gladstone or racist bitch known as the British empress. Desione (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)"
 * The "racist bitch" is a reference to Queen Victoria. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And another contentious revert accusing other users of vandalism . Dance With The Devil (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 23:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Stone put to sky reported by User:Ultramarine (Result: 72 hours)
. : Time reported: 21:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:53, 15 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 01:01, 17 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 06:10, 17 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 07:00, 17 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 19:25, 17 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Blocked previously for 3RR violation on the same article

As seen in this Request for checkuser,, Stone put to sky has used numerous different accounts to deliberately try hide his violation of WP:3RR. I have only reported the most recent violation but the article history shows that he has has used his sockpuppets to circumvent the 3RR rule before this also. Thus also violating Sock puppetry. The reported recent reverts are complex but in all cases Stone put to sky reinserts his view that the Philippines is a United States protectorate or a colony. He has also violated WP:Username by making attack accounts on my name, see the Request for checkuser. Finally, he violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL many times, for example here by calling me a liar, and here being warned by another editor for incivility against me.. As such a I urge for a long ban due to the serious and repeated attempts to circumvent Wikipedia policy and attack me personally.Ultramarine (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have also made a report of this on WP:ANI.Ultramarine (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * and semi-protected the page since the checkuser and the contrib evidence is pretty clear that it's the same person. -- slakr \ talk / 00:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Dimension31 reported by User:Metros (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 01:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:39 14 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 08:54 17 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 22:26 17 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 22:32 17 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 01:14 18 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 01:25 18 February 2008
 * 6th revert: 01:36 18 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 01:21 18 February 2008

Dimension31 has been reverting the notability tag on this article. He has also been taking out any valid references to establish the notability of the school. Metros (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A pretty clear-cut case, so 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Al-Andalus reported by User:Beneaththelandslide (Result: 2 weeks)
. : Time reported: 06:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Al-A repeatedly introduced a commentary paragraph critical of one person, and negative of another. Multiple reversions beyond these four with minor variations. Article history will show these. Michael talk 06:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Since this is the user's 6th block, the user should know better by now. -- slakr  \ talk / 06:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Derek.cashman reported by User:bkonrad (Result:warning both)
. : Time reported: 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:47, February 16, 2008


 * 1st revert: 05:06, February 16, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 23:28, February 16, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 06:54, February 17, 2008 (note: there was an intervening edit in which another user proposed another version--Derek.cashman reverted to his preferred version)
 * 4th revert: 16:42, February 17, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME (Derek.cashman is not a new user)

A short explanation of the incident. Derek.cashman finds general references to be unacceptable and has attempted to force this dictate into the WP:City Guidelines, despite there being no such explicit deprecation on WP:CITE. He has demonstrated no support for this change and others have expressed disagreement. In addition, he has accused me of being a sock puppet (on what basis I have no idea). While I object to Derek.cashman edits, I have no problem with the suggestion proposed by Maclean25 here and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Guideline. older ≠ wiser 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Both sides are edit warring. Bkonrad has not technically violated 3RR, but has reverted four times in the past two days. Not willing to block only one, but have watchlisted the article and will block either one if he continues the edit war. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm not exactly proud of having the course this has taken. WP:BRD suggests that further discussion is needed before a controversial new dictate is added to the project guidelines that, at present, far overreaches the general guidance at WP:CITE. older ≠ wiser 20:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hate to point this out to you, but I don't see that as a violation of 3RR, since the first edit and the third edit is just outside of a 24-hour period (see above). However, irregardless, I have decided not to continue edit-warring anyway, and instead have initiated a discussion regarding my position on "general references" here. I did make a minor modification to Bkonrad's wording today, to streamline the text a bit and make it a bit more readable, but I don't think that qualifies as a revert because it doesn't really change the spirit of what he wrote. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is indisputable that you (and I) were edit-warring over that page, which is what 3RR is about. Getting legalistic about technicalities is a poor excuse for continuing to revert without any clear support for your change. I think we both went over the line in this interaction, which is unfortunate because I can see that you are a good editor and valuable contributor to the Wikipedia. I don't agree with you about general references, but that is a matter for further discussion. I have commented at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources‎. BTW, the "wording" you revised is not mine -- in the initial instances I was restoring the text that had been there for quite a long time, and in the later instances the new text was by Maclean25. older ≠ wiser 15:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:AerospaceM reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: no violation, but 8 hour block for edit warring)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . and . Time reported: 08:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 13 Feb 22:25


 * 1: 17 Feb, 00:51 (AerospaceM)
 * 2: 17 Feb, 01:39 (AerospaceM)
 * 3: 17 Feb, 03:13 (77.83.22.224)
 * 4: 17 Feb, 20:26 (AerospaceM)
 * 5: 18 Feb, 08:03 (77.83.22.224)

n parallel on second article:
 * 1: 16 Feb 19:42 (AerospaceM)
 * 2: 17 Feb 01:38 (AerospaceM)
 * 3: 17 Feb 03:11 (77.83.22.224)
 * 4: 17 Feb 20:25 (AerospaceM)
 * 5: 18 Feb 03:03 (77.83.22.224)

Warning given:

Repeated removal of contested map previously added by User:Polibiush. Sterile reverting, no participation in discussion on talk (unlike his main opponent, User:Polibiush, who discusses constructively and stopped reverting after warning.) Identity of IP and named account seems obvious from behaviour and style. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not all of the edits are within a 24-hour period nor are they by the same user, but it's enough to justify an 8-hour block for general edit warring. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, yes, the first four items in the first set are within 24h, if you follow the reasonable assumption that these are in fact the same user, as I argued. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:LPRABCMP reported by User:Jakew (Result: 7 hours)
. : Time reported: 12:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 06:03, February 17, 2008


 * 1st revert: 20:58, February 17, 2008 (as User:70.114.38.167)
 * 2nd revert: 21:04, February 17, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 07:08, February 18, 2008
 * 4th revert: 07:36, February 18, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:09, February 17, 2008

Persistent edit warrior, as can be seen by viewing the page histories. User first appeared as, then signed one of the IP's contributions using the LPRABCMP account. Jakew (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 7 hours. Stifle (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Sbw01f reported by User:Ultramarine (Result: blocked 72 hours)
. : Time reported: 15:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:37, 17 February 2008
 * 1st revert: 14:16, 18 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 14:20, 18 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 14:28, 18 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 14:52, 18 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 14:24, 18 February 2008

4 identical reverts against consensus of other editors. Also incivility against me and other users in this edit commentary.Ultramarine (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked 72 hrs for 3RR and incivility (which declined even further after this report was listed.) CIreland (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Zzalzzal reported by User:Bobblehead (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 19:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:50, 7 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 18:34, 18 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:50, 18 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 19:08, 18 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 19:16, 18 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:14, 18 February 2008

The user has been attempting to add the percentage of the Iowa Caucuses to Hillary Rodham Clinton down to two decimal points since January 19. Previously he's done hit and runs, but today he seems intent upon having his version included and has done 4 reversions back to his preferred version in less than an hour. Bobblehead (rants) 19:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Decision: Although the warning indicated above was issued only two minutes before the final revert, and may not have been seen by the user until after that revert, the user was also warned at 19:03. Blocked for 24 hours. TigerShark (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Walter Mellon Head reported by User:Parent5446 (Result: Blocked indefinitely via separate process)
. : Time reported: 21:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 2008-02-18 20:18


 * 1st revert: 2008-02-18 20:19
 * 2nd revert: 2008-02-18 20:38
 * 3rd revert: 2008-02-18 20:58
 * 4th revert: 2008-02-18 21:19
 * 5th revert: 2008-02-19 01:11
 * 6th revert: 2008-02-19 02:23


 * Diff of 1st 3RR warning: 2008-02-18 21:28
 * Diff of 2nd 3RR warning: 2008-02-19 01:21
 * Diff of 3rd 3RR warning: 2008-02-19 02:36

The user is continuously adding speculative unsourced information to the article even after his edits have been reverted. In addition, he continued to edit even though there were hidden comments warning editors to discuss changes on the talk page due to the controversial status of his edits. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 21:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition, he is tried to escape WP:3RR by waiting until the end of the day (February 18). But his edits are still within the same 24-hour period. He has been warned twice. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 01:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Decision: The user was blocked indefinitely by an admin who took a separate complaint at WP:AIV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parent5446 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Bramlet Abercrombie reported by 65.96.171.231 (Result: 48 hours; reporter blocked 12 hours)
. : Time reported: 19:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 11:32, 18 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:45, 18 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 18:17, 18 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:33, 18 February 2008

Established user, clearly well aware of 3RR given three previous revert blocks (see block log). Was clearly advised twice in edit summaries that the material re-added in the revert was removed on BLP grounds. While Bramlet disputed BLP applicability in his 4th revert edit summary (wrongly in my view), that doesn't justify a 3RR violation, particularly when all I requested was a reliable source. (btw, I'm not a sock. am a former named editor, inactive for almost a year, scrambled password, and prefer to ip my few one-off edits now.). 65.96.171.231 (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Clear troll who himself violated 3RR. Single-purpose account trying to remove "co-founder" references, and then making up nonsensical BLP claim to remove entire paragraph where the "co-founder" occurs. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Bramlet Abercrombie has three previous blocks for edit warring, 48 hour block. The IP reporting has violated 3RR as well, but with no block history gets 12 hours. Stifle (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The recent anon Stifle blocked may already have an account and has been deleting cited text for months.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Trulexicon troll/sockpuppet account

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/65.96.171.231 suspected IP sock

Take a look at the similarities of both the anon and logged in account.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bramlet_Abercrombie#Three-revert_rule

By the way, the three revert rules does not apply to reverting a troll/sockpuppet account IMHO.

Regards, QuackGuru (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ironically enough, I didn't realize I had also crossed 3, so my block was also in order. However, Quack I am neither sock nor troll. Nor have I even been editing "for months" (try 2 days) as you obviously know perfectly well by having look at my contribs.  I gave well-reasoned edits and edit summaries grounded in policy with citations to the same. Bramlet simply repeatedly punched rollback without comment or discussion. I'd ask you to assume good faith Quack; it's hardly shocking that two people disagree with you and Bramlet -- indeed many other editors including slimvirgin and jimmy wales himself are on record disagreeing with you  -- or perhaps jimbo is also a troll sock of truelexicon? by your logic, you and bramlet must also be sock-buddies since you two share the same opinion and edits? Regards, 65.96.171.231 (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Chriscohen reported by User:Jheald (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 09:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:15, 15 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 12:45, 17 February 2008 (Text added back line by line over ~90 minutes)
 * 2nd revert: 17:59, 17 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 01:26, 18 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 09:49, 18 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 16:31, 18 February 2008
 * 6th revert: 16:47, 18 February 2008
 * 7th revert: 17:13, 18 February 2008 (combined diff of edits made over 5 minutes)
 * 8th revert: 17:16, 18 February 2008
 * 9th revert: 17:24, 18 February 2008
 * 10th revert: 21:26, 18 February 2008
 * 11th revert: 02:27, 19 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:49, 18 February 2008


 * See also: 00:32, 19 February 2008 (Edit summary specifically citing 3RR)
 * 21:02, 18 February 2008 (polite request to him to avoid Edit warring)
 * plus long attempts to engage him with him reasonably on the article talk page

The user insists on putting the same misconceived material into the article Y-chromosomal Aaron, against the protests of several editors, and eventually 3RR warnings.

I know we have to be gentle with him, because he's a new to Wikipedia, and also because English may not be his first language, but this can't go on.

In scientific terms, what he's trying to add is as wrong as saying 2+2 = 6. I have tried to explain why it's wrong in talk, and he puts it back. User:Iris-J2 tried to explain why it was wrong, and he put it back. User:AdrianTM tried to take it out for the sourcing not being sufficient, but he put it back. User:Jfdwolff asked him to take it to talk and stop edit warring,, but back it comes. User:Shoessss tried to get in a mediator, and left an edit summary specifically warning about 3RR, but now Chris has reverted that too.

In his latest response on the talk page, he seems to finally accept ( - see "(2)") that the CMH is not a Unique Event Polymorphism - one of the fundamental scientific points. And yet the material he puts back in uses the phrase "Cohen Unique-Event Polymorphism" no fewer than seven times.

I don't want to see the page locked down and protected - there are other areas there that needs to be corrected, with cites to more up to date material. And, per User:Shoessss's latest edit summary, I guess it shouldn't be me that tries to put the page back to rights any more myself, because I really don't want to be seen as edit warring.

But this misconceived material shouldn't be allowed to stand on Wikipedia, just because one editor insists on reinserting it. Jheald (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours and I admire your patience in not reporting until now. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Huaiwei reported by User:Canadian Monkey (Result: 1 week)
. : Time reported: 16:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:26, 15 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 16:25, 18 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:00, 18 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 13:47, 19 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 16:20, 19 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME – This editor has a block log as long as your arm – more than a dozen 3rr violations, the last one just a week ago. I’m surprised that he is still editong,and don;t belive a “warning” is need here.

User edit wars to add information which the consensus judged to be undue weight. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Given that:
 * The page in question is now protected for a couple of days.
 * Talk page discussions have been ongoing throughout.
 * Whilst there was a violation of the 3RR, there were only 5 minutes in it.
 * I would be inclined to see a block as unnecessary and essentially punitive. I will, however, leave this report open for any other comments. CIreland (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The editor committed 3RR despite multiple requests from different editors to discuss on the talk page; given his 14-or-so previous offences, I've decided to hand him a 1 week block. Hopefully the point gets sent across... Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  01:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Morpheus Lyric reported by Onorem♠Dil (Result: 1 week)
. : Time reported: 13:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

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

Ban me, but Texas, take note... It is over. I have committed wikisuicide. Viva Obama!'")
 * 1) 11:16, 20 February 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "formatted entry")
 * 2) 12:30, 20 February 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted wiki to previous state. Changes made are neither vandalism nor gag. Image uploaded is a somewhat popular pro-Obama primary graphic.")
 * 3) 13:10, 20 February 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Cultural and political image */")
 * 4) 13:12, 20 February 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Cultural and political image */")
 * 5) 13:16, 20 February 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Cultural and political image */")
 * 6) 13:20, 20 February 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Cultural and political image */")
 * 7) 13:43, 20 February 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "â†Replaced page with 'Barack Me Obamadeus.
 * 1) 13:50, 20 February 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Anger at something so trivial? Is this less than death? No? Very well, then. We will treat it as such.")
 * 2) 13:56, 20 February 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 192792567 by Remy B (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

User continues to insert image after being reverted by several users and asked to use the talk page...twice replacing the entire article with the image after being warned about 3rr. -—Onorem♠Dil 13:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

-- slakr \ talk / 22:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:LPRABCMP reported by User:Jakew (Result: 1 week)
. : Time reported: 22:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:18, February 19, 2008


 * 1st revert: 21:44, February 20, 2008 as User:70.114.38.167
 * 2nd revert: 21:50, February 20, 2008 as User:70.114.38.167
 * 3rd revert: 21:55, February 20, 2008
 * 4th revert: 21:58, February 20, 2008 as User:70.114.38.167


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:09, February 17, 2008

Note: should there be any doubt that the two users are the same, User:LPRABCMP signed a post made by User:70.114.38.167.

After being blocked for edit warring at 19:25, 18 February 2008, this user has now started edit warring over a different issue at the same page. Jakew (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (IP and sock). -- slakr \ talk / 22:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:GHcool reported by User:Imad_marie (result: page protected)
. Time reported: 22:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 17:04, 20 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 19:37, 20 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 22:00, 20 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: user is not a newbie, he's aware of the policy.

Revert-war on how the article should state why Hezbollah launched Katyusha rockets in the 2006 war. - Imad marie (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 23:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Rschen7754 reported by User:NE2 (Result:No block )
. : Time reported: 02:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:30, 20 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 20:20
 * 2nd revert: 21:23
 * 3rd revert: 21:25
 * 4th revert: 21:32


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:26

Basically Rschen7754 thinks he can do what he wants because he's an admin (see Administrators' noticeboard). He wrote up a little essay that's factually inaccurate. NE2 02:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A 3RR on a user's sandbox page? Mmmm... Not applicable, NE2. If and when he moves it to the Wikipedia namespace, then yes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Akhamenehpour reported by User:Zedla (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 10:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC) . : Time reported: 10:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on
 * Previous version reverted to: 09:22, 17 February 2008
 * 1st revert: 08:13, 18 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 06:49, 17 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:33, 16 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 15:41, 15 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 08:08, 15 February 2008
 * 6th revert: 08:46, 14 February 2008


 * Previous version reverted to: 06:13, 19 January 2008
 * 1st revert: 08:14, 18 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 08:13, 13 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 08:12, 13 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 08:21, 12 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 08:45, 12 February 2008

Not a strict 24h/3rr but long term constant reinsertion of unsourced pov statement and reverting all removals or fact tags with inappropriate 'removing vandalism' edit summary. Zedla (talk) 10:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * User warned. I didn't see any previous attempt at engaging this new user in talk or warn him, so I think an immediate block would not be warranted at this point. However, I'd be for blocking immediately if he resumes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strike that. Blocking 24h. My bad for not checking his talk page history. He was indeed warned, removed the warning, and went on edit-warring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

RESUBMIT wasn't blocked properly before and continues to edit war despite all warnings, call for discussion. Has threatened to puppet disrupt these articles. Zedla (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Zedla (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:74.228.158.68 reported by User:xareu bs (Result: No violation; page protected)
. : Time reported: 08:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 01:10, 21 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:56, 20 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:51, 20 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME The user is well aware of the policy (he even complained about me!)

This anonymous user keeps on deleting referenced information (see discussion page: lyrics from songs are provided which show explicit sexism; links to newsmedia with complaints to women´s right councils; internal links to wikipedia musical definitions are also provided to define the lacks of this music. Seeing his historial, I realize he´s a reggaeton fan which cannot admit the less criticism to his loved music. --Xareu bs (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll get straight to the point. Xareau_bs was vandalizing that wiki on a daily basis with critical POV statements.  He refuses to include a single reference.  I reported him for 3RR last week, and an admin protected the page to prevent further vandalism by him.  Take 10 seconds to look at the talk page and the wiki history, his additions are noticeably POV, and he has yet to actually reference anything.  He isn't even trying to source anything. I also think he just inadvertantly butchered the 3RR noticeboard coding. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The three-revert rule prohibits more than three reverts in a 24-hour period. You have provided only three. No violation made out. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous! Don't start a revert war on this page. Wait for an admin to follow-up. - oahiyeel talk 10:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've protected the page due to further edit warring. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)