Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive67

User:75.47.138.61 reported by User:NE2 (Result: Semi-protected)
. : Time reported: 08:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:03, 16 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 21:19, 20 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 21:35
 * 3rd revert: 22:07
 * 4th revert: 00:57, 21 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:23, 20 February 2008

This guy changes IP every day so blocking might have no effect. NE2 08:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Page semi-protected. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Phantomia reported by User:Seicer (Result: 24 hrs)
. : Time reported: 14:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:35, 21 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 07:06, 20 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:01, 20 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 19:24, 20 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 01:49, 21 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 05:35, 21 February 2008

There were also two reverts extending back to 18 February.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 02:15, 21 February 2008

User continues to add in spam links regarding Oink's Pink Palace. Claims that he is an "ex-Moderator of OiNK [and] Member of OiNKv2" and states that "[he] have seen the new site at the new url with the old data so I can confirm it is real." But the primary web-site states otherwise. It's been previously reported to WP:ANI, seen here.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 14:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ 24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Tigeringtown reported by User:ViperNerd (Result: 24h)
. : Time reported: 16:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:18, 21 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 14:05, 21 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 15:40, 21 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 15:44, 21 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 16:18, 21 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:55, 21 February 2008

After being warned of the 3RR the user responded by posting a vandalism template to my talk page, in addition to calling me a liar in violation of WP:NPA. Then the user decided to simply ignore the warning and revert the article for the 4th time in 3 hours. This user has no other history of editing and appears to be primarily interested in trying to start an edit war over a topic that has been covered in the article already. I have reason to believe the user is also using sockpuppets for this purpose, as this edit was made by an IP user just before this user started making the same edit, please consider blocking 64.234.75.220 and 209.221.240.193 simultaneous to this user. In fact, semi-protection might be in order for this article until this user gets bored and moves on. ViperNerd (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Both blocked for 24 hours. Mango juice talk 21:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Malarious reported by User:SFC9394 (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 21:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:58, 16 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 21:04, 21 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 21:11, 21 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:18, 21 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 21:24, 21 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 22:28, 21 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Discussion open on talk, user not interested, given warning, paid no attention. Other contribs. of user strongly suggest that WP:NPOV is irrelevent to them. SFC9394 (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked for twenty-four hours, per the evidence above. --  tariq abjotu  01:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Imperium_Europeum reported by User:Lakinekaki (Result: page protected )
. : Time reported: 02:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:24, 22 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 00:52, 22 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 01:16, 22 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 01:23, 22 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 01:35, 22 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 01:43, 22 February 2008
 * 6th revert: 02:00, 22 February 2008
 * 7th revert: 02:00, 22 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 01:46, 22 February 2008


 * Multiple editors were reverting and general chaos seemed to be ensuing, so it's protected for now. -- slakr \ talk / 04:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Cebactokpatop reported by User:Seminarist (Result: 31 hours)
Image:MZizijulas.jpg. : Time reported: 16:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Cebactokpatop repeatedly insists on placing POV description on MZizijulas.jpg file. This is part of ongoing dispute over the article on John Zizioulas. (Previous 3RR violation by Cebactokpatop on that page resulted in page being protected for 10 days.) Seminarist (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Note, I have stepped in on this and I am attempting to mediate.   CWii ( Talk  16:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There was no 3RR violation on John Zizioulas.   CWii ( Talk  17:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, 3RR warning given here.   CWii ( Talk  17:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Cebactokpatop has reverted the text again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seminarist (talk • contribs) 19:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed by me.   CWii ( Talk  19:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 31 hours. · AndonicO  Hail!  19:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Cebactokpatop is adding POV to the description of the text again. Seminarist (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked again, 72 hours this time. Kafziel Complaint Department 05:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Twsx reported by User:Navnløs (Result: No violation) (Result:Article ban)
and. : Time reported: 23:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:27, 6 October 2007

Note: These are all the Amon Amarth edits, I'm not sure if I got all of them, though. I can also provide the diffs for Dissection, but that would just take me even longer. The later edits are more interesting, if you care.
 * 1st revert: 19:01, 23 October 2007
 * 2nd revert: 20:47, 23 October 2007
 * 3rd revert: 22:36, 24 October 2007
 * 4th revert: 06:53, 25 October 2007
 * 5th revert: 22:41, 25 October 2007
 * 6th revert: 18:02, 26 October 2007
 * 7th revert: 21:54, 31 October 2007
 * 8th revert: 23:22, 31 October 2007
 * 9th revert: 07:12, 1 November 2007
 * 10th revert: 22:48, 1 November 2007
 * 11th revert: 21:15, 3 November 2007
 * 12th revert: 05:27, 4 November 2007
 * 13th revert: 19:43, 4 November 2007
 * 14th revert: 19:29, 5 November 2007
 * 15th revert: 08:00, 7 November 2007
 * 16th revert: 19:17, 7 November 2007
 * 17th revert: 15:06, 8 November 2007
 * 18th revert: 20:01, 10 November 2007
 * 19th revert: 23:45, 10 November 2007
 * 20th revert: 21:29, 13 November 2007
 * 21st revert: 23:58, 15 November 2007
 * 22nd revert: 07:38, 20 November 2007
 * 23rd revert: 15:41, 23 November 2007
 * 24th revert: 01:19, 24 November 2007
 * 25th revert: 19:46, 26 November 2007
 * 26th revert: 15:41, 27 November 2007
 * 27th revert: 15:13, 29 November 2007
 * 28th revert: 19:26, 30 November 2007
 * 29th revert: 01:38, 3 December 2007
 * 30th revert: 19:43, 3 December 2007
 * 31st revert: 18:23, 4 December 2007
 * 32nd revert: 21:41, 6 December 2007
 * 33rd revert: 19:49, 10 December 2007
 * 34th revert: 15:17, 12 December 2007
 * 35th revert: 02:16, 16 December 2007
 * 36th revert: 01:32, 24 December 2007
 * 37th revert: 14:58, 5 January 2008
 * 38th revert: 09:24, 15 January 2008
 * 39th revert: 12:27, 24 January 2008
 * 40th revert: 17:27, 28 January 2008
 * 41st revert: 22:47, 28 January 2008
 * 42nd revert: 03:35, 2 February 2008
 * 43rd revert: 07:46, 4 February 2008
 * 44th revert: 14:25, 10 February 2008
 * 45th revert: 13:45, 14 February 2008
 * 46th revert: 07:13, 21 February 2008
 * 47th revert: 22:12, 21 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:56, 10 December 2007

User has been warring on both of those pages long before I took up the issue with him. The user has been warned repeatedly by a handful of users and has made it clear that they don't care. Though, for the past few months, it has been mostly me reverting the user, if you look through both pages' histories you will see that many other users have reverted Twsx as well. I'm sure some of my past indisgressions may be brought up (I have been blocked for edit warring myself a couple times, though I still believe I was in the right on my latest one), but I assure you that I've changed and I do mean to help wikipedia and this kind of nonsense only makes us all go crazy and not focus on good editing. I also admit that when this edit warring started between me and Twsx it was mostly a comma break vs line break issue, but as I said, I only want the edit warring to stop now. I'm asking for a block to teach the user a lesson and stop edit warring. Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 23:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting that i have never thought of this before. Please note that I could make the very same list with this editors revisions (which usually take place within, say, 12 hours after my edit). More argumentation and referencing concerning the issue can be found at User:Twsx/CVL, (so yes, I had to deal with this before, kinda :-)). As far as my humble judgement goes (partially based on the history of this editors behavoir, as seen on the page linked above) I have to assume that he is placing this report in bad faith. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 00:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a blatant lie. You have been edit warring on those two pages even before I got involved.  Would you like me to provide the evidence?  Because I can.  You have been warned and reverted by multiple users, so I suppose they were all in bad faith, too, right?  And you happen to be an innocent viction who's done no wrong?  You've shown a disregard for the rules of wikipedia and gotten away with it for too long w/o any measures being taken. Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 18:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence that a violation of the three-revert rule has occurred. Hence, no action here. --  tariq abjotu  01:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to be offensive but he has most definitely broken 3RR. Excessive edit warring is still breaking 3RR even if the user hasn't reverted three times in a day. And I quote "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." Which happens a lot. I have been blocked before without making 3 reverts in a day. Edit warring is edit warring and above all it is disruptive and needs to be prevented. Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 18:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Tariq is correct, this is not a violation of WP:3RR, which is why it cannot be dealt with here. If you feel that these are disruptive edits, you can always post a report at WP:AN/I. — Travis talk  18:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I can take it to ANI, but I seem to be missing something here and I admit I don't understand. How is Twsx not breaking 3RR?  He's edit warring like crazy!  I, myself, have been reported here before without having to make 3 reverts in a day and simply for edit warring over a week or so. If I take it to ANI should I leave it in the same format with all the diffs and what not? Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 18:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something it says "To report edit warring, see the administrators' 3RR noticeboard." at ANI. Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 18:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Policy says: “An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period.” (emphasis mine) In other words, 4 or more reverts within 24 hours, which hasn’t happened here. I understand your frustration, but this noticeboard is not the proper forum for this case. — Travis talk  18:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, edit warring is not tolerated, and admins have broad discretion to stop disruption. Read WP:3RR; just below the sentence quoted above you will read 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. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks.  There is nothing wrong with flexibility and creativity in crafting ways to stop editors from acting poorly. Thatcher 19:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm going to jump in here and do something a little different. Edit warring is not an acceptable editing method, whether or not 3RR is violated.  What we have here is a long-running edit war (47 reversions!) over whether or not to list the band's genres on a single line or two lines in the info-box.  That is the lamest, saddest, stupidest edit war I have ever seen.  I am banning both  and  from editing the article for 30 days, or until they reach an agreement and settle this issue once and for all.  There is a talk page, a Wikiproject to consult with, RFC and mediation, and this sort of petty disruption in lieu of appropriate dispute resolution needs to stop. Thatcher 18:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:208.40.192.194 User:TiconderogaCCB reported by 150.210.226.6 (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC) (Result: Stale)
. : Time reported: 01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: not a new user has been blocked in the past for same incident

This is the same user TiconderogaCCB  as can be seen by   who has been blocked in the past for edit warring and abusive use of sockpuppets   150.210.226.6 (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

150.210.226.6 (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Report is stale - edit war was a couple of days ago. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Zsero reported by User:Snowfire51 (Result: Deferred to ANI)
. : Time reported: 09:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:29 21 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 16:00, 21 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:42, 21 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 19:06, 21 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 02:04, 22 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 03:23 22 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 00:28 22 February 2008 (edit war)
 * 2nd 3RR Warning 3:13 22 February 2008 (3RR)

User:Zsero is engaged in an edit war over a warning left by admin User:Hu12 on the pages of five accounts suspected of leaving spam. There is currently a discussion of this matter at WP:ANI, however, Zsero feels the spam warnings are not valid and deletes them before any consensus can be gained. On the WP:ANI page, he admitted to being fully aware of violating the policy here.

He has also done the same multiple reverts to [User_talk:134.68.173.135], [User_talk:134.68.172.247], and [User_talk:Stephena]. I've attempted to talk to him about this on both his talk page and mine, but he remains adamant about removing the warnings because he feels his edit war is justified the spam warnings are WP:NPA. Snowfire51 (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Deferred to WP:ANI. There are wider issues here and blocking Zsero would be unhelpful. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's the full others;
 * User:Zsero Three-revert rule violation on
 * 1st revert: 22:18, 21 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 00:42, 22 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 01:07, 22 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 08:03, 22 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 09:23, 22 February 2008


 * User:Zsero Three-revert rule violation on
 * 1st revert: 22:33, 21 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 00:41, 22 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 01:07, 22 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 08:03, 22 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 09:24, 22 February 2008

--Hu12 (talk) 10:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Zsero Three-revert rule violation on
 * 1st revert: 21:51, 21 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 00:40, 22 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 01:07, 22 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 08:02, 22 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 09:22, 22 February 2008

User:Crum375 reported by User:4.253.37.178 (Result: Page protected, content issue referred to ArbCom)
. : Time reported: 19:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 12:15, 22 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 12:33, 22 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 12:43, 22 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 12:47, 22 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 12:50, 22 February 2008
 * 6th revert: 13:12, 22 February 2008
 * 7th revert: 13:24, 22 February 2008
 * 8th revert: 13:39, 22 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: warnings from 12:34, 22 February 2008 through 13:49, 22 February 2008

3RR violation in arbcom case evidence posting place, gaming the system to try to justify 3RR violation. 4.253.37.178 (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Exempt due to WP:BLP. Stifle (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this exemption a blank check that permits an unlimited number of reversions if you claim it to fall under that policy, no matter how many other editors in good standing disagree? *Dan T.* (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it just prevents people from posting links that are borderline vandalism, since the link is a highly opinionated blog (see also, our external links policy) and calls the person a psychopath, which is potentially libelous under the biographies of living persons policy. -- slakr  \ talk / 20:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The page has been protected twice so far due to this edit warring, and so far Crum375 has reverted it 10 times, while a whole variety of other editors (I think some of them even admins) reverted back. Editing of other people's ArbCom evidence by anybody other than an arbitrator or clerk is supposed to be against policy.  If BLP is suddenly to be strictly enforced on ArbCom evidence pages, there's an awful lot else that needs to be redacted, including numerous statements about Judd Bagley in the same case. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WTF? Throwing three-letter acronyms around doesn't make you exempt from the 3RR. Sean William @ 21:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Yosemitesam25 reported by User:Arjuna808 (Result: No action taken)
. : Time reported: 20:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 02:22, 22 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 03:26, 22 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 12:29, 22 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 12:43, 22 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: warnings from 20:00, 22 February 2008 through 21:07, 22 February 2008

User:Yosemitesam25 has been reverting and/or editing out text (both whole and in part) in an article that has been the subject of contentious dispute in the past. S/he has reverted or altered text despite discussion and explanation on my talk page of why these edits were likely not warranted. Thank you. Arjuna (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * The "4th revert" and "2nd revert" are clearly not anything close to a revert. I count 2-ish so far today and one by the reporter. Sasquatch t|c 21:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Timeshift9 reported by User:Prester John (Result:Blocked 12 hours )
. : Time reported: 02:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: here

All reverts are the same.


 * 1st revert: 18:30 Feb 22
 * 2nd revert: 18:45 Feb 22
 * 3rd revert: 18:54 Feb 22
 * 4th revert: 19:08 Feb 22


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User has been blocked for 3RR before.

User:Timeshift9 attempts a wikipedia 3RR record with 4 reverts in just over half an hour. User was offered the chance to self revert yet has declined. Prester John (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Timeshift9 for 12 hours for edit-warring on the article. However, while changing the size each time he reverted, he sometimes added content or did other work, if it is uncontroversial I encourage him to make such constructive edits when the block expires. Keilana | Parlez ici 03:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Baconhead2010 reported by User:Collectonian (Result: no block)
. : Time reported: 07:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:56, 22 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 01:02, 23 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 01:06, 23 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 01:11, 23 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 01:35, 23 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 01:13, 23 February 2008

As IP 71.128.137.235, this user restored cleaned up fancruft from the article, that was removed based on discussions in the current AfD and the main Wheel of Fortune talk page. Additionally they removed the AfD templates. After that was reverted, they created the Baconhead2010 account, and kept reverting the revert. After third revert of his edits, he stopped removing the AfD, but kept redoing the readdition of the fancruft, despite warnings to stop. Between the final warning, he made an additional edit, inexplicably removing a single item, perhaps thinking it would negate the 3RR rule or something. User seems to have no purpose but pointed attempts to undo the needed clean up in the article, despite consensus to clean it up for bring back into the main to avoid deletion. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This report contains oldids, not diffs. Please refile using diffs if you would like the report acted on. Stifle (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All links fixed to diffs AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As both sides are edit warring, and Collectionian is arguably the worse offender (using Twinkle in a content dispute and labelling the edits as vandalism, for example), I'm disinclined to make a block on only one side. Instead, I'm watchlisting the article and am ready to block if either continues to revert. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * His first two reverts removed the AfD template, something he did as an anon IP. How is that not vandalism??? AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If your reverts had only been to restore the AfD tag, fine. But you reverted the entire edit, including the disputed content, making your reverts edit warring. I did indeed take the AfD tag removal into account, since if it weren't for this, I would simply have blocked you both for edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. My first inclination when I saw this was to block both users. Calling something vandalism doesn't make it so. Kafziel Complaint Department 20:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay...I disagree as his edits also blatantly went against consensus, and he was doing the same thing before under various IPs and being reverted by others, but okay. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I apologize if I'm coming in after the fact, but for the record, I'm the listed creator of the page in question, although I simply created a sub-page and moved some material over from the main Wheel of Fortune page. I have contributed to the sub-page as well. The edits which Baconhead2010 repeatedly reverted were mine. I was in the process of trying to re-organize and edit down the page to address some of the concerns which led to Collectonian's AfD nomination, and to select a small portion of the material to re-incorporate into the main article if the AfD is agreed to. The first time Baconhead2010 RVed non-anonymously, to the original bloated and unsourced version, he left a relatively constructive comment (which, however, didn't address the AfD or the need for editing). After Collectonian's RV of that, he RVed again with the comment "The other version's useless and looks bad." That would be where I'd stop assuming good faith on his part. Collectonian and I have had some editorial disagreements about these pages in recent days, but we're working together cooperatively and productively. Baconhead2010 doesn't seem to be interested in being part of that process. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JTRH (talk • contribs) 01:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Brendan reported by User:Prester John (Result: No violation; Prester John blocked 48 h for edit warring)
. : Time reported: 03:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: here

Repeated removal of a long standing  section without any talkpage discussion. In particular this paragraph; "'A document produced within Guantánamo Bay and signed by Feroz Abbasi, but later repudiated by him in a second signed statement, alleged that Hicks had said that he wanted to 'go back to Australia and rob and kill Jews,' 'crash a plane into a building,' and 'go out with that last big adrenaline rush,' that 'if he were to go into a building of Jews with an automatic weapon or as a suicide bomber he would have to say something like 'there is no god but Allah' etc. [sic] just so he could see the look of fear on their faces, before he takes them out'. Abbasi repudiated all the claims and described the allegations against Hicks as 'ludicrous in their content'.'"


 * 1st revert: 19:54 Feb 23
 * 2nd revert: 19:57 Feb 23
 * 3rd revert: 20:01 Feb 23 (look down the bottom)
 * 4th revert: 20:09 Feb 23 (the same text after I moved it to a different section)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User has been blocked many many times for 3RR especially on this article

After several weeks break serial disruptive edit warmonger User:Brendan returns to his favorite whitewash ground the David Hicks article, this time to remove an entire paragraph of relevant referenced information 4 times in 13 minuets, without any talkpage discussion. Has previously been blocked for a week for edit warring and disruption on this same article, so escalating blocks seem to be having little effect. Maybe something a lot longer may keep the integerity of the articleand the encyclopedia. Prester John (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a particularly bad faith and hypocritical report on Prester John's behalf, who I'd suggest is edit warring on the article as much or more so than Brendan. I'll add more soon and hope an admin can wait. Note, Prester himself only used the talk page (which false "Delete" allegations) after he used up his own 3RR "entitlement". From my reading, no info was "deleted" by Brendan, rather it was moved. A big difference. --Merbabu (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is erroneous. The section in italics is now no longer in the article. Prester John (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Erroneous or not (I'd call it hair splitting to game the system), you yourself were edit warring and using the 3 revert rule as an entitlement to revert 3 times and is true to your long established edit warrior form. --Merbabu (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Erroneous indeed. Prester John, whose own block and contrib histories are neither untarnished nor civil, is persistently reinserting duplicate POV information creating undue weight and article bias. My edit summaries clearly explain my reasons for removal and request that he avoid this disruptive behaviour. After repeated reversions by PJ shy of a 3RR limit, I placed additional comment here on the article talkpage explaining my reasons. Prester John never sought consensus via the talkpage for his duplicate insertion. Neither has sought to at least gain consensus to incorporate those parts he feels are not duplicate information and not undue weight. Finally, the fourth edit of mine that he cites was not a revert and was made to an entirely different part of the article -- indeed the very part of the article where, only a few paragraphs above, the disputed content is already covered: "In a memoir that was later repudiated by its author, Guantanamo detainee Feroz Abbasi claimed Hicks was 'Al-Qaedah's 24 [carat] Golden Boy' and 'obviously the favourite recruit' of their al-Qaeda trainers during exercises at the al-Farouq camp near Kandahar. The memoir made a number of claims, including that Hicks was teamed in the training camp with Filipino recruits from the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and that during internment in Camp X-Ray, 'Hicks [said] he was praying to Satan for help'.[19]"
 * --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt that this referenced information "'Hicks had said that he wanted to 'go back to Australia and rob and kill Jews,' 'crash a plane into a building,' and 'go out with that last big adrenaline rush,' that 'if he were to go into a building of Jews with an automatic weapon or as a suicide bomber he would have to say something like 'there is no god but Allah' etc. [sic] just so he could see the look of fear on their faces, before he takes them out'. Abbasi repudiated all the claims and described the allegations against Hicks as 'ludicrous in their content'.'" is no longer after in the article after Brendan removed it 4 times from 2 different sections. I tried to stop him removing it 3 times yet he decided to go that 4th revert with no talkpage discussion, he's a big boy, he knew what he was doing. Prester John (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing the supposed reverts by, I see two reverts, an attempt to move information (not a revert), and then a third revert that removed duplicative content; not a violation. However, especially given Prester John's prior history of disruption on this article and others, his behavior here seems like disruptive baiting and gaming the rules... I've blocked him for forty-eight hours for edit warring.  krimpet ✽  04:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:WillOakland reported by User:Ward3001 (Result:no block)
. : Time reported: 05:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: here 15:35, February 17, 2008


 * 1st revert: 03:44, February 24, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 03:53, February 24, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 03:57, February 24, 2008
 * 4th revert: 04:10, February 24, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 04:37, February 24, 2008

Also see administrator comments about POV-pushing here and here. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ward's report is disingenious and vindictive. He posted a 3RR warning on my talk page (It's still there) and we had a little conversation. I didn't make any further changes to the article after the warning. I told him that I hadn't violated 3RR because my first edit to the article in question wasn't a revert. He chose to report me only after I made it clear that I disagreed with him on that point. Clearly he is more upset about being contradicted than he is about edit warring. WillOakland (talk) 05:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No block, as the first edit given isn't exactly a revert. I do wish to caution both users not to edit war, and that WillOakland should be careful to keep edit summaries civil. Oh, and dissing on Homestar Runner isn't cool either, but that's just my opinion. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I respect the decision not to block. Point of clarification: I chose to make a 3RR report after it WillOakland gave clear indications in exchanges with me and other editors that he was not open to discussion instead of unilaterally deciding that he should decide what needs to be removed from articles. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Apostle12 reported by User:Ice Cold Beer (Result: warned)
. : Time reported: 06:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:11, 23 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 00:51, 24 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 02:14, 24 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 03:32, 24 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 06:11, 24 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 06:11, 24 February 2008

The user in question is continuously adding a link to a bogus "journal" into the article. While the time of the warning is the same as the time of the last revert, I feel that the Apostle12 has been around long enough to know better without being warned. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the fact he has been here a while doesn't necessarily mean he knows all the rules. As there were no reverts since the warning, I think that he shouldn't be blocked this time. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 23:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (simultaneous edit with Slakr) The user was warned not engage in edit wars, 1 minute before making the third edit. Since then, the edit warring stopped, and the matter is being discussed on the article's talk page. A block is not necessary and serves no purpose imo. And it takes two sides for a revert war: the other editors were changing the article without establishing new consensus (consensus can change). Working together, they technically did not break the 3RR rule, but in spirit they did. They should have taken their proposed deletion to the talk page first. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:LittleTinMan reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 24 hour blocks)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 08:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 23 Feb, 22:38
 * 1st r 24 Feb, 02:16
 * 2nd r 24 Feb, 02:34
 * 3rd r 24 Feb, 02:58
 * 4th r 24 Feb, 04:11 (also undoing a different edit )

New account, but not a new user, self declared reincarnation of some experienced user, therefore no warning necessary.

Also revert-warring in parallel on about the same issue, the inclusion of a map. WP:ARBMAC is applicable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no declaration of being an experienced user which means the user hasn't been warned about breaking 3RR. Scarian Call me Pat  19:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, my mistake... He was warned. I have blocked User:Polibiush and User:LittleTinMan for 24 hours each for breaking the 3RR on the Greece article. May I recommend all parties to use the discussion page to work out content disputes. Scarian Call me Pat  19:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Galassi reported by User:jd2718 (Result: 24 hour block )
. : Time reported: 16:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:08, 19 February 2008.


 * 1st revert: 14:22, 24 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 14:50, 24 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 15:20, 24 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 16:11, 24 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 16:01, 24 February 2008

Reverts have been accompanied by zero discussion, and have included patently absurd accusations of vandalism in the edit summaries.

Note that user:Galassi responded to the warning at 16:08, and then reverted again. Jd2718 (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an entirely frivolous charge. There are no limits on rv of vandalism whether amonymous

or signed.Galassi (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Result: I have blocked User:Galassi for 24 hours for breaking 3RR on the Babi Yar article. The edits in question were not vandalism and was actually a content dispute. I recommend all parties involved use the talk page to discuss any future disagreements. Scarian Call me Pat 18:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:RAYBAN reported by User:McGeddon (Result: 24 hour )
. : Time reported: 19:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:20, 24 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 17:16, 24 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:54, 24 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 19:14, 24 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 19:25, 24 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:20, 24 February 2008

Repeated deletion of sourced sections of the article that the editor believes to be wrong, despite requests to discuss it on the talk page. McGeddon (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Result - Plainly broke 3RR, blocked for 24 hours. May I remind all parties involved to use discussion rather than just reverting. Thanks. Scarian Call me Pat  19:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Zsero reported by User:Hu12 (Result: 31 hours)
. : Time reported: 19:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:30, 21 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 00:33, 24 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 04:06, 24 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 08:03, 24 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:42, 24 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 00:28 22 February 2008 (edit war)
 * 2nd 3RR Warning 3:13 22 February 2008 (3RR)

Continued edit warring, after discussion ending on ANI. see Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR --Hu12 (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * pre violation revert 1st: 21:34, 21 February 2008
 * pre violation revert 2nd: 00:40, 22 February 2008
 * pre violation revert 3rd: 01:07, 22 February 2008
 * Removing defamation from a user's talk page is 1) not subject to 3RR; 2) in any case more important than any rule that might be thought to prevent it. Leaving "the wrong version" up pending discussion does harm, so it cannot be allowed; otoh leaving the disputed accusation off does no harm, even if it turns out to have been warranted.  -- Zsero (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, excuses do not make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy and is never a reason to engage in Disruptive editing and edit warring. Wikipedia templates are in no way defamation, nor are the ever a personal attack.


 * 1) 21:34, 21 February 2008
 * 2) 00:40, 22 February 2008
 * 3) 01:07, 22 February 2008
 * 4) 00:33, 24 February 2008
 * 5) 04:06, 24 February 2008
 * 6) 08:03, 24 February 2008
 * 7) 18:42, 24 February 2008

Edit warring is an unproductive behavior characterized by repeated, combative reversion of others' edits. You're repeated and deliberate deletion of comments and warnings left by another editor, on a page that's not yours is a violation of Disruptive editing, edit warring and Vandalism.--Hu12 (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Accusing someone of spamming is inherently defamatory and certainly a personal attack, whether it comes in the form of WP templates or any other form. Repeatedly adding a false accusation to the talk page of an innocent editor is the very edit-warring you complain of.  In addition to everything else, you need to remember that WP rules are not the most important thing in the world.  You need to consider the reasons for the rules, and apply some common sense. -- Zsero (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Zsero certainly broke 3RR. He handled the situation poorly. But he was right. The handful of links being added were not spam, were not commercial, were appropriate to the articles to which they were added. I note that other editors have linked to that site before. It is a library with special on-line collections relating to Indiana history. No matter the result of the 3RR complaint, both editors should stay off user:Ashleymack's talk page. Jd2718 (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring and Disruptive editing such as.
 * User:Zsero Three-revert rule violation on
 * 1st revert: 16:00, 21 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:42, 21 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 19:06, 21 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 02:04, 22 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 03:23 22 February 2008


 * User:Zsero Three-revert rule violation on
 * 1st revert: 22:18, 21 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 00:42, 22 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 01:07, 22 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 08:03, 22 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 09:23, 22 February 2008


 * User:Zsero Three-revert rule violation on
 * 1st revert: 22:33, 21 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 00:41, 22 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 01:07, 22 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 08:03, 22 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 09:24, 22 February 2008


 * User:Zsero Three-revert rule violation on
 * 1st revert: 21:51, 21 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 00:40, 22 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 01:07, 22 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 08:02, 22 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 09:22, 22 February 2008
 * Repeated and deliberate deletion of legitimate comments and warnings left by another editor, on a page that's not yours is a violation of Disruptive editing, edit warring and Vandalism. Whatever the rationale for doing so, does not make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy and is never a reason to engage in Disruptive editing and edit warring. --Hu12 (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There's disruptive behavior here, but it's not on the part of Zsero in this instance. My recollection of the ANI discussion was that there was general agreement that the warnings weren't warranted and the links weren't spam. Daedalus969 appears to have been editing to make a point, while Zsero was trying to protect less a savvy editor. The other reverts are stale. Please stop this nonsense. R. Baley (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reporting a 3RR violation is disruptive behavior?? I'm uninvold, in this instance. I've made no edits reguarding these accounts once discussion on ANI began, and considered this closed then. Zsero resumed edit warring after the discussion. It would seem Daedalus969, was attempting to revert talk page Vandalism (not subject to 3RR). I Personaly don't care if those warnings are there or not but even that does not make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy and is never a reason to engage in Disruptive editing and edit warring. --Hu12 (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * &mdash; I have no idea if the links are good, bad, over easy, scrambled, or served with chips. A templated message (, in this case) is not "defamation" unless it's used in malice, and it's definitely not vandalism since it was used in good faith. Repeatedly reverting good faith edits is still edit warring unless it clearly falls under an exception to the three revert rule. If you don't agree with a warning, simply add a note below it and say so. Then, that gives you time to contact the person who placed the warning to clarify why you don't agree with it, and it leaves the user free to ignore it if it's not a valid warning. Regardless, it avoids edit warring, so I implore you to please consider it in the future. -- slakr \ talk / 23:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the previous discussion at ANI (archived link here) and the facts that: 1) Daedalus969 didn't participate and 2) the general consensus was that the warnings were too much. . .will you reconsider this block? I'm obliged to ask.  R. Baley (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No. The user's reverts do not fall under exceptions to the three revert rule, as I tried to make clear in my rationale for blocking in the first place. ("I have no idea if the links are good, bad, over easy..."). -- slakr  \ talk / 23:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The block looks appropriate. But someone should ask Hu12 to remove those warnings. They are not appropriate. Jd2718 (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

William Butler Yeats (Result:No vio)
Please block this annoying prick. 4, 3, 2, 1. Ceoil (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The first two diffs constitute reversions, it takes 3 for WP:3RR; what's your rationale for a block? Calling someone an "annoying prick" seems to be crying out for a block itself. скоморохъ  20:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Prick was the first word that came to mind is all. Was an unwise choice, so many other words. Ceoil (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no 3RR violation here. I would like to recommend that both editors discuss this formatting issue on the article’s discussion page. — Travis talk  20:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:RepublicanJacobite reported by User:Codeine (Result:protected)
. : Time reported: 01:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 00:06, 25 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 00:16, 25 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 00:42, 25 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 01:22, 25 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 01:42, 25 February 2008

The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oscar_Wilde&curid=22614&diff=193826960&oldid=193823618#Oscar_Wilde_in_modern_popular_culture. Oscar Wilde in Modern Popular Culture] section has contained a reference to Wilde's popularity on Uncyclopedia for over a year. When I edited the section to improve readability earlier today (note, I was not logged in at the time), I apparently brought this section to the attention of User:RepublicanJacobite, who took issue with it, removing it in its entirety. He subsequently broke 3RR when myself and other editors restored the section, despite citations of its standing history and talk page discussion. I am somewhat disappointed that my attempt to improve the readability of a Wikipedia article has resulted in this silly edit warring. -- Codeine (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Page is currently fully protected anyway, and every discussion on the talk page has been against inclusion of this trivia. One Night In Hackney  303  01:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's as may be, but my point remains; this "factoid" (if you will) has been in place on the article since some time in 2006 (forgive me, I got bored going through the diffs looking for it's original inclusion date), so there have been plenty of intermediate edits by this user and others - at any of which it could have been removed for the same reason, but wasn't. As I say, my attempt to clarify this point and thus justify its inclusion in the "popular culture section" led to this edit war, which I find contrary to the spirit of editing Wikipedia ( as I understand it). -- Codeine (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

User:68.167.200.154 reported by CZmarlin (talk) (Result: Blocked by Alexf)
. : Time reported: 18:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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


 * 1st revert: as of 03:07, February 24, 2008
 * 2nd revert: as of 14:08, February 25, 2008
 * 3rd revert: as of 14:28, February 25, 2008

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


 * Diff of warning: here

—CZmarlin (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't a 3RR violation - it's someone whose sole purpose seems to be to spam a particular site. In any event, they have been blocked by Alexf. --B (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Belleville Ontario (Result:reporter blocked)
rr3 by snowfire51, please see discussion page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kepplo (talk • contribs) 23:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, it's Kepplo who has gone over 3RR, he has reverted 5 times inside 20 minutes (see history). Cheers. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnnoo (talk • contribs) 00:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is Bnnoo's first and only edit. I suspect a sock. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Kepplo is a returning vandal, also known as a sockpuppet of User:GoneHH, User:Bnnoo and a few other IP addresses on the Belleville, Ontario page. As User:GoneHH, his first few edits were all revisions of my work, and his vandalism has been reverted numerous times by numerous editors, he simply switches gears to another sock. He appears to be dormant, apparently these accounts were just to disrupt things to make a WP:POINT. I appreciate your attention to the matter. Snowfire51 (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I blocked as a sockpuppet of, who himself is probably a sockpuppet account.  Passes the duck test. Quack! -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL. I was wondering why GoneHH was a bit inactive... <font color="#CC0000">seicer | <font color="#669900">talk  | <font color="#669900">contribs  02:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Soccermeko reported by User:cloudz679 (Result: Warned)
. : Time reported: 22:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Persistent edit warring and adding unreliable information on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 00:16
 * 2nd revert: 21:57
 * 3rd revert: 22:34

Continued edit warring despite recent full protection, attempts to discuss issues on the talk page and the |user page of the editor. Cloudz679 (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - also repeated conflicting edits on Nicole Wray discography leading to protection before a threat on the protecting administrator here. Thirdly, persistent addition of unencyclopaedic content at the corresponding template Template:Nicole Wray despite attempts at the talk page to resolve. Cloudz679 (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not technically a violation of WP:3RR (not more than 3 edits in 24 hours - also no 3RR warning was issued) so I have warned about edit warring and the consequences for continuing. — Travis  talk  19:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Wolfkeeper reported by User:UB65 (Result: Report moved to WP:WQA)
Moving to: Wikiquette alerts as this seems more appropriate. Please note that this was started because of a revert war though for my part I tried to talk it out to no avail. UB65 (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:UB65 reported by User:Wolfkeeper (Result: 24 hour )
. : Time reported: 10:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 2008-02-26T23:43:49


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 2008-02-27T07:45:04
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 2008-02-27T08:08:43
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 2008-02-27T08:14:08
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 2008-02-27T08:41:57


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME (no, but see User_talk:UB65 so user was well warned, but plowed on anyway)

A short explanation of the incident.-

User repeatedly engaged in at best, highly tendentious editing the Concorde article to change spelling in contravention of the MOS guideline. He removed comments from the article, ignored edits on his talk page and tied up two different editors (myself and BillCJ) that were forced to repeatedly revert his edits. He only made a comment on the talk page of Concorde after he had been reverted 3 times by two different editors as well as warned on his talk page. And then he still reverted one of his edits, making him 3RR (I had to actually revert it again (but I'm not 3RR!), because it was actually wrong- I actually had to download and read the report on the crash to check, it was a major pain). He has actually violated both the letter and spirit of 3RR. - (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 10:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

p.s. even though I didn't warn him about 3RR specifically, he was clearly aware of 3RR since he edited this page before I did! ;-) - (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 11:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I was a tad hesitant to block as that isn't a 3RR warning. But yes, the user editing this page does show that they at least have some knowledge of what 3RR is. 24 hour block given. Scarian <sup style="color:red;">Call me Pat  15:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Biggydicky reported by User:BalkanFever (Result: Not needed )
. : Time reported: 10:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:23, 27 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 20:14, 27 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 20:22, 27 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 20:36, 27 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 21:25, 27 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:31, 27 February 2008

This user has made POV edits to the Ohrid article, changing the word "Macedonian" to "Bulgarian" in the intro. He has not discussed this change at all, not when he first added it, and not when he reverted.  Balkan <font color="#008">Fever  10:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The user has also made a tendentious edit to Gotse Delchev. It seems he is not here to cooperate  Balkan <font color="#008">Fever  10:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User is already blocked for a username policy violation indefinitely. No action can be taken. Scarian <sup style="color:red;">Call me Pat 15:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:86.0.203.229 reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 17:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:31, 27 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 09:38, 27 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 09:42, 27 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 10:14, 27 February 200
 * 4th revert: 10:17, 27 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 10:30, 27 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 10:16, 27 February 2008

Multiple POV edits of Homeopathy (edits that I agree with, but which are very POV). Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 17:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours by another admin. MastCell Talk 17:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Gonbal2 reported by User:The Ogre (Result: Protected)
. : Time reported: 05:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:00, 26 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 04:36, 27 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 05:54, 27 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 20:28, 27 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:56, 27 February 2008

This user seem to be trying to revert the article, without any sort of explanation (even in an edit summary), to a version that was always edited by an anon Peruvian IP vandal (which caused the article to be now semi-protected), whose last avatars have been:
 * Blocked on 05:57, 23 February 2008 by User:East718 with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎(racist pov pushing)
 * Blocked on 05:57, 23 February 2008 by User:East718 with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎(racist pov pushing)
 * Blocked on 05:57, 23 February 2008 by User:East718 with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎(racist pov pushing)

The Ogre (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have enough background to tell if the user is really vandalism. You may want to consider presenting this matter at ANI, where you can elaborate more. --  tariq abjotu  01:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:EltheaRosa reported by TheRingess (talk) (Result: No action needed)
. : Time reported: 06:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 05:20, 27 February 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 05:43, 27 February 2008  (edit summary: "/* External links */")
 * 3) 05:47, 27 February 2008  (edit summary: "/* External links */")
 * 4) 05:54, 27 February 2008  (edit summary: "/* External links */")
 * 5) 05:56, 27 February 2008  (edit summary: "/* External links */")
 * 6) 05:58, 27 February 2008  (edit summary: "/* External links */")
 * 7) 05:59, 27 February 2008  (edit summary: "/* External links */")


 * Diff of warning: here

TheRingess (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a SPA created to add an external link in this article.


 * I'm confused... the times seem different. You warned the user at 06:08 UTC? But there are no diffs saying they edited after 06:08? As the warning appears (Unless I've got the times mixed up) to have stopped the edit war I'm a bit hesitant to issue any blocks etc. Scarian <sup style="color:red;">Call me Pat  15:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, the last warning seems to have stopped the revert war. If my time math is right, it's now at least 24 hours later. Nothing to block over now.  SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  14:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Imad marie reported by Schrodingers Mongoose (Result: Protected)
. : Time reported: 18:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 06:15, 25 February 2008  (edit summary: "/* Human shields */  i tagged the image as "fair use", there is no reason to delete it")
 * 2) 05:32, 26 February 2008  (edit summary: "keef the img until admin decides if to del it or no")
 * 3) 06:13, 26 February 2008  (edit summary: "rv, the caption is quite neutral, it is the same one in the BBC site")
 * 4) 15:28, 26 February 2008  (edit summary: "rv, human rights watch critizisim is very relivant to this article")
 * 5) 16:45, 26 February 2008  (edit summary: "rv, it is accurate, if you want to remove, discuss in the talk page")
 * 6) 18:27, 26 February 2008  (edit summary: "/* Human shields */  restore img, there is no justification for removing it at all")
 * 7) 15:26, 27 February 2008  (edit summary: "rv, restore content")

I warned this user in my edit summary here: 15:52, 26 February 2008] (edit summary: "rv until sorted out on talk. Imad Marie, if you revert again you're going to get blocked for 3RR. It isn't worth it.")

—Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a relatively new user, and I don't think that a cryptic reference to "3RR" in an edit summary is really a fair warning. I have contacted Imad Marie on his/her talk page and we will see if the edit-warring stops. The fact that Imad has been faced with two busily-reverting adversaries, and has nobody to tag-team with, should not be a reason to block him/her. On that page, Okedem has just barely stayed ahead of 3RR as it is. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 00:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have protected the article instead (but only for two days). Multiple editors have been edit-warring recently. --  tariq abjotu  01:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If okedem has violated 3RR, then that should be dealt with too. But this user doesn't deserve a free pass for 5 reverts in 12 hours, regardless of content. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 04:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User:80.212.198.87 reported by User:Godefroy (Result:Not blocked)
. : Time reported: 23:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:50, 26 February


 * 1st revert: 22:01, 26 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 12:38, 27 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 17:17, 27 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 20:41, 27 February 2008

This anonymous IP from Norway has been repeatedly reverting population figures concerning Germany and France (the 4 reverts listed here are about Germany, and partly France). Very little explanations for these reverts, except accusations of "spamming" (not sure what is meant by that). This person has also used other very similar IPs (80.202.181.59 and 80.202.179.35, both from Norway, and same reverts), so it might be necessary to block these as well Godefroy (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No 3RR warning given. Kafziel Complaint Department 07:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't know you could message anonymous IPs. I have just left a 3RR warning on this anonymous IP's talk page, as well as on the talk page of the two other IPs. Godefroy (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Gimmephive/User:Redprince et al. reported by User:Veritas (Result:Users blocked, article semi-protected)
. : Time reported: 01:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:22, 30 October 2007

9th revert: 00:40, 28 February 2008
 * 1st revert: 11:42, 27 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 12:30, 27 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 14:02, 27 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 16:59, 27 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 17:27, 27 February 2008
 * 6th revert: 23:16, 27 February 2008
 * 7th revert: 23:42, 27 February 2008
 * 8th revert: 00:35, 28 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 14:35, 27 February 2008 and 14:36, 27 February 2008.

Vandalism by blanking cited sections multiple times using multiple IPs. IPs are all at Columbia University (except 66.65.113.244 which is in NYC) and they are clearly the same person as you can tell from the edit summaries. Veritas (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 24 hours for both registered users. Article semi-protected for a week to end edit-warring by IPs. Kafziel Complaint Department 07:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Seminarist reported by User:Cebactokpatop (Result: Article protected)
. : Time reported: 16:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 14:32, 28 February 2008
 * 15:35, 28 February 2008
 * 16:02, 28 February 2008
 * 16:23, 28 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 13:32, 28 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 15:31, 28 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 15:48, 28 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 15:48, 28 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:31, 28 February 2008

I have made minor changes (removing quotations) to the article as recommended by informal mediator User:Justin refraining from making any more substantial changes until formal mediation kicks in. However, other party kept reverting those minor changes despite my attempts to bring him to the reason. Tried conversating to him on a discussion page, but it did not work. If you are to protect the article, please protect the revision before his reverts. He made some of his reverts under the umbrella of "making constructive changes". I left 3RR warning on article's discussion page. Thank you.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not broken the 3RR because I have not 'performed more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period'. The pages cited by Cebactokpatop above do not show a violation of 3RR.


 * Cebactokpatop has been trying to coerce me to revert my own edits, by threatening to report me for violation of 3RR if I do not revert my own edits (see here) He has placed this complaint here because I did not revert my edits.


 * I have previously reported two cases of incivility and personal attacks by him on Wikiquette page; on both cases my concerned have been upheld.


 * Cebactokpatop's changes concerned the substance of the dispute (see Talk:John Zizioulas); in this context they were not minor. The changes were designed to make the John Zizioulas page represent his POV before the formal mediation to which we have both agreed took place. (The debate concerns whether or not it is NPOV to call a particular position 'traditional Orthodoxy'; such expressions had been placed in quotes for NPOV.) My edits were in line with the recommendation of the informal mediator that weasel-words be removed or replaced with netural terms.


 * Also please view Cebactokpatop's attempted 'conversation', which is really just a series of insults, accusations and threats. Seminarist (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Article protected. Constant edit wars accomplish nothing, besides either getting dinged for WP:3RR, or the page being protected. Please use the 5 days protection to pursue dispute resolution and find common ground. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Dicklyon reported by User:Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (Result: no block )

 * Three-revert rule violation on:

Sorry, template inadequate for the case; some pages, but persistent behaviour. Along days in the last two weeks: List of monochrome and RGB palettes, RGB color model, Indexed color, Palette (computing). Please, see their respectives "History" tabs.

Time reported: 19:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. First, note that I'm not a native English speaker, only en-2 level. Second, I live in Madrid, Spain, Europe, so I'm time biased with the USA, so strict 24-hour 3RR can't be take into account.

In February 2008, I improved and/or cleanup the above articles and related, sometimes from mere stub to B-Class. I even won a "barnstar" (see my user page). Editors had corrected since typos, wording, etc., no problem. Except for minor bugs, I didn't wrote errors, inaccuracity or lies, and the subjects are sufficient objetive enough (due technical) and they don't arise controversy. Also, I added refs when available to me. But User:Dicklyon are war-editing (more or less, depend on the case), mainly by deletion, arguing "unsourced", accusing me of OR or the like. I tried to reedit conflictive paragraphs along days, but he dislikes almost anything, and delete again. We talk in discussion pages, but often he first deletes, then ask. Please, visit the discussion pages of the articles for the records. I finally "surrender" with the RGB color model, after agreeing a rearranged edit from him that partially met my words. But he quickly opened other fronts. I tried to be polite, to discuss, to be sticked first to the subject, I even copied him from the Wiki principle page Staying cool when the editing gets hot, point 7. He still persist in his attitude. While he argues "unsourced" and "wessel-wording", himself do. He uses many times "trivial", "irrelevant", "not familiar" (to him) and the like. I feel as if he were chasing me (he uses TW), due to he rarely was interested before in these articles (except "RGB color model") but quickly catches my edits on them. I acknowlege to him as an expert in opticals, but he didn't recognize me as an expert in computer graphics. We have common interest in the "color" topic, but from different approachs. I asked him ever with a "please" to stop deleting and put "citation needed" tags instead, but he still do. He don't want to get sympathy from me. He acts as an Spanish Inquisitor, Supreme Judge or the Master/Owner of the whole Wikipedia. Finally, I'm upset, and I report. Please, intervention requested. Yours. Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please pursue dispute resolution, such as WP:3O, WP:RFC, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * First, I wasn't asking for "blocking", only for "intervention" on a systematic behaviour. Second, It was always me, not him, who started topics in "discussion pages"; he simply "deletes and forgets". Thirth, it isn't only a mere dispute over a given topic; it is a permanent nightmare, no matter what color related article I edit. Fourth, I already follow the first -private- steps in "dispute resolution", warning him about, but he persist. Simply, I need help from an authoritative person of Wikipedia who can moderate his actions towards me. And this case is 3RR: for example, see from to, three edits each from 17:52, 25 February 2008 to 15:52, 26 February 2008, for example. Having in mind the time difference between Europe and the USA, it is excessive. Well, in every case I tried it anyway. Yours again. -Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This noticeboard is for 3RR violation reports only. If you need admin assistance related to user behavior, please post at WP:AN/I. FYI, there is no such a thing as an "authoritative person of Wikipedia" to moderate a discussion, thoough you can always request mediation if you are stuck. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Panelgets reported by User:Navnløs (Result:24 h for Panelgets and Amazing cow; article protected)
. : Time reported: 23:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:00, 28 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 22:00, 28 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 22:34, 28 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 23:02, 28 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 23:29, 28 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 23:44, 28 February 2008

User has continued to edit war after having been warned. Keeps adding unacceptable uncyclopedia links in to page. Also keeps reverting a fixed version of the page to an older worse edit that has warning templates (which I took off after having fixed the problem) and still has the problem. It's as if the user wants the page to have problems. <font color="#0066CC">Blizzard Beast  <font color="#666666">''$ODIN' 23:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Before anyone acts on this I want to say that Panelgets should not be blocked. He did break 3RR, but he was very civil and he is not the edit warrior. Along with me, we were protecting that page from the uncivil Servant Saber and Navnløs! Amazing cow (talk) 00:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude, no. You're high and you edited the page once.  And it was a vandal edit.  Panelgets isn't civil in the least.  He's already vandalized user pages before in the past and said some rude, dirty things to people.  As for me, I have been nothing but civil.  You have no idea what you're talking about.  The above comment should be totally disregarded.  I have already warned Amazing Cow and Panelgets for their vandalism.  I have no such warnings on my talk page, though Amazing Cow may try to add one now.  The reason I have no warnings is because I did nothing wrong and I can see who the true vandals are.  At first I thought they all were and then I realized Saber was just trying to stop them.  Also, Amazing Cow is obviously plagarizing me in his above edit.  I already said the same thing with almost the exact same words below. <font color="#0066CC">Blizzard Beast  <font color="#666666">''$ODIN' 00:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The above comment is untrue. Both, User:Navnløs and User:Servant Saber have also been trolling my talk page. Peapee (talk) 00:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That is totally inane BULL. This is the edit he speaks of here.  That's not trolling. That's me asking the user what the hell they are doing by reporting Saber.  And then it's Saber pointing out how the user is seeming more like a sock every minute.  Not even kind of trolling. Peapee is getting desperate.  The curtains are closing, dude, give it up. <font color="#0066CC">Blizzard Beast  <font color="#666666">''$ODIN' 00:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Servant Saber reported by User:Peapee (Result:Servant Saber, Peapee blocked 24 h; article protected)
. : Time reported: 23:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest


 * 1st revert: 06:52, 18 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 21:06, 18 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 22:17, 18 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:56, 18 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 23:02, 18 February 2008
 * 6th revert: 23:29, 18 February 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Persistent edit warrior, aside from calling other editors names, as can be seen by viewing the history page. Peapee (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Before anyone acts on this I want to say that Servant Saber should not be punished. He did break 3RR and was a little uncivil, but he is not the edit warrer.  Along with me, we were protecting that page! Panelgets was persistently vandalizing it!  We were rverting him and trying to clean up the page and he kept disrupting us!!!  Panelgets keeps adding in links to uncyclopedia and keeps trying to ruin the page! Saber is not to be blamed, he was protecting that page! Panelgets has also broken 3RR and is the one who is the vandal! Don't punish Saber for this, please! <font color="#0066CC">Blizzard Beast  <font color="#666666">''$ODIN' 23:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It has additionaly been brought to my attention that User:Peapee may be a sockpuppet. He has only edited the Maddox page. Take a look. Looks like a sockpuppet to me. <font color="#0066CC">Blizzard Beast  <font color="#666666">''$ODIN' 00:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to add that User:Servant Saber as well as User:Navnløs have both called other editors sockpuppets before. So one of these is probably the other's sockpuppet. Peapee (talk) 00:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You have got to be KIDDING me! I have done no such thing! I have called people vandals in the past (and they mostly were) but I've never called anyone a sockpuppet. I don't know what you and Amazing Cow are trying to do but it's utterly ridiculous. Me and Saber can't be sockpuppets of each other. All it takes is one measly admin to review our edits and they'd see we are two different people. The same can't be said of you and Amazing Cow. NOTE - I'd like some serious Admin help here!!! These two (or one) vandals are trying to turn this crap around! I know I won't get in trouble, but I don't want Saber to get into trouble either. Look at their edits and then look at mine and Saber's. We are NOT the vandals here (well Saber doesn't seem like a vandal anyways, I have no idea about his past edits). <font color="#0066CC">Blizzard Beast  <font color="#666666">''$ODIN' 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The comment above is solid proof that this user is indeed lying, as he called me a sockpuppet in this very section, and later denied it. Peapee (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is your so called proof? You're pitiful. You said "before." I didn't lie. I never have called anyone a sockpuppet beofre you. Lose. "...User:Navnløs have both called other editors sockpuppets before." Dude, you are grasping at straws. Yes, I called you a sockpuppet, only right above. I've never called anyone else a sockpuppet. I didn't lie about squat. Chill out, once the admins figure out this junk, which they may not, they'll see right away that you, Amazing Cow and Panelgets are vandals, if not sockpuppets. You may escape from trouble, but you certainly won't be getting me in any. Even if I blatantly lied about something, that's not against a rule albeit still a wrong thing. You're getting desperate dude...it's sad. I don't think I even need to explain myself anymore. <font color="#0066CC">Blizzard Beast  <font color="#666666">''$ODIN' 00:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

WAIT!!! I thank you for blocking the vandals, but don't block Saber!! He was only trying to stop them!!! User:Sceptre and I will vouch for him!!! Please? I know he broke 3RR, but he was only reverting their vandalism. <font color="#0066CC">Blizzard Beast  <font color="#666666">''$ODIN' 00:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User:74.237.114.108 reported by User:Enigmaman (Result: warned)
. : Time reported: 06:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:27, February 29, 2008


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME


 * The user appeared to stop after your warning. Feel free to re-open should he continue. -- slakr  \ talk / 17:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Jotel reported by User:Darwinek (Result: warned )
. : Time reported: 16:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:47, 28 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 22:54, 28 February
 * 2nd revert: 10:49, 29 February
 * 3rd revert: 15:50, 29 February
 * 4th revert: 16:22, 29 February
 * 5th revert: 17:16, 29 February
 * 6th revert: 17:29, 29 February
 * 7th revert: 17:42, 29 February

User:Jotel edit-warring on article created by him. He didn't evaluate his edit a single time. I don't know why he didn't want to explain his edits, maybe violation of WP:OWN. Darwinek (talk) 16:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 17:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Seven reverts as for now. Should be blocked immediately. - Darwinek (talk) 17:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Had the user demonstrably known about the three revert rule already, I would be inclined to do exactly that; and, should the user revert after the warning I gave, please update this accordingly. -- slakr \ talk / 17:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Lil' mouse 3 reported by User:Coemgenus (Result: warned )
. : Time reported: 17:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:25, February 29, 2008


 * 1st revert: 11:05, February 29, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 11:35, February 29, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 11:45, February 29, 2008
 * 4th revert: 11:58, February 29, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Lil Mouse has reverted this section four times to include material the other editors have deemed tangential or irrelevant. Coemgenus 17:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not keep count of how many times I reverted, being very upset by what I perceive to be POV-pushing by likeminded editors, in defiance of WP rules, which they did not bother to exactly quote on the Talk page, as requested in my edit summaries here and here. Also, as mitigating circumstance, Coemgenus should have given me the mandatory warning at my 3rd revert to remind me of the 3RR: he did not do so. Without this warning, I can say that he acted in bad faith in his reporting, waiting for me to lose track of my number of edits so that he can get me blocked. Please, do not condone such sneaky behavior, especially in somebody who acts in defiance of other WP rules to push his POV. Lil&#39; mouse 3 (talk) 17:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Either way, it does appear to me that you have violated the 3RR. Inspite of whether you believe your opinion is correct or not, Wikipedia content can not be damaged in this disruptive manner. Rudget . 17:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But I completely lost track of the count and, most importantly, he didn't give me the mandatory 3rd revert warning. Doesn't his lack of fair warning cast doubts over his motives and invalidate his request? I have proved above he doesn't care about WP rules, all he cares is to push his POV by all means necessary. Lil&#39; mouse 3 (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you know when a warning is required, you should know when the count is sufficient enough to violate the 3RR. Rudget . 17:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * – first and foremost, there is no mandatory warning, and regardless of the number of edits you make, you can still be blocked for edit warring if you repeatedly revert others' edits. Ideally, you can simply follow the one revert rule, which is a totally informal, simplified way of never having to count your reverts again. :)  In any case, consider this your only warning, and please try to discuss changes on talk pages and/or seek dispute resolution. -- slakr  \ talk / 17:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for not blocking me. I will be much more mindful of these rules from now on. Thank you very much! Lil&#39; mouse 3 (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Baseball Bugs reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result:Warned)
. : Time reported: 19:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:01, February 23, 2008


 * 1st revert: 12:01, February 29, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 13:43, February 29, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 14:03, February 29, 2008
 * 4th revert: 14:07, February 29, 2008


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

This user has decided that another editor is using Wikipedia for self-promotion, and has wholesale deleted all contributions from that user on the article in question. While there may be an element of truth to that, many of the editors contributions are factual, cited, and about a notable new release. Editor is adamant that his view must be accepted, even though multiple editors have asked that he stop reverting. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a technical violation of the three revert rule, but Baseball Bugs does have a legitimate point to pursue in regarding the expansion of the page as potentially a conflict of interest. In view of the fact that discussion is ongoing, I do not think the best interests of the encyclopaedia are served by blocking. I also note that the report here immediately followed the warning, and that Baseball Bugs did not revert following the warning. I have left him a note to explain the situation. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Karaku reported by User:The Rogue Penguin (Result:96 hours)
. : Time reported: 21:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:33, February 29, 2008
 * The tags and cats may differ slightly, but the content never changes.


 * 1st revert: 12:41, February 29, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 12:46, February 29, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 12:52, February 29, 2008
 * 4th revert: 12:56, February 29, 2008
 * 5th revert: 13:03, February 29, 2008

This user is continually reverting to his preferred version with uncivil edit summaries, attempting to use the in use template to excuse his behavior. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 21:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I was going to come here and report the same user:
 * Previous version reverted to: 23:09, February 9, 2008
 * 1st revert: 19:42, 29 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 20:45, 29 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 20:54, 29 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 21:14, 29 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 21:21, 29 February 2008.
 * 6th revert: 21:27, 29 February 2008
 * 7th revert: 21:30, 29 February 2008
 * 8th revert: 21:38, 29 February 2008

— <font color="007FFF">Save_Us  †  21:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Clear cut case. Due to previous edit-warring, and associated incivility on this case, I've blocked for 96 hours. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User:IronAngelAlice reported by User:NCdave (Result: )
. : Time reported: 04:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:40, 25 February 2008 (this is the version reverted to in revert #3)


 * 0th revert: 21:39, 24 February 2008 (this full revert doesn't count, because it was (slighly) outside the 24-hour time window, but it is part of IronAngelAlice's pattern of edit warring)
 * 1st revert: 19:43, 25 February 2008 (here's the diff from two versions back, showing that it was a full revert)
 * 2nd revert: 21:46, 25 February 2008 (here's the diff from two versions back, showing that it was a full revert)
 * 3rd revert: 00:05, 26 February 2008 (here's the diff from two versions back, showing that it was a full revert)
 * 4th revert: 01:43, 01:47, 01:48, 26 February 2008 This was a partial revert:
 * Reinserted "The counseling services offered by crisis pregnancy centers use psychological pressure to discourage women from aborting" in the intro
 * Reinserted "fundamentalist" adjective

Note: 4th, 5th & 6th reverts are consecutive.
 * 5th revert: 01:58, 26 February 2008 (reverted/deleted the 22:47, 25 February 2008 insertion of the new Psalm 139 Project section)
 * 6th revert: 02:08, 26 February 2008 (deleted the NRTLC reference, which balanced the Waxman report)
 * and more since then


 * Diff of warning about edit warring: 20:36, 25 February 2008 Warned against edit warring, on her Talk page
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 01:37, 26 February 2008 warned that she had reverted 3 times today, on her Talk page
 * Diff of her reply: 01:42, 26 February 2008 she replied "Please stop spamming my talk page"
 * 1, 5 & 6 minutes after that reply, she reverted again (her 4th; more if you count consecutive edits)

User IronAngelAlice is working to systematically tilt the article to her POV, by inserting accusations and criticism of CPCs, including patently false information, over and over, and also by deleting balancing information. Examples of the false information she has repeatedly inserted, even after being told it was in error, are the "fundamentalist" label for the Christian supporters of CPCs, and the claim that "most CPCs... receive the majority of their money from Bush Administration faith based initiatives.". In many cases she has reinserted these accusations even after other editors have pointed out that the information is false.

Additionally, CheckUser confirms that IronAngelAlice has a history using one or more accounts abusively. Her previous account, User:Bremskraft, is blocked indefinitely. NCdave (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC), 23:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * &mdash; Consecutive reverts do not count toward the 3RR limit. Also, it looks like both editors are partially warring on the page; it is suggested that future discussion be taken to the talk page or it will be protected and/or both editors blocked. -- slakr  \ talk / 18:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Take another look. Perhaps I was unclear: the 4th, 5th & 6th reverts were consecutive with each other, not consecutive with the 3rd revert.  I'm sorry if what I wrote was ambiguous.  Consecutive reverts together count as one revert, not as zero reverts.  This is a very clear 3RR violation.  Reverts 4, 5 & 6, together, count as one revert.  They were not consecutive with the 3rd revert, and none of the other reverts were consecutive.  That's four clear, non-consecutive reverts in six hours.
 * 19:43 25 Feb
 * 21:46 25 Feb
 * 00:05 26 Feb
 * 01:43-02:08 26 Feb
 * What's more, the reverts in the 1:43-2:08 time period were done immediately after IronAngelAlice replied to the note warning her that she had done three reverts ("please stop spamming my talk page"). They were, in other words, no accident.  They were done in deliberate defiance of WP:3RR.  NCdave (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reopened for someone else to take a look at or for me to look at a little later. I might have missed something as I was feeling like crap earlier. :P  Cheers :) -- slakr  \ talk / 01:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that I wasn't clear, Slakr. I can see how you could easily read what I wrote as indicating that the 4th revert was consecutive with the 3rd, which wasn't what I meant.  Your confusion is the result of my ambiguity.  Please accept my apology.  Also, I hope you feel better soon.  NCdave (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please also check the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crisis_pregnancy_center#Psalm_139_Project NCDave has tried to insert advertisements into the article. These were part of the reverts. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC) After reading more about 3R rules, this may be irrelevant. I'm not sure.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's untrue, IronAngelAlice. NCdave (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I have to defend myself a bit. Again, this may be off topic, but this is what you repeatedly inserted on the Crisis Pregnancy Center Page:

The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, is working to equip more CPCs with ultrasound machines, through what they call the Psalm 139 Project. "If wombs had windows, people would be much more reticent to abort babies because they would be forced to confront the evident humanity of the baby from very early gestation onward," says ERLC President Richard Land on Project 139 web site.

According to the Heidi Group, a Christian organization that advises crisis pregnancy centers, most women who visit CPCs and see their babies through the use of ultrasound technology decide against abortion.

Though I continue to disagree with it, I self-reverted the revert that I made regarding Pro-choice websites. The Congressional report is now categorized as a "Pro-Choice" site per NCDave's edit.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Earlier I was pretty sure I did not violate 3R. Now I'm confused.  Though NCdave posted a comment on my talk page accusing me of edit-warring, he did not post links to any of the reverts he found contentious on my talk page, nor did I get a warning about the posting on this page, and there were many edits not just reverts on both my part and NCdave's.


 * Say what? You didn't know you were reverting, Alice?  Your own edit summaries were:
 * 19:43, 25 February 2008 (Undid revision 193993513 by NCdave (talk))
 * 21:46, 25 February 2008 (Undid revision 194021502 Just because an individual is pro-choice, that doesn't mean the facts s/he states are biased)
 * 00:05, 26 February 2008 (Undid revision 194036463 by NCdave (talk) Let's take each section one by one)


 * I then warned you that you had done three reverts ("You've reverted three times today...") at 01:37.


 * Alice, I know you read that, because you replied five minutes later: "...Please stop spamming my talk page." One minute after that you defiantly did revert #4 (reinserting the statement that "CPC's are made to look like medical clinics, not religious organizations"), followed quickly by many consecutive additional reverts.


 * Now you say you've (finally!) self-reverted? But you only unreverted one tiny part.


 * Also, here is where I told you about the posting on this page. NCdave (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

NCdave, you didn't list the links to the problem edits on my talk page. And we had both been editing the David Reardon page where there were reverts as well. However, confusion on my part is not an adequate excuse, so I self-reverted the revert I did at 21:46 even though you have only listed three contentious reverts.

I made changes to the crisis pregnancy center page last night that I believe will be consensus building. Please look at what was done, and we can discuss them on the talk page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You have un-reverted only a very tiny portion of the flurry of prohibited partial reverts that you defiantly commenced making immediately after I warned you that you had already done 3 reverts.  NCdave (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What I reverted was one of your exact complaints. I have made several edits (listed on the talk page) over many days. You kept some and rejected others. And, yesterday I made more changes that I think you will be agreeable to. Since you keep some edits and reject others, why don't you respond on the talk page as to what you feel should be reverted.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have done so. NCdave (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, IronAngelAlice's disruptive behavior is not confined to the Crisis Pregnancy Center article. Over on the Abortion and mental health article, Equazcion complained in frustration that, "you two have completely ruined this article...." Alice's response was to accuse him of "bullying," which prompted Saranghae honey (who shares Alice's pro-choice POV) and Ferrylodge (who does not) to both express their agreement with Equazcion. Alice then accused Equazcion of "attempting to malign my character." NCdave (talk) 13:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, your editing has not been constructive either. Both users seem aggravated by each other resulting in an edit war that leading to a 3RR violation. I think it is best to warn her and ask both of them to step aside a bit from editing the article. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭  (talk) 14:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Saranghae/мirаgeinred is miffed with me about something else. I thought I was being gentle with her, but I guess not gentle enough.  :-(  NCdave (talk) 16:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL You seriously made my day and I'm not even being sarcastic. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭  (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, shouldn't ad hominem personal attacks be frowned upon at Wikipedia? --Potato dude42 (talk) 20:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

IronAlice's reverts #1, #2 & #3 were full reverts done by clicking on "undo," over a period of about 4.5 hours:
 * 1st revert: 19:43, 25 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 21:46, 25 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 00:05, 26 February 2008

Her subsequent reverts were all partial reverts, but there were many of them.

Here's a chronological list of IronAngelAlice's edits/reverts which she did after her first three full reverts, but all within 24 hours (actually, within 7 hours!) of revert #1. Since these were all consecutive, they all count as one great big fourth revert. But they are all in flagrant & intentional violation of WP:3RR, as all were done within one hour of her scornful reply to my warning on her talk page (telling her that she'd already done three reverts).

What's more, despite multiple appeals on the article talk page, and even a recommendation on her own talk page by her close ally, she has declined to un-revert most of them.

In the following list, the revert prefixed with "-" was subsequently self-un-reverted by Alice, and the revert prefixed with "x" was not un-reverted but was subsequently changed by Alice to a different wording. The reverts prefixed with "+" were not self-un-reverted at all, and are still in the article.

This is revert #4 (six hours after revert #1, and one minute after her scornful reply to my warning): 01:43, 26 February 2008 IronAngelAlice diff: Reverts:
 * - Reinserted POV-heavy accusation that, "Though they generally do not provide medical care, CPC's are made to look like medical clinics, not religious organizations." (self-reverted)
 * + Deleted heartlink.org ref
 * + Deleted "Some offer post-abortion counseling services, or refer clients to organizations which do so, such as Project Rachel" and ref to Project Rachel


 * An explanation was given in the talk page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

01:47, 26 February 2008 IronAngelAlice diff: Reverts:
 * x Reinserted "Fundamentalist" appellation (later changed to "conservative Evangelical... and Roman Catholic")


 * We came to a consensus about this days ago, and the name was thus changed to "Conservative Christian".--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * + Deleted www.care-net.org/aboutus/ ref

01:47, 26 February 2008 IronAngelAlice diff: Not a revert (inserted "and Roman Catholic" appellation)

01:53, 26 February 2008 IronAngelAlice diff: Reverts:
 * + Deleted http://www.cpclink.com/whatisacpc.php reference
 * + Again changed section heading from "Services" to "CPC Activities"
 * + Again deleted bullet list of services and replaced with POV-biased paragraph
 * + Deleted http://www.lifetimefoundation.org/adoption_scholarship.html ref
 * + Deleted http://www.nurturingnetwork.org ref

01:58, 26 February 2008 IronAngelAlice diff: Revert:
 * + Deleted entire Psalm 139 Project section, and Baptist Press article ref


 * An explanation was given in the talk page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

01:58, 26 February 2008 IronAngelAlice diff: Revert:
 * + Deleted entire Medical Services section, including
 * http://www.nifla.org/faqs.asp ref, and
 * http://www.epigee.org/pregnancy/centers.html ref, and
 * http://www.wpclinic.org/services/referrals/ ref, and
 * http://www.cookevillecpc.org/ultrasound.php ref


 * An explanation was given in the talk page. A consensus with outside editors was built not to include these at this time.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

02:05, 26 February 2008 IronAngelAlice diff: Reverts:
 * + Deleted entire Policies section, including
 * http://birthright.reachlocal.net/htmpages/philo.htm ref, and
 * http://www.heartbeatinternational.org/commitment.htm ref, and
 * http://opa.osophs.dhhs.gov/titlex/statutory%20rape_state%20laws_lewin.pdf ref


 * + Reinserted POV-heavy "Disinformation" section title


 * Per this discussion it has been changed to "Henry Waxman report on disinformation." There was no prior discussion about this on talk page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

02:08, 26 February 2008 IronAngelAlice diff:
 * + Reinserted expanded version of the POV-heavy Waxman accusation that most CPCs provide "false or misleading information about the health risks of an abortion"
 * + Deleted the condensed/compromise version of Waxman's accusations


 * There was no consensus, unfortunately.

02:08, 26 February 2008 IronAngelAlice diff: Revert:
 * + Deleted NRLC rebuttal to Waxman's attack on CPCs, and deleted the accompanying http://www.nrlc.org/news_and_views/April07/nv040207part1.html ref


 * This was discussed on the talk page, and the link was added to the external links section.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

02:09, 26 February 2008 IronAngelAlice diff: Revert:
 * + Again renamed "criticism" section to "Legal and legislative actions against CPC's"

02:10, 26 February 2008 IronAngelAlice diff: Not a revert, but introduced an inaccuracy: inserted new subsection headings, including one which incorrectly called "Choose Life" license plates "State Funding," when actually they are a form of donation which is also a revenue source for State gov't


 * I agree, and per consensus, it was agreed this would be "donations" rather than "state funding."--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

02:12, 26 February 2008 IronAngelAlice diff: I don't think this was a revert, but inserted POV-biased misleading "United States Government Information" section header for Waxman report

02:19, 26 February 2008 IronAngelAlice diff: Revert: But also corrected an inaccuracy in the article, by deleting the phrase, "or sometimes the government."
 * + Reinserted inaccurate "fundamentalist" appellation in another place, this time to describe the churches that support CPCs.


 * Per our consensus, "fundamentalist" was changed to "conservative" with lengthy discussion on talk page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

02:25, 26 February 2008 IronAngelAlice diff: Not a revert (removed a pair of parenthesis)

If I counted correctly that's 18 different consecutive reverts, all done within 7 hours of revert #1, and all done immediately after Alice's scornful reply to my warning that she had already done three reverts. Despite the self-reverting that she has claimed here, 16 of the 18 reverts are still intact, still in the article.

In those 18 reverts, she deleted 14 of the 34 references in the article. She has restored none of them.

However, she eventually added this link to an opinion column in a student newspaper, her "reliable source" to justify her repeatedly reinserted POV-heavy accusation that, "The counseling services offered by crisis pregnancy centers use psychological pressure to discourage women from aborting." 03:09, 27 February 2008 IronAngelAlice diff:


 * That link is not contained in the article. It was discussed on the talk page, but is not included in the article. I, therefore, removed that sentence.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That is untrue. IronAngelAlice hasn't removed that sentence.  Just the opposite, in fact: I removed it, and she again reinserted that POV-heavy sentence:
 * "The counseling services offered by crisis pregnancy centers use psychological pressure to discourage women from aborting."
 * It's the first sentence in the second paragraph of the current version of the article. NCdave (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Alice is unwilling to self-revert, I'll do it. I'll keep the good stuff, such as the correction of an inaccuracy which she made in her 02:19, 26 February 2008 edit. And, of course, I'll explain it on the article Talk page, first. NCdave (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've done so. NCdave (talk) 11:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * NCdave, perhaps both of our time would be better spent going to content dispute resolution by asking other editors who have been involved with the page to weigh in, or by requesting mediation. Clearly we have differing visions of what the article should include, as well as differing ideas on how to build consensus.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not only has IronAngelAlice declined to self-un-revert the reverts which she did in violation of WP:3RR, she has now defiantly re-reverted most of them!


 * Question for the admins: does WP:3RR apply to IronAngelAlice? (Not to mention WP:NPOV)  NCdave (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * NC, you reverted without any discussion on the talk page - and in some cases in defiance of consensus. Maybe it is time we simply go to arbitration I'm trying to make requests for participation.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In case anyone actually believes that, here are links to diffs showing some of the talk page comments that IronAngelAlice says I didn't make:   NCdave (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

NC, the first link you posted is from February 28. The other link you just posted didn't give a reason for the massive revert back to a version from early February. Let's be fair, dave. There was no forewarning of the massive revert to a much earlier version.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * IronAngelAlice fancifully said I reverted her "without any discussion on the talk page" (which is nonsense), so I posted diffs showing about twenty of my comments about it on the talk page, over a period of four days.  Now, just as fancifully, she says I reverted to "a version from early February" (which is nonsense), and that she had "no forewarning" that I was going to undo her disruptive 3RR violations, blanking, and flagrant POV-pushing.


 * Despite this 3RR report, and despite previously having had her IronAngelAlice ID blocked for a week, and having her previous User:Bremskraft ID (block log) and her Ladeda76 & RebelAcademics sockpuppets indefinitely blocked, IronAngelAlice has continued her pattern of disruptive editing, 3RR & NPOV violations, repeatedly removing well-sourced material and references without talk page discussion, repeatedly inserting unsourced, poorly-sourced, and plainly false material without talk page discussion, and misrepresenting her actions and those of others. NCdave (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (sigh)--IronAngelAlice (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Freelifelegal reported by User:Barek (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 18:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: via 4 edits from 17:11, 29 February 2008 to 17:22, 29 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: via 3 edits from 22:24, 29 February 2008 to 22:30, 29 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: via 1 edit at 22:46, 29 February 2008
 * 4th revert: via 5 edits from 12:52, 1 March 2008 to 13:09, 1 March 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The edits by this user have been undone by multiple parties due to WP:COI. While some of the users edits may be valid, others appear to be nothing other than advertising/marketing material. The user has attempted to start a discussions on the talk page requesting changes but when they were not immediately forthcoming the user began edit warring and stated at one point "I can make this change back to a balanced entry all day." The user has been warned about WP:COI and WP:3RR, and has had WP:U brought up to them. After the 3rr warning, they were also directed towards using third opinion or request comment on the article to address their issues with the article, but they chose to make a fourth revert shortly after that rather than use provided alternate tools to engage in discussion. The user claims to be correcting errors, and to have received approval to make them via an email from Jimbo Wales (see article's talk page). - Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Decision: Blocked for 24 hours. TigerShark (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Chrisjnelson reported by User:Ksy92003 (Result: 72 hours)
. : Time reported: 22:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * One-revert rule violation on

This isn't your "traditional" report here. I am coming here as directed from WP:AE about a possible arbitration ruling violation. WP:AE suggests that ArbCom violations in regards to a specific amount of reverts be reported here in hopes of a quicker response.

Back in September, there was an Arbitration case between and Jmfangio (now indefinitely blocked for unrelated crime). The final decision of that case was that Chrisjnelson be held to, in essence, a "1RR" rule, where he may not make more than one revert on a page in a 24-hour span. The restriction has a six-month range before termination, which would be March 26.

Yesterday, February 29, Chrisjnelson appears to have reverted another user,, two times ( first revert , second revert ), as well as calling the edits vandalism (which I don't think they were).  Ksy92003  ( talk ) 22:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Has been blocked for 72 hours by GRBerry. TigerShark (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Rockybiggs reported by User:84.71.249.5‎ (Result: Article semi-protected)
. : Time reported: 19:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:49, 29 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 09:45, 1 March 2008
 * 2nd revert: 15:25, 1 March 2008
 * 3rd revert: 18:19, 1 March 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:48, 1 March 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This stubborn British editor with an aversion to the Cypriot government is repeatedly deleting a sourced statement regarding the new Cypriot president's stance on this territory on the grounds that it is "Greek POV". 84.71.249.5 (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Although the reported user has reverted a large number of times over the past couple of days they have not reverted since being warned. The IP who left this report presumably knew about the 3RR policy, as they left the warning. Although this IP has not reverted more than three times, it and very similar IPs have been engaged in edit warring with the reported user, I have therefore semi-protected the article. TigerShark (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you please revert to the last version, this sourced statement is clearly not "Greek POV" as Rockybiggs unreasonably asserts. --81.79.239.155 (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry but it would be inappropriate for me to revert the page following protection. If you feel that changes are required to the article, please discuss them on its talk page. TigerShark (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * But Rockybiggs is being totally unreasonable, he describes any reference to the Cypriot government position as "Greek POV". --81.79.239.155 (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As i have insisted on from the start there was a discussion on this matter on the talk page, and the General Concensus was not to have these comments mentioned. Any further agruements should be addressed on the talk pageRockybiggs (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Wndl42 reported by User:Andyvphil (Result:Both blocked 24h, article s-protected)
. : Time reported: 08:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:02, 1 March 2008


 * 1st revert: 00:17, 2 March 2008 edit comment: Undid apparent vandalism
 * 2nd revert: 00:43, 2 March 2008 edit comment Undid revision 195225281 by 70.13.183.189 suspected sock puppet of USER:ANDYVPHIL (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Andyvphil)
 * 3rd revert: 00:55, 2 March 2008 edit comment: see talk
 * 4th revert: 01:05, 2 March 2008 edit summary: Undid revision 195227982 by Andyvphil... reported for sock puppetry
 * 5th revert: 01:41, 2 March 2008edit comment rvt vandalsim
 * 6th revert: 01:57, 2 March 2008 Undid revision 195238238 by 70.13.183.189... rvt repeated vandalism - see talk


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 00:58, 2 March 2008 edit comment: "Your next revert will be 4RR. Restrain yourself."

I issued the 3RR warning after WNDL42's 3rd revert and returned later to find he had reverted three more times. He should be familiar with the rules by now. He first issued me a bogus 3RR warning about Feb 3rd (discussion here) and has been spamming my talk page with bogus 3RR and other warnings ever since, and has been involved in at least one 3RR dispute on this page before. This is not the place to complain about his BLP-violating POV pushing, so I won't. But I direct the attention of anyone interested to my response to the suggestion that I am or have a sockpuppet where I make an appeal for volunteer intervention. Andyvphil (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * don't know if it matters but I have been getting into edit wars with user:andyvphil as well. he refuses to use the talk page in a good-faith fashion and he refuses to make good-faith edit summaries. I find that instead of attempting to work towards consensus text he prefers to rv back to the same text over and over, even when multiple other users disagree, because its full of weasel-words. If you take a look at my history you will see numerous examples of my involvements with him, and how he uses words and edit summaries. So oh well, but I can see how he could push someone else into a 3rr situation through his own actions. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Both users are clearly guilty of edit warring. I suggest dispute resolution after the blocks expire. Kafziel Complaint Department 08:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:DefendEurope reported by Fut.Perf. (Result:24 hours)
. : Time reported: 09:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version: 2 March, 07:51
 * 1: 08:11
 * 2: 08:35 (reinserting "were an ancient Greek tribe", previously removed here)
 * 3: 08:37
 * 4: 09:13
 * Warning given:

Revert warring for the inclusion of a number of low-quality external links and a POV change to the wording of the lead. Longterm contentious article, all issues have been discussed for years. WP:ARBMAC is applicable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Siekierki reported by User:2007apm (Result: )

 * Three-revert rule violation on Enlargement of the European Union. : Time reported: 16:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 10:11, 27 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:33, 27 February 2008
 * 3rd revert: 22:08, 27 February 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:31, 27 February 2008
 * 5th revert: 19:49, 28 February 2008
 * 6th revert: 19:59, 28 February 2008
 * 7th revert: 16:37, 29 February 2008
 * 8th revert: 20:45, 29 February 2008
 * 9th revert: 17:00, 1 March 2008
 * 10th revert: 19:35, 1 March 2008
 * 11th revert: 11:07, 2 March 2008

(Note that, while not all reverts are within 24 hours, at least 4 are.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 00:44, 2 March 2008

A short explanation of the incident.

The article is about countries wanting to join the European Union. There is a section on Kosovo which, rightly, mentions that some EU countries and Serbia dispute Kosovo's independence, and agreement would be needed before Kosovo joined the EU.

Siekierki wants his POV to prevail, and keeps changing the article so the section on Kosovo is a sub heading of the section of th Serbian section. It should be noted that the majority of EU mamber states have recognised (or have publicly announced th they are in the process of recognising) Kosovo's independence.

2007apm (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Redthoreau reported by User:Mattisse (Result:withdrawn by reporter)
*Three-revert rule violation on. : Time reported: 16:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * - (11:01, 2 March 2008)

(same diff num but diff revision)
 * - 10:57, 2 March 2008


 * - 10:50, 2 March 2008


 * - 10:44, 2 March 2008


 * - 10:40, 2 March 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

A short explanation of the incident.
 * Warnings
 * Warnings

Che Guevara has been in FAR since Feb. 23. See: Featured article review/Che Guevara, largely as a result of massive editing by User:Redthoreau since January 2008 that doubled the article size and introduced massive POV. He is not participating in the FAR, except to object. He has not be participating in the talk page discussions, as he has asked to repeatedly, before he makes changes. The above edits are the first he has made since the FAR began. <font color="007FFF">Mattisse 16:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish to withdraw this complaint as I will no longer be editing the article. Thanks! <font color="007FFF">Mattisse 20:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:WilliamHanrahan reported by User:RepublicanJacobite (Result:24h)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 18:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:35, 1 March 2008


 * 1st revert: 03:13, 2 March 2008
 * 2nd revert: 13:21, 2 March 2008
 * 3rd revert: 18:08, 2 March 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:33, 2 March 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 18:18, 2 March 2008

Editor persists in edit warring to include a minority term in an article where it doesn't belong, despite being reverted by four different editors. ---<font face="Celtic"> RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive'  18:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:UtherSRG reported by User:Beyazid (Result: 24 hrs)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 20:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:30, 29 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 22:20, 29 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 03:27, 1 March 2008
 * 3rd revert: 04:36, 1 March 2008
 * 4th revert: 05:42, 1 March 2008
 * 5th revert: 18:53, 1 March 2008

This is but one of more than a dozen articles that the user is actively edit-warring over, and I would appreciate an outside admin to please assist with the situation.

The user has an extended history of refusing to accept any view but his own on a style issue and has engaged in widespread edit-warring over it for ages. UtherSRG specifically was notified of 3RR (though it shouldn't have been necessary, he is a heavy contributor to wikipedia and even an admin, he full well knows the rules):
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:24, 2 March 2008

Please see Talk:Bobcat for more on the recent events. This is a long-term, chronic issue where UtherSRG has repeatedly not convinced other wikipedia editors of his view on the topic, yet maintains that he can strong arm the issue with reverts. A huge discussion took place at WP:MOS at the end of 2007, of which he was a part, and it resulted in consensus language now found on the front page of WP:MOS. His view was discussed and it was not accepted. UtherSRG refuses to allow edits where other wikipedians align animal articles with WP:MOS and instead enforces his personal viewpoint with the reverts. I edited a series of articles on various cat species be formatted according to WP:MOS and it's what triggered the latest barrage of reverts. Wikipedia editors have patiently and calmly discussed this issue with him many times (eg here) but he refuses to accept consensus. Beyazid (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Addendum


 * Also I see there was a violation of 3RR by UtherSRG on the leopard cat article.


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:06, 29 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 22:20, 29 February 2008
 * 2nd revert: 03:27, 1 March 2008
 * 3rd revert: 04:36, 1 March 2008
 * 4th revert: 05:42, 1 March 2008
 * 5th revert: 18:53, 1 March 2008


 * These two articles are where 3RR has been violated, but there are about a dozen other additional articles where he has been reverting 1-3 times a day. Beyazid (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Dmknable reported by User:Spacini (Result:No action )

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 01:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Malformed report. No action taken. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Realist2 reported by MassassiUK (Result: page semi protected)

 * Three-revert rule violation on Thriller by : Time reported: MassassiUK (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 23:57 2 March 2008
 * 2nd revert: 00:18 3 March 2008
 * 3rd revert: 00:53 3 March 2008
 * 4th revert: 01:16 3 March 2008

User Realist2 is engaging in an edit war and has reverted reliably cited information a total of 4 time in less than 90 minutes. Looking at the user's history and talk pages (a die-hard Michael Jackson fan), there appears to be a history of this. MassassiUK (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you would care to look at the Michael Jackson or Thriller articles you will see that this user was using his account on 1 page and his ip address on the other, their were two of them (the same person) vandalising each page. You will also see that since then I have added an addition 6 sources to the 2 that were already there supporting my argument.Realist2 (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

hereherehereRealist2 (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Infact its a triple sock puppet.


 * Page semi-protected for one week to prevent disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If there are concerns about WP:SOCK, please file a report at WP:SSP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is utter nonsense. Realist2 is making baseless accusations of sock puppetry in order to detract away from the fact that he/she has broken the 3RR policy and has reverted the "Thriller" page FIVE times in the last couple of hours (including once again since this complaint was listed as "resolved"). He/she is removing valid, reputable and CITED information purely because he/she wants to. This is vandalism. However if we are on the topic of sock puppetry, an equal accusation could be made against him/her on the main Michael Jackson page for also being the user ACSE. Considering this user has a history of such behaviour, I suggest the Realist2 account be suspended.MassassiUK (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Utter rubbish ive provided evidence you have just made alligations. Realist2 (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You have not provided evidence at all, you have simply made an allegation based on the fact that myself and another user have edited the same boards at some point in order to detract from the fact that you yourself are in breach of Wiki policy.MassassiUK (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And that an ip adress was used as well. Realist2 (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Again - this is not evidence of anything. You are clearly too immature and irresponsible to even be using Wikipedia.MassassiUK (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Patkirkwoood reported by User:Wildhartlivie (Result:48 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : 02:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 17:15, 2 March 2008


 * 1st revert: 09:04, 2 March 2008
 * 2nd revert: 09:08, 2 March 2008
 * 3rd revert: 10:28, 2 March 2008
 * 4th revert: 14:14, 2 March 2008
 * 5th revert: 16:47, 2 March 2008
 * 6th revert: 19:21, 2 March 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 09:14, 2 March 2008

Discussion had occurred regarding lead paragraph. This individual persisted in changing what had been agreed on, despite notices on talk page and notes on article talk page, to a poorly worded, stylistically inferior, time framed change. Additionally, he attempted to insert copyrighted photo during most of the reverts despite notices to the contrary. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 48 hours due to the user's persistence even after multiple warnings. <font color="#7d7d7d">Master of Puppets  <font color="#7d7d7d">Call me MoP! ☺  02:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

User:TiconderogaCCB reported by 63.113.199.109 (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC) (Result: )

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 12:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

Has been edit warring for a few days and at least 3 3rr violations in the past few days. Has resulted in the creating of two articles  and  dues to his behavior. 63.113.199.109 (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

TiconderogaCCB is attempting to correct the article, while the above reporter is vandalizing it. This user has been demonstrating the same conduct of reverting, and is now sockpuppeting by using an IP instead of his user name, User:Uconnstud. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

At no point did I use a sockpuppet via IP. Even if I did use an IP i could have easily been logged off which I didn't. TiconderogaCCB always uses IP edits and changes them in right afterwards. In addition TiconderogaCCB, Keeps deleting opinions that are contrary to his opinion in an attempt to build a consensus. It can be seen here  where this opinion was deleted "J.Delany agreed to this verions     - I agree to this verion as well  63.113.199.109 (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)"  his reason was vandalism and he says discussion was deleted when it was simply moved from the top to the bottom to go in chronological order(after he moved it). Also he asked for an opinion on which version is better to which i was notified   and so was he. When the third opinion came in he simply ignored what the third opinion was and simply reverted the page. I thought we had a compromise and would listen to the 3rd opinion, but now i'm really starting to wonder if there can be any compromise with him. Uconnstud (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * J.delanoy did not agree to either version, and offered critique of both. There is now an opprotunity for other editors to vote on the option they prefer, and I think it is best to see where that leads us. This editor just will not quit, and even other editors comments recognize that he is attempting to vandalize, not improve the article. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So because you didn't agree with J.Delanoy you simply reverted the whole article. So why ask for a 3rd opinion? What if I had done the same? You're the editor who won't quit! That other editor.. that was you! Uconnstud (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We obtained another opinion, but it was ambiguous, and now I am seeking input from other editors, which scares you. Also, please stop undoing the archive, it was recommended by Wikipedia. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC


 * 3rd opinion by J.Delanoy scared you. That's you you ignored it. He gave a very thorough opinion which you ignored! Uconnstud (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You did not offer any alterations to the article either. It was a good opinion, but vague. The editors input will be more appropriate to deal with this issue. You should also not be saying that he "preferred" your article, because that was by no means his conclusion. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the parties involved, the entire point of a third opinion is to discuss it and come to some sort of compromise, or for one of the parties to acknowledge that the other's version is acceptable after all. The absolute wrong thing to do is to receive a third opinion and immediately revert again. If the opinion was ambiguous on some points, then open a dialogue on those points. Both TiconderogaCCB and Uconnstud were very specifically warned not to revert to either version before discussing the matter on the talk page, and that is exactly what ended up happening - which explains in part why the article has now been protected again. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Wasted Time R reported by User:Mr.grantevans2 (Result: No action)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 02:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 22:51, 1 March 2008
 * 2nd revert: 23:07, 1 March 2008
 * 3rd revert: 23:30, 1 March 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:47, 2 March 2008

The content in question was removed by concensus. Wasted Time has worked hard on the article and seems to feel he has ownership of its content because he rewrote and reinserted the same "polarizing" categorization of the subject of the BLP without first passing it by the numerous commentors who opposed the polarizing label for the subject of the BLP. I have asked him to get consensus before reincluding the polarizing section and his response has been to break the 3RR rule. As an experienced (very) user he must be well aware of the rule. Normally I would not report this but I fear that the User's attention to this and other articles he is trying to move into FAC is becoming a bit obsessive so perhaps a small reprimand by authority would snap him out of it. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would WELCOME administrators looking at this, the more the better. Please read my explanation of the situation at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the section above that Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton, both of which MrGrantEvans2 has been non-responsive to, instead just repeatedly deleting the material in question.  I have polled the previous objectors to the previous version of the material, although they'll have a hard time judging the revised material since MrGrantEvans2 keeps deleting it.  I would also welcome administrators judging my record of contributions to Wikipedia versus MrGrantEvans2, on this article or any other article.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note also that MrGrantEvans2's first removal of the entire section occurred before all of the above, with this edit marked "section is non-encyclopedic", which was reverted two minutes later by admin User:Stephan Schulz with this edit marked "Sure is ...". So I'm not the only reverter.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * After reading through the talk page, I see no clear consensus for the complete deletion of the section as the reporting user would suggest... Edit-warring has occurred on both sides with, in my opinion, both sides liable to blocking if it continues. I think the reporting user intentionally used 3RR to try to lure Wasted Time into committing a 3RR breach in a purposeful attempt to game the system so I will not block for now... although I would suggest both sides stop, wait for some more opinion to filter in through the talk pages before anyone does anything else. No block for now. Other admins are free to disagree but I think this is the sensible thing to do. Sasquatch t|c 07:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support: No block, and a waring to both editors. If edit-warring continues, both will get dinged. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Realist2 reported by User:MassassiUK (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on and . : Time reported: 03:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 00:20 3 March 2008
 * 2nd revert: 01:18 3 March 2008
 * 3rd revert: 02:26 3 March 2008
 * 4th revert: 02:49 3 March 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 02:13 3 March 2008

This is my second report in the past couple of hours. The User:Realist2 has been engaging in edit warring on at least two different pages (see the "Thriller" complaint above) and continues to do so. Despite warnings, he/she has now broken the 3RR on both of these pages in the past few hours alone. The Thriller page has even been semi-protected by an administrator, but this has not stopped User:Realist2. The account should therefore be suspended from further editing. MassassiUK (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If you noticed ive already ended the issue although you heve definately been engaged in either sock puppetry or tag teaming. I have ended the issue coming to a compromise on it.Realist2 (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Trying to "make nice" now are we? It's too late. You have flouted the rules of Wikipedia consistently and will be held accountable. And I am not interested in your lame accusations. MassassiUK (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No I care about the articles and your actions here constitute either puppetry or tag teaming. hereherehere--Realist2 (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You dont care about the articles at all, you only care about hyping your idol by quoting outrageous sales figures that cannot be definitively proven. And it's not "tag-teaming" just because more than one person agrees that your edits (and reverts) are just plain wrong. MassassiUK (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Both you editors work on the same articles yourself if you arent the same ppl so tag teaming is defo their. I do care about that article and am working on it and its improved dramatically, if been working almost soley on it and Thriller 25.--Realist2 (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

your coming across as some1 who hates jackson or his supports. you edited the article to make it look like he made up that figure which is pov. Realist2 (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Good god, listen to yourself! Possessive and territorial much? Firstly, let me just say that you do not own the Michael Jackson and Thriller pages, no matter how much you work on them. If other people can add reliably CITED information to them, then you cannot stop it just because you don't want your pop idol to be diminished in any way. Secondly, I do not hate Jackson at all. I simply do not believe that Thriller has sold 104 million copies. If you look at the certifications for countries around the world, it just isn't possible....no matter what he claims himself. All of the sources you have cited merely repeat what he said himself at the 2006 World Music Awards - but that doesn't make it a fact. Therefore you you have to allow other "cited" sources so people can make up their own minds. The fact that you are obviously such a die-hard MJ fan means that you are not impartial enough to edit the articles responsibly and your behaviour today has shown that.MassassiUK (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, just as a reminder, at the top of this page it says "Do not continue a dispute on this page." This page is for WP:3RR violations only, and you've both given the admins plenty of information to work with. Please continue the argument on the appropriate page. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 24 hour block per policy. Edit warring needs to stop on both sides or editing will probably be locked... there's talk pages for a reason. Sasquatch t|c 07:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Xasha reported by User:Dpotop (Result: No prior warning given, user not blocked)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 13:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:20, 3 March 2008


 * 1st revert: 09:55, 3 March 2008
 * 2nd revert: 11:24, 3 March 2008
 * 3rd revert: 11:37, 3 March 2008
 * 4th revert: 11:44, 3 March 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

A short explanation of the incident. Dpotop (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no warning prior to last revert. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nor do I. I will leave a warning at the user's talk page.  Please open a new request if the revert warring continues.  Thank you. --B (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Shearwater63 reported by User:Vary (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 17:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:49, February 29 2008

Editor is an employee (per this comment on my talk page) of Affinion, formerly known Trilegiant and a whole string of other names. Affinion is trying to distance itself from the many complaints and lawsuits filed against it under its past names, and to that end, the editor is attempting to remove references to those problems from the article. Vary | Talk 17:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1st revert: 15:07, March 3, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 15:32, March 3, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 15:55, March 3, 2008
 * 4th revert: 16:59, March 3, 2008
 * 5th revert: 17:05, March 3, 2008
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 16:49, March 3, 2008


 * Blocked for 24 hours. So far, this user has worked only on this article. Since this user is very new (despite heeding above warnings), I think it might be too early to consider this user to be a single-purpose-account. - <font color="#1E90FF">52 Pickup  (deal)  18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

User: Pax Arcane reported by User:triplejumper (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 18:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

This editor insists on returning the Religious Implicaitons section to the article repeatedly when many editors have a problem with the relevance of this section and have pointed out that the citations of that the section do not support what is written. Pax Arcane’s comments on the article's talk page have resulted in being warned repeatedly about WP:CIVILITY and WP:PA by both admins and other editors. Rather than address the issues that other editors have with the section, He has reverted 5 different times with in 24 hours. This person has been warned about the 3RR rule in the past.
 * 24 hours. --B (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

User:71.217.206.152 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 24 hours for both.)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 03:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:11, March 3, 2008


 * 1st revert: 22:00, March 3, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 03:31, March 4, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 03:33, March 4, 2008
 * 4th revert: 03:40, March 4, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 03:33, March 4, 2008 (not a diff, because there was no page to respond to)

A short explanation of the incident. The anon feels that copyright violations may be summarily removed, and that reinserting them is vandalism. Maybe so, but the copyright here is undertermined; the image MAY be public domain, and a fair use rationale has been added. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Arthur, you violated the 3RR yourself; the anon was blocked for 24 hours already for a different reason, so essentially the action was already taken. 24 hours all around. —BorgHunter (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Betimsa reported by User:sethie (Result:No block)

 * 1) 1 []


 * 1) 2 []


 * 1) 3 []

Attempts at discussion [] [] have produced no results and his/her reverting continues. Sethie (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No official warning given. This user is clearly unaware of Wikipedia rules and regs and it's quite unlikely they know what edit warring is. Please issue a warning and come back if the problem continues. Kafziel Complaint Department 08:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you really think this is a new user? His fourth edit was to upload an image, his fifth edit was creating a page with an infobox? I don't think so.


 * Still no response from him, and now an anon IP has taken up the cause, sans discussion also. Sethie (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected the all-caps page to prevent anon reverts. We'll see how that goes. Kafziel Complaint Department 07:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:kborer at socialized medicine (No violation)

 * Same version introduced by user above three times in 25 hours. Was warned on this same subject on 17 February for a similar group of edits. This is not the first time the same editor has violated the spirit of 3RR, usually on this same article. Note that despite the claim that wholesale (highly biased changes) would be explained on talk page, this did not happen. Note the version in question - introduced by kborer - is inflammatory and highly POV: "Socialized medicine' is any health care system that embodies the fundamental principle of socialism, namely reduced individual liberty in favor of increased centralized control."--Gregalton (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * One more revert since then, i.e. four times in appr 30 hours. Please note the original edit in this period was essentially a revert to a version from February 16 . The more recent reverts are at the history page here. Note that kborer has been warned before, but cleans his talk page history to remove these notices.--Gregalton (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is purely a content dispute. Last reverts by Kborer were to a different compromise version that does not mention reduced individual liberty. Gregalton has stated on the talk page of the article that he is encouraging to revert instead of having a discussion on the talk page. --Doopdoop (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a misrepresentation. Changing one or two words to a so-called "compromise" version (which several editors had objected to and is by no means a compromise version) is still violating the spirit of 3RR.--Gregalton (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If it was the spirit of 3RR that concerned you, then this would not be an issue. I have never tried to use technicalities against other editors of this article, even though some openly admit to breaking the guidelines.  The point is not to "win", but to improve the article.  It is easier for this to happen when the community around an article can cooperate, and this kind of pointless attack on someone who opposes your viewpoints does little to improve our community.  Kborer (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No violation - I see two back-to-back edits with no intervening users (ie, counts as one revert) and so at no point were there four reverts in 24 hours. Also, as he hasn't edited the article in nearly 24 hours, there is little need for a preventative block.  This is not an invitation to game the system - if you make 4 reverts in 24.5 hours, you will probably be blocked.  If any additional activity occurs here that warrants attention, please submit future reports using the standard form (see the bottom for an example) - that way reviewing admins don't have to guess at what the issue is.  Thank you. --B (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies for not using the form properly. Note that I am not contesting the decision. For the record, here is the record of relevant changes (in addition to the one above):


 * 1) 23:08 March 1
 * 2) 20:24 March 2
 * 3) 00:04 March 3
 * 4) 06:31 March 3.
 * These are essentially the same versions, introduced four times in a 30 hour period.--Gregalton (talk) 09:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Rune Thandy reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result:48 hours )

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 13:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:43, 2 March 2008


 * 1st revert: 14:04, 3 March 2008
 * 2nd revert: 22:29, 3 March 2008
 * 3rd revert: 10:48, 4 March 2008
 * 4th revert: 12:14, 4 March 2008
 * 5th revert 13:00, 4 March 2008
 * 6th revert 13:16, 4 March 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:36, 4 March 2008

Repeated addition of a fair use image into a living person's article. Ignores all attempts at communication, just keeps adding the image back. Looking at the editor's history, there's a long history of this in relation to this article, seems to be a single purpose accont. One Night In Hackney 303  13:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 48 hours by Blueboy96. One Night In Hackney  303  13:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Dwrayosrfour reported by User:Jpers36 (Result: 24 hour block )

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 15:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:02, March 3, 2008


 * 1st revert: 22:43, March 3, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 23:32, March 3, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 00:25, March 4, 2008
 * 4th revert: 02:08, March 4, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 01:52, March 4, 2008

Dwrayosrfour has removed any reference to "Christian" rock from the genre list multiple times. The current setup -- a mention in the genre list, with a reference to a sourced explanation in the article proper -- was agreed upon through mediation, and should not be reverted against consensus. Dwrayosrfour's claim that "Wiki policy prohibits opinions and original research being in the article" is specious, as no OR is included and Wiki's policy prohibits POV, not the unbiased and sourced reporting of opinions. In addition, Dwrayosrfour has blanked his talk page which details his history of contention, both with Anberlin's page and at other articles. User:Pbroks13 initially dealt with this 3RR, but did not report it here for unknown reasons. Jpers36 (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Result - User has been blocked for 24 hours. May I recommend that all parties engage in discussion rather than reverting? Scarian <sup style="color:red;">Call me Pat  19:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Hwgunner reported by User:MrMarmite (Result: No violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 17:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 4 March 2008


 * 1st revert: 4 March 2008
 * 2nd revert: 4 March 2008
 * 3rd revert: 4 March 2008

editor is repeatedly removing section without discussing. MrMarmite (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The three-revert rule prohibits more than three reverts in any 24-hour period. You have provided just three, so there is no violation here. Stifle (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hwgunner has done five reverts without discussing in 24 hours : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Cotillard&action=history

Wedineinheck (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Ijanderson977 reported by User:Camptown (Result: 24 hour block )

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 18:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Editor is repeatedly removing an illustrative map (image) because he finds it "POV". Does not respond to questions about his specific opinion, except that the opponent is POV. Camptown (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Result: - I've blocked the contributor in question for 24 hours. Could all parties please use discussion instead of reverting. Scarian <sup style="color:red;">Call me Pat  19:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Hwgunner reported by User:Wedineinheck
I wish to correct Stifle's conclusion regarding User:MrMarmite's previous report on this user. Hwgunner has done five reverts without discussing in 24 hours : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Cotillard&action=history This is a definite violation. Wedineinheck (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say that he is edit warring, sure, but "only" three similar edits. Some of his edits have actually been constructive and he inserted relevant information that some anonymous IPs had deleted. That far, his contributions were constructive. Unfortunately, he has then turned to some unconstructive removals. Definitely wrong, and I've reverted him myself, but I'm not sure he has violated 3RR. Borderline case, I leave it to an admin :) JdeJ (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, he definitely isn't behaving constructively, as he deliberately wants to suppress information. Wedineinheck (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We agree on that. He could have been reported for vandalism as well, since the removal of sourced information usually equals vandalism. Especially as he isn't discussing any of his contributions. JdeJ (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume that he just likes Marion Cotillard and wants to edit out potentially embarrassing info. Quite a stupid thing to do, IMHO, since this is factual, NPOV and widely reported in the media. Wedineinheck (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I like her acting myself and would very much have wanted her never to say those things, but it's a fact that she did and it's well sourced. Deleting it, as the user is doing, is not the right way to deal it. JdeJ (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:T-rex (Result:article protected)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 22:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:00, 27 February 2008


 * 1st revert: 22:22, 3 March 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:48, 4 March 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:27, 4 March 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:11, 4 March 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:55, 4 March 2008

The same content was added by several different editors (,, , and ) and was removed each time by user, sometimes under the guise of removing vandalism, but without any prior discussion on the talk page. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * while I guess I had to fix that article four times in a bit over 23 hours. I disagree with the rest of what is written here. There was discussion, repeated reinsertion of bad content is vandalism, and I was not the only editor removing it. --T-rex 00:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The reporter is perfectly correct, T-rex. You have edit warred and have broken 3RR. The edits you reverted were most certainly not vandalism. You say "repeated reinsertion of bad content is vandalism". Who decides what counts as bad content? Unless it's something obvious, like repeated insertion of the word "POOP" or of pictures of genitalia, you do not get to call it vandalism and get free reverts this way.
 * Because the edit war has been between several parties, I've fully protected the article. But please understand that a block would have been completely justified in this case, and I am only not doing so because, with the article protected, it would be purely punitive. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, non-blatant vandalism is still vandalism. --T-rex 01:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've responded to T-rex on his talk, and would ask that any further dialogue on this issue take place there (or somewhere besides here, as this noticeboard is not for discussion). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Nocandu1976 reported by User:GreenJoe (Result: Page protected )

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 01:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

He keeps adding propaganda to the article, and won't stop to talk about it. GreenJoe 01:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I see editwarring from both sides. Page protected for 5 days. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:71.205.142.74 reported by User:Thisisborin9 (Result:24h for vandalism)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 05:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:55, 4 March 2008

t*4th revert: 20:54, 4 March 2008
 * 1st revert: 20:20, 4 March 2008
 * 2nd revert: 20:43, 4 March 2008
 * 3rd revert: 20:49, 4 March 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:05, 4 March 2008

This person keeps adding total nonsense and vandalism to the article. <font color="#0000FF">Thisisborin9 <font color="#330099">talk 05:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is simple vandalism, not really an edit war in the usual sense. I've blocked 24 hours for vandalism. In the future, you're likely to get a quicker response here (but only use it when it is indeed obvious vandalism). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, Thanks! <font color="#0000FF">Thisisborin9 <font color="#330099">talk 05:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:82.36.78.99 reported by User:Cro0016 (Result:31 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 14:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:50, March 6, 2008


 * 1st revert: 00:37, March 6, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 00:41, March 6, 2008.
 * 3rd revert: 00:42, March 6, 2008
 * 4th revert: 00:43, March 6, 2008.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 00:44, March 6, 2008

I've been monitoring this page on my watchlist. I also warned them that they were violating 3RR, yet they continued undoing other peoples edits. Steve Crossin (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * User blocked. <font color="#7d7d7d">Master of Puppets  <font color="#7d7d7d">Call me MoP! ☺  14:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Komelbar reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result: Warned, notified of article probation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 17:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:50, 4 March 2008


 * 1st revert: 07:40, 5 March 2008
 * 2nd revert: 07:54, 5 March 200
 * 3rd revert: 08:29, 5 March 2008
 * 4th revert: 08:40, 5 March 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 08:36, 5 March 2008

Edit warring at Homeopathy. Several editors are reverting this editors edits to the last stable version. There is agreement that major changes will be discussed first. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 17:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Technically I don't see the first one as a revert - while a sweeping and counter-consensus edit, it did not undue a recently preceding edit that I can see (correct me if I'm wrong). Since this is a new editor, I've decided to give them the benefit of the doubt and warn. I've also notified them of the homeopathy article probation; further reverts or edit-warring should result in either a block or probation-type sanctions (e.g. 0RR/1RR). MastCell Talk 19:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Dbachmann reported by User:Camptown (Result: Page protected)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 18:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

User:Dbachmann has during the last couple of weeks made a long series of unilateral and destructive revisions of Kosovo - a topic that most people understand is a virtual mine field. However, on his personal initiative, he recently split the article, a move that was widely rejected in a vote. Although he lost the vote, he persued to tag the article for split. When he wasn't successful, he started to remove the state-infobox from the article (sometimes he removed it, and sometimes he moved it to the bottom of the article), ignoring questions about that. When he couldn't get rid of the infobox, he started to tag the article as POV. The most recent question why POV-tagging should be necessary has been ignored. His recent edits appear like tit-for-tat. Instead of replying to questions about his action, he now threatens me of being blocked using his own admin credentials. Camptown (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The first diff does not appear to be a "revert", but a novel edit. The third diff, inserting the NPOV tag for the first time, also does not appear to be a "revert", because it inserts a new tag rather than reverting the removal of an old one. Given that, I'm not inclined to take action against Dbachmann. However, I am going to protect the page temporarily since there are several edit wars ongoing. MastCell Talk 19:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)