Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive75

User:PlayFreebirdNow reported by User:Chan Yin Keen (Result: 1 week)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 02:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:49, 16 June 2008

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


 * 1) 01:09, 18 June 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 219757209 by E. Klieg (talk)")
 * 2) 13:54, 18 June 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 220104696 by Falcon9x5 (talk)")
 * 3) 15:33, 18 June 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 220145120 by Falcon9x5 (talk)")
 * 4) 02:11, 19 June 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 220250906 by Falcon9x5 (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

— Chan Yin Keen | User Talk Contribs 02:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Second 3RR violation on the same article in three days. Nasty personal attacks on the article Talk page. I question whether this editor is here to improve the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley and User:Bkwillwm reported by User:Aksis (Result: Reporter blocked)

 * Three-revert rule violation on State_of_nature. and : Time reported: 04:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reported by.


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:41, 19 June 2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_of_nature&action=history
 * 1st revert: 20:35, 17 June 2008
 * 2nd revert: 22:58, 18 June 2008
 * 3rd revert: 23:36, 18 June 2008
 * 4th revert: 03:25, 19 June 2008
 * 5th revert: 04:01, 19 June 2008


 * Blocked User:Aksis 24 hours for 3RR violation. Neither Connolley nor Bkwillwm has made more than 3 reverts in 24 hours, but the reporter has. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Majin Takeru reported by User:24.76.20.115 (Result: Warned)
user Majin Takeru is going around to as many wikipedia entries as he can to change all Commonwealth English spellings to US English spellings under the pretext that Commonwealth English Spellings are "incorrect" uses of "Old English." Please put a stop to this. Commonwealth English is not improper English.

here's an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Il-sung

but there are many other sites he's doing this to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.20.115 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Esimal reported by User:Zara1709 (Result: Already protected)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 22:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Caranorn had previously mentioned that he would do a report on this, but he has not done this so far, and I am not going to let this slip through. I have been trying to get Esimal into a discussion about the reliability of the sources he uses and his way of quoting them for about a week, see Talk:Religious aspects of Nazism. He has not attempted to discuss the issue, but instead finally resort to calling me a Christian fundamentalist. Of course this would be an issue for Wikiquette alerts; The issue here is the latest escalation:


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:21, June 18, 2008


 * 1st revert: 21:24, June 18, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 21:38, June 18, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:46, June 18, 2008
 * 4th revert: 21:49, June 18, 2008
 * 5th revert: 21:56, June 18, 2008
 * 6th revert: 22:02, June 18, 2008


 * Esimal has been an editor since November 2007 (contributions) and should be aware of the 3-revert-rule. However, he was warned after his 5th by User:Caranorn in the edit summary: 22:00, June 18, 2008, but Esimal continued with a 6th revert.
 * by User:Rodhullandemu. EdJohnston (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that the page is currently protected. That is the reason why I could not remove inappropriate references like one to a webpage that claims the Third Reich was an Occult-based Order using Magical and Esoteric practices. This is not the article Nazi occultism about obscure interpretations of Nazism; in the article on Nazism such links are wp:fringe. What I wanted to point out was that User:Esimal has broken 3RR in a definite way. The admin who protected the page wrote on the discussion "At this point I have protected the article for three days so that this unseemly behaviour can calm down." He also directed "the two principal editors to WP:3O". Sorry for spelling this out so directly: But didn't I already provide a third opinion? This wasn't an edit war between User:Esimal and User:Gennarous; User:Caranorn and me also considered Esimal's version not acceptable. I also consider Gennarous' version unacceptable, but that is beside the point. Only User:Esimal has broken 3RR. I have reason to fear that this "this unseemly behaviour" will not calm down after 3 days, because it appears to be sided at User:Esimal. As User:The Evil Spartan has pointed out at the Requests for comment/Esimal: "You will note that on at least two occasions, the user has violated 3RR but has not been blocked due to page-protection (I always find this to be a travesty when this happens". On the other hand, since there is already an RFC on the conduct of Esimal, the issue can hopefully be resolved there. It's only bad that I can't edit Nazism in the meantime. Zara1709 (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Kanabekobaton reported by User:Shawn in Montreal (Result: No violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 09:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Stifle (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Amazing. Okay, well, I've just reverted him again. I'll keep on doing it until there are enough in a 24 hour, I guess. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:24.205.234.250 reported by User:Species8473 (Result: 2x 24 hour blocks )
Note that User:UKPhoenix79 also was involved in the edit war, I'm not reporting him because he has been contructive on the article talk page. User:24.205.234.250 on the other hand has removed the 3RR notice on his talk page, and vandalised my user page and talk page.12


 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 11:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:53, 19 June 2008


 * 1st revert: 09:08, 19 June 2008
 * 2nd revert: 10:26, 19 June 2008
 * 3rd revert: 10:34, 19 June 2008
 * 4th revert: 10:46, 19 June 2008
 * 5th revert: 10:53, 19 June 2008
 * 6th revert: 11:04, 19 June 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 11:02, 19 June 2008


 * Andon blocked the IP and I blocked another user whom was edit warring too. Scarian  Call me Pat!  14:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Fire Elf reported by User:Maitch (Result: 24 hour block)
Has reverted Template:Infobox Simpsons season episode list five despite despite not having taken part in the discussion in which is was decided to do that particular change. --Maitch (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 01:12, 19 June 2008
 * 2nd revert: 01:15, 19 June 2008
 * 3rd revert: 01:18, 19 June 2008
 * 4th revert: 01:23, 19 June 2008
 * 5th revert: 13:49, 19 June 2008


 * I have blocked Fire Elf for 24 hours for violating 3RR. Scarian  Call me Pat!  14:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Frogacuda reported by User:Never Cry Wolf (Result: Borderline no vio)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 20:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 06:02, 13 June 2008

User has engaged in a serious edit war over the last day or so, reverting the article no less than five times, using both his active username and what I belive is an anonymous IP linking back to his account (68.192.237.134). Other users have attempted to resolve the dispute, and still others have asked them both to cool down and to please be mindful of the 3RR rule, to which the user responded in a rather rude manner to the user, as well, in further replies, he stated that "he wrote the article". He's also insulted the anon several times as well.


 * 1st revert: 09:47, 16 June 2008
 * 2nd revert: 21:30, 17 June 2008
 * 3rd revert: 15:59, 18 June 2008
 * 4th revert: 16:17, 18 June 2008
 * 5th revert: 16:17, 18 June 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 16:05, 18 June 2008


 * Result - I do see edit warring but I can't really see 4 reverts in 24 hours. No vio. Scarian  Call me Pat!  21:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Alastair Haines reported by Abtract (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC) (Result: 24h)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 21:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 19 June 20.29
 * 2nd revert: 19 June 20.57
 * 3rd revert: 19 June 21.08
 * 4th revert: 19 June 21.17


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19 June 21.13

If I could have seen any other way to prevent Alastair continuing with his bullying ways I would not have gone down this route. Please read the talk page and the article page history to see how this editor believes he owns this article, will not allow edits other than his and is constantly belligerent and intransigent. This is doubly sad because he clearly has some expertise in this area. Abtract (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In addition, see the (unresolved) AN/I filed against him for discussion of his history, with diffs. Ilkali (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24h for 3RR and other weirdness on that talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. Abtract (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Kanabekobaton reported by User:Skeezix1000 (Result: 24 hours )

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 21:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC) (previously reported at Administrators' noticeboard/3RR at 09:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC))


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:09, 18 June 2008


 * 1st revert: 20:59, 18 June 2008
 * 2nd revert: 05:15, 19 June 2008
 * 3rd revert: 09:37, 19 June 2008
 * 4th revert: 20:48, 19 June 2008
 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User:Kanabekobaton insists on removing 96th Grey Cup from the template. English is perhaps not his first language (given some of the comments on his talk page), so perhaps he is unwilling/unable to engage in a discussion on the talk page to try and get consensus for his controversial edits. Nonetheless, his level of language proficiency does not entitle him to constantly revert the article in violation of WP:3RR. Three other editors are being kept busy babysitting the template due to this user's insistence on his edit. Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The four reverts listed above are within a 24-hour period. EdJohnston (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Steve0999 reported by User:Ssilvers (Result: 12 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 22:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Re-addition of the same material 4 times over 5 hours. Blocked for 12 hours and requested to discuss the matter on the talk pages. Kbthompson (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Ioannes Pragensis reported by User:Ottava Rima (Result: 2nd opinion needed )

 * Edit warring on . : Time reported: 21:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

I mention this because the user refuses to accept any changes to the page and has inserted a peacock term/unfounded claim of the storming of the Bastille being the most important moment, especially when the other 99.9% of the world had individual events just as or more important to them going on during the century. If you notice, the first two reverts were him imposing his view on Christopher Smart and George Washington's portrait, the second was him reverting a discussed formatting correction, which can be found here. The user is editing warring and causing problems on the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Result - Not a 3RR violation but still edit warring. I need a 2nd opinion from other admin(s) please. I can't really decide the outcome here, I don't know if a block is warranted. They are edit warring, but I don't know if a block would nip it in the bud. Thoughts? Scarian  Call me Pat!  21:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not want them blocked. However, they will not listen. It would be nice to move the question of inclusionary rules to the page in order to determine who is in and who is out. But I am just a user, and users saying such do not have any weight behind words, thus, they go ignored. I have stepped back and let their recent edit stay as it is. That is how the page was before I, and the stray IP who added the Washington picture, entered, so it isn't a big deal that it will stay there for a while longer. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see, both have been edit warring without troubling themselves to discuss the matter on the talk page. O. R. appears marginally more to blame. I don't think either deserves a block at this point William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you read the diffs, you will see that my second revert was actually to someone who goes through and checks many at a time, and it was more of a mistake on his part than an actual problem. I have only reverted against the previously mentioned user once and then explained why it was a mistake on his part to revert. The last revert was editing something that was discussed with another user and had nothing to do with the original content, yet moved it back to his prefered diff. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Update. There is some discussion going on at Talk:18th century, but editors are still reverting there. I left a note on the article's Talk page, and I suggest keeping this 3RR complaint open until there's evidence that the revert war has stopped. If they are aware that admins are looking at the situation perhaps they will be more cautious. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the recent edits have really been a "revert", but mostly working with what is on the talk page. Modernist stepped in and is participating on the talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:MSJapan reported by User:Ottava Rima (Result: No violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


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

The above user is reverting verifiable information that the user knows is included in both of the major biographies of Christopher Smart and in his complete works with attributions to Christopher Smart as a Freemason. The above user is pushing a POV and editing warring while ignoring WP:V. He is also using the "3RR" as some kind of game to justify his editing warring here. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

More edit warring on the same topic, different page, reverting verified and factual statements to misstatements about a source: here. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither party has reverted more than three times. Those who want to read more about this dispute should look at WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As many Admin have stated before, 3 is not a magical line to cross, but a spirit of an action. It is clear that he seeks to edit war. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Tirpse77 reported by User:Ashley Y (Result: AAAA - Protected for one week)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 02:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:29, 19 June 2008
 * 1st revert: 12:04, 19 June 2008
 * 2nd revert: 12:22, 19 June 2008
 * 3rd revert: 12:31, 19 June 2008


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:41, 19 June 2008
 * 4th revert: 12:59, 19 June 2008
 * 5th revert: 13:24, 19 June 2008

Revert war with User:Itzse. AFAICT Itzse is within 3RR. &mdash;Ashley Y 02:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting support.svg Fully protected&#32;for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Per WP:AAAA. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have also blocked Itzse and Tirpse for 24 hours each. Both violated 3RR. Scarian  Call me Pat!  10:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have unblocked these two users. Scarian  Call me Pat!  15:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Ceha reported by User:Kruško Mortale (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 10:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:10, 18 June 2008


 * 1st revert: 08:51, 19 June 2008
 * 2nd revert: 09:27, 19 June 2008
 * 3rd revert: 13:33, 19 June 2008
 * 4th revert: 00:23, 20 June 2008
 * 5th revert: 09:50, 20 June 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:55, 19 June 2008

Comment

User Ceha for a few times deleted relaible sources per WP:RS as well as some sourced parts of the article.

Other users also warned him to that.

For example he keeps irrationally deleting this part all the time without any rational explanation:

The ICTY effectively determined the war's nature to be international between Croatia and Bosnian and Herzegovina in numerous verdicts against Croat political and military leaders.

The source is:

That is just one example I can post other examples as well if you want me to do that. Cheers. Kruško Mortale (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * and have both been blocked for twenty-four hours edit-warring. --  tariq abjotu  14:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:92.237.53.167 reported by User:Sikh-history (Result: malformed)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 13:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:27, 20 June 2008

'Comment' I have tried to communicate with this fellow but he/she does not respond. The quotation he is changing is actually from Sir Denzil Ibbeston's Book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Denzil_Ibbetson, and not an opinion but a verifiable fact from a reliable source.
 * Those reverts all have the same diff parameter. It is not clear that four reverts were made. Stifle (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Matthew reported by User:Bignole (Result: Protected, Refered to AN/I)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.


 * Time reported 17:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 18:26, June 19, 2008


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 02:18, June 20, 2008
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 10:03, June 20, 2008
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 10:42, June 20, 2008
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 10:50, June 20, 2008
 * 5th revert: Revision as of 11:26, June 20, 2008
 * Official warning
 * 6th revert 12:30, June 20, 2008

I actually request a page protection as, if the closing Admin will view the history of the page in question, there has been a consistent edit war taking place since June 19 of the use of this image. There are at least 3 parties included in this edit war, one of which is another Administrator. I warned both Matthew and the Administrator (User:Edokter) on their talk page, and left a message on the talk page of the article to cease all reverts till the discussion was over. Matthew and User:U-Mos failed to adhere to my plea, as a result I reported Matthew and U-Mos has reached his 3rd revert for the 24 hour period. I think it would be in all parties best interest if the page was protected so that a discussion could take place civily. Preferably, protected for a few days so that Matthew, if blocked, could have a chance to discuss without feeling like he has "lost" the debate when the page is reverted back after any protection (if one occurs) is placed.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * My edits are exempt from 3RR (see here). Matthew (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

there is an ongoing edit war regarding an interpretation of the non-free content criteria. I'm protecting the page and refering this to AN/I to get more input. --Selket Talk 20:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See Selket's posting at WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that the ANI discussion has led to a IfD nomination for the image, I suggest that this 3RR item might be closed. I'd propose that the article remain under full protection until the IfD closes unless the participants in the war will agree to stop reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Trlager reported by User:Pbroks13 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 06:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:57, June 19, 2008


 * 1st revert: 10:01, June 20, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 12:09, June 20, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 19:36, June 20, 2008
 * 4th revert: 21:23, June 20, 2008
 * 5th revert: 01:02, June 21, 2008
 * 6th revert: 01:04, June 21, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 01:02, June 21, 2008


 * Blocked for 24 hours; also warned not to spam any more copyrighted-links. · AndonicO  Engage. 13:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

User:142.176.46.3 reported by User:Arthur Rubin(Result: Already blocked)
. : Time reported: 13:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

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


 * 1) 07:21, 21 June 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "I hope you aren't referring to my edit")
 * 2) 07:31, 21 June 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "WTF are you smoking? "Recurring Series" certainly is out of place here, and shouldn't be capitalized anyway. And my edit did nothing else but alter the positions of Carey and Barker appropriately")
 * 3) 07:40, 21 June 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "this isn't vandalism, it's constructive editing against your incompetent meddling, and I'll fight you to keep it")
 * 4) 07:42, 21 June 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 220725387 by Daedalus969 (talk)")
 * 5) 07:44, 21 June 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 220725525 by Work permit (talk)")
 * 6) 07:47, 21 June 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "I have friends in Admin. I see the constructive edits of mine you've reverted as "vandalism", you're getting fried.")
 * 7) 07:48, 21 June 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 220725986 by AnnaJGrant (talk)")
 * 8) 07:50, 21 June 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 220726091 by AnnaJGrant (talk)")
 * 9) 07:55, 21 June 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Seriously, people, put your hatred toward me aside and look: How does "1972â€”Returning Series" make sense? HOW?")


 * Blocked by Edgar181 while I was preparing this report. &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Nitraven reported by User:watchdogb (Result: 24 hour block )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 18:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:16, 20 June 2008


 * 1st revert: 12:50, 21 June 2008
 * 2nd revert: 13:10, 21 June 2008
 * 3rd revert: 13:49, 21 June 2008
 * 4th revert: 14:32, 21 June 2008


 * No need for 3RR warning as this user is very experienced and has been in wikipedia for over a year and has done over 6000 main space edits and over 7000 total edits. Furthermore, the user regularly points out to wikipedia rules in many situations.

This user has repeatedly added a contested "see also" entry under the guise of reverting vandalism. Watchdogb (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Result - I have blocked this user for 24 hours. Scarian  Call me Pat!  18:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Aradic-en reported by User:Kruško Mortale (Result: 24 hr)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 21:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:34, 19 June 2008.


 * 1st revert: 15:23, 20 June 2008 (he wasn't signed in, so he made revert with his IP 193.198.2.199 in order to avoid 3RR)
 * 2nd revert: 05:35, 21 June 2008
 * 3rd revert: 11:34, 21 June 2008
 * 4th revert: 16:17, 21 June 2008
 * 5th revert: 18:45, 21 June 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: I warned him twice not to delete sources, which you can see in edit summary in above links (The sources are relabile per WP:RS). Anyway this is on old user, and he is well aware of the rules. He edits since March 2007 but he is obsessed with topics related to Franjo Tuđman whom he considers to be Croatian hero, superman or smth like that, and doesn't allow any normal co-operation in editing the article. I decided to leave this article because it is impossible to discuss with this man. Rjecina also tried to resolve this situation, but the man still reverts. Kruško Mortale (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The first diff is an edit by an anon editor. Having said that, the user has clearly violated 3RR. 24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Enforcing Neutrality reported by User:Itaqallah (Result: Article protected)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 23:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: All reverts consist of reinsertion of the same material


 * 1st revert: 01:47, 21 June 2008 - revert of the previous edit.
 * 2nd revert: 07:18, 21 June 2008 - revert of the previous edit.
 * 3rd revert: 12:19, 21 June 2008 - partial revert of the previous edit.
 * Another revert at 13:08, 21 June 2008 - User is notified he has violated 3RR and is given the chance to self revert, which he does.
 * 4th revert: 22:38, 21 June 2008 - User partially reinstates the revert he previously undid, thus violating 3RR again.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: See, User_talk:Enforcing_Neutrality

Comments: The diffs may appear slightly complex, but all reverts include the reinstatement of poorly sourced sentences like "... and maintains that Fatimah was buried in secret at her request, to prevent Abu Bakr and Umar whom she considered to be her father's true enemies from attending the funeral"; "Shias maintain, using Sunni sources, that Fatimah died after Umar had led a party of armed men against Ali's house in Medina and called for Ali and his men to come out and swear allegiance to Abu Bakr, who they had decided would take power in the meeting at Saqifah. Umar and Khalid ibn Walid threatened to burn the house down if they did not submit", and so on.  ITAQALLAH  23:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems to me to be an Edit war. Article is now protected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Tymek reported by User:Matthead (Result: Protected)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 19:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:19, 20 June 2008 . Since 17:40, 12 May 2008, Tymek removes any mention of the Expulsion of Germans from Poland after World War II in this article.


 * 1st revert: 20:24, 20 June 2008
 * 2nd revert: 01:52, 21 June 2008
 * 3rd revert: 14:57, 21 June 2008
 * 4th revert: 16:18, 21 June 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * 23:12, 26 May 2008 "This is very interesting, but I have not made more than 3 reversions"
 * 13:49, 28 May 2008 FINAL WARNING
 * There are enough reverts here by Tymek to break 3RR, but Matthead would be at the same point if it weren't for the providential arrival of two single-purpose IPs to help him revert. (Neither IP has any WP edit except this one time). This appears to be a harmless biographical article which has turned into a political football for German-Polish disputes. As such it could fall under the Digwuren Arbcom restrictions. (Tymek's side of the dispute does possess a certain logic, because there is no source offered to show whether this ethnic German man was personally affected by the expulsion of Germans from Poland after WW 2) . If other editors have a better idea what to do, please suggest it. Until then, I'm putting on two weeks of full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This closure should not imply that Matthead is using alternate accounts. It's just that to find that one editor violated 3RR you need to believe there were more editors in good standing on the other side, so that none of them had to go over three reverts. SPAs don't yet have standing, good or bad. This is also not a comment on the quality or neutrality of the version that is now protected. EdJohnston (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The article on Scherfke was harmless until user Matthead began inserting information about expulsions of Germans. Scherfke himself is largely unknown in Germany, I have a hunch that if I had not created the article, user Matthead would not have heard about him. Anyway, I am not denying sufferings of Germans who were forced to leave their heimats after WW2, it is a sad chapter of history of Europe. But with Scherfke IMO the situation was different. He was a soldier of the Wehrmacht and with his unit was moved to Western Europe, where the British caught him. He was not a victim of expulsion, we do not even know if he wanted to come back to Communist-controlled Poznan after the war, let me remind you that tens of thousands of Polish soldiers decided to settle in Western Europe, as they did not want to live under Communism. Thank you and I am awaiting opinions of other users and user Matthead himself. Tymek (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Opinions are plenty, how about facts instead: The German Wikipedia article on Scherfke was created on 4. Feb. 2006, almost two months before Tymek's wrote about him on en-Wiki on 29 March 2006. On 17 maj 2006, pl-Wiki followed. Same for Ernst Willimowski, his German article was started on 1. Jan. 2005, pl-Wiki followed on 2 maj 2005, and Tymek only on 21 March 2006. See also WP:OWN. And it was an anon from 92856 Orange, California who was inserting information about expulsions of Germans in April 2008. I had first edited the German article and then edited the English one. Then User:Space Cadet edited, followed  by an anon from 94203 Sacramento, California, thus four editors had agreed that the expulsions are relevant before Tymek removed for the first time. Then I proposed neutral wording that only mentioned that "At the time, many Germans were victim of" expulsions, without claiming that Scherfke was affected directly, leaving it to the reader to connect the dots. Tymek seemed to have accepted this  for at least a month. Yet, several days ago, Tymek suddenly removed, with an anon from Rostock (dynamic IP in the 84.139.2*.*  range from Germany biggest ISP) trying to reinsert it four times within three days, only with Tymek always reverting. So much about facts we know. Thus it were 5 editors with "standing" who approved of including the expulsions before Tymek started editwarring to make the article "harmless" to his POV.


 * We also know that West Berlin was totally destroyed, surrounded by communists and subject to the Berlin blockade, which caused hunger among the population, which comprised both natives and refugees. Nobody would voluntarily pick that city to live in - unless, for example, relatives had wound up there, unable to proceed further West, or waiting there as close as possible to their home, hoping that they could return one day. Asking for a source that an ethnic German from east of Oder-Neisse rivers "was personally affected by the expulsion of Germans from Poland after WW 2", like admin EdJohnston did above, is like questioning whether an ethnic Jew from a German occupied area was personally affected by the Holocaust. Tymek not only edit warred about Scherfke, but in the bio on Ernst Willimowski removed the background info on the Silesian Uprisings after which, despite the plebiscite in which the Silesians voted to remain in Germany, a part of Silesia was given to Poland, making six year old Ernst a Pole. On the other hand, Tymek recently created the article Wawelberg Group, praising a bunch of Polish terrorists who started the Third Silesian Uprising in 1921, blowing up railway bridges in Weimar Germany. Tymek also edit warred to remove relevant info about the 20th century history of the Silesian family of current German striker Miroslav Klose, while adding far-fetched 10th century claims to that bio.


 * EdJohnston, as done previously on your talk, I strongly urge you to fully remove "Matthead would be at the same point if it weren't for the providential arrival of two single-purpose IPs to help him revert" which violates WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:AGFs towards me and those three Rostock, Orange and Sacramento based anon editors who you falsely describe as "Neither IP has any WP edit except this one time". Also, I urge you to reconsider your decision to decline consequences to the undeniable fact that Tymek broke 3RR, be it a block and/or addition to the Digwuren Arbcom restrictions you cited. While 29 odd editors are listed there, for example this user never had been added there by "any uninvolved administrator", which illustrates the questionableness of this list which contains only two names familiar as Polish to me (a third had been added and removed). -- Matthead Discuß   14:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

A checkuser needs to be performed. There are way to many wiki savvy IPs aiding Matthead on Wikipedia in revert wars for it to be a pure coincident.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthead, we are not talking about Wilimowski, Klose or Wawelberg. Please. You keep on adding irrelevant information, it makes no sense to write history of Silesia in the Miroslaw Klose or Ernest Wilimowski bio articles. Tymek (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Both Matthead and Tymek: This page isn't for continuing your dispute. Head to the article's talk page for that. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I struck out part of my opinion on this case, after hearing some of the comments made, and boxed up a discussion which is too long for this noticeboard. The page is still protected, and I look forward to some of the editors here making suggestions at Talk:Friedrich Scherfke on how to improve the article. Anyone who still thinks the closure was wrong can comment at User talk:EdJohnston, or raise the matter at WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist reported by User:Levine2112 (Result: User already blocked )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 01:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:34, 23 June 2008


 * 1st revert: 15:01, 22 June 2008
 * 2nd revert: 00:34, 23 June 2008
 * 3rd revert: 00:53, 23 June 2008
 * 4th revert: 00:59, 23 June 2008

User has a history of edit warring and even now is involved in an edit war on Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories


 * 1st revert: 00:32, 23 June 2008
 * 2nd revert: 00:39, 23 June 2008
 * 3rd revert: 00:40, 23 June 2008
 * 4th revert: 00:42, 23 June 2008
 * 5th revert 00:45, 23 June 2008
 * 6th revert 00:49, 23 June 2008
 * 7th revert 00:57, 23 June 2008
 * 8th revert 01:11, 23 June 2008

ScienceApologist is making most of the reverts claiming that he is reverting the work of a banned user. This may be true. But we don't know for sure. ScienceApologist has not provided any evidence that these removals were of posts of a sockpuppet of an identified banned user. He was warned several times by User:Jossi , but went right on reverting disruptively.
 * Just a drive-by comment ... most of the time, sock puppets are reverted long before the sock puppet report is closed, without consequence. I certainly don't let Editor652's or Soccermeko's edits linger any longer than forced to by the time it takes for my watchlist to process, even though the sockpuppet report may take days. Unless people believe that SA's sock puppet report was filed in bad faith, his reverts are reasonable. Kww (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Per request by ScienceApologist "I was also going to respond to a 3RR report that was made by User:Levine2112 at WP:3RN basically saying I'm sorry for the fourth revert and would undo the revert myself, but it has been a hectic night and the situation is rapidly spiraling out of control. Can someone note that for me? I just want to be unblocked so I can defend myself at the appropriate places and get someone to notice the Davkal sockpuppetry. Thanks." Opps. forgot to sign earlier. Ward20 (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless I am mistaken, none of the four reverts at Fringe Theories had anything to do with any suspected sockpuppets of Davkal. That is just a red-herring here. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that Fringe theories has been protected, and while Suspected sock puppets/210.194.40.149 is technically still open, the account does appear to be another Davkal sock. PhilKnight (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * User has been already blocked for 24 hrs for recurring deletion of talk page comments, after warnings. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

User:24.205.234.250 reported by User:Species8473 (Result: 1 week)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 06:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Reported and blocked before for edit warring at Great power see previous entry. Also see ban circumvent at admin noticeboard.
 * Continued edit war behavior with proxies during time of previous block. Suspecting bad faith there, for connections don't start running via a proxy automatically.
 * "Looks like you've found yourselves a couple of open proxies: 66.17.49.165 is very likely (multiple suspicious ports) to be a proxy, 69.239.171.174 is very suspicious (open telnet and http, looks like it may be behind some sort of hardware firewall)" (see here)


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:06, 19 June 2008


 * 1st revert: 12:16, 19 June 2008 User:24.205.234.250
 * 2nd revert: 01:03, 20 June 2008 User:66.17.49.165 (during block)
 * 3rd revert: 01:19, 20 June 2008 User:66.17.49.165 (during block)
 * 4th revert: 05:43, 20 June 2008 User:69.239.171.174 (during block)
 * 5th revert: 22:16, 20 June 2008 User:24.205.234.250


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 10:04, 20 June 2008 (At User:69.239.171.174)
 * Previous 3RR warning: 13:02, 19 June 2008
 * Previous block: 14:17, 19 June 2008
 * Update. The two IPs suggested to be open proxies above have been blocked one year each by ST47. The main account,, seems to be a POV warrior. During his brief recent period of activity (in June 08) I believe that all his article edits have been reverted by others. The combination of a previous block, new 3RR violation, POV warring and sockpuppetry using open proxies would, in my view, justify the IP equivalent of an indef block for . (Perhaps six months). I'll let someone else decide whether to do that. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 11:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Googie man reported by User:AnotherSolipsist (Result: already blocked)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 03:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:19, 22 June 2008 and 01:15, 23 June 2008


 * 1st revert: 19:43, 22 June 2008 (to 05:19, 22 June 2008)
 * 2nd revert: 20:11, 22 June 2008 (to 05:19, 22 June 2008)
 * 3rd revert: 23:28, 22 June 2008 (to 05:19, 22 June 2008)
 * 4th revert: 03:09, 23 June 2008 (to 01:15, 23 June 2008)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User has been here since 2004.


 * -- slakr \ talk / 11:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

User:DavidOaks reported by User:Webster121 (Result: No violation )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 03:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Previous version reverted to: and   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webster121 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * Two of these diffs are the same, and one is from days before the others. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur. Furthermore, I have given a final warning to for edit warring, which he was blocked three times for in recent months. This is nothing new, and I have left the notice at user talk:Webster121.  seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  04:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have blocked Webster121 one week for continuing to revert past the final warning issued by Seicer, taking into account three previous blocks for edit warring on the same article. EdJohnston (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

User:92.237.53.167 reported by User:Sikh-history (Result: No violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 12.12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:27, 20 June 2008

'Comment' I have tried to communicate with this fellow but he/she does not respond. The quotation he is changing is actually from Sir Denzil Ibbeston's Book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Denzil_Ibbetson, and not an opinion but a verifiable fact from a reliable source.
 * There is no recent 24-hour period in which this editor reverted more than three times. Consider asking at a related WikiProject for help with the article; for instance Wikipedia talk:WikiProject India. EdJohnston (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

User:GreenMile reported by ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) (Result: 8 hours)
. : Time reported: 15:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 03:02, 23 June 2008  (edit summary: "Now this is just getting mean-spirited. :-(")
 * 2) 03:16, 23 June 2008  (edit summary: "Jossi you are not understanding this at all. Please read my note on the discussion page.")
 * 3) 03:25, 23 June 2008  (edit summary: "Relegated to another article? There is one called perfect master? This has only a side importance to Baba himself")
 * 4) 15:04, 23 June 2008  (edit summary: "Let's find out what the peer reviewer says. I think an outside eye will help more than tags right now.")


 * Diff of warning: here

This editor keeps reverting each and any of my edits to this and other related articles, removing request for sources tags, and other templates, as well as removing content and sources. —≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Matthew reported by User:Edokter (Result: No action right now)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . This is the second report in one week time, see

Time reported: 15:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:47, 23 June 2008


 * 1st revert: 16:28, 23 June 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:42, 23 June 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:54, 23 June 2008
 * 4th revert: 17:10, 23 June 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:11, 23 June 2008


 * Content violating the non-free content policy is exempt from the three-revert rule (3RR). It may be that you disagree with the policy but you must still follow it. Matthew (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, you have that the wrong way round; 3RR is not exempt by any policy except WP:BLP and vandalism. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 15:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously I meant edits to remove content violating the non-free content policy are exempt from the three-revert rule (or "without counting towards"). Matthew (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is up to the closer of the 3RR report to determine whether to believe the WP:NFCC argument for any particular revert. Anyone who reverts based solely on their own personal opinion about an NFCC situation is risking sanctions. A 3RR closer might notice that there is an IfD debate in progress about the future of that image, and perceive that Matthew is reverting without waiting for the result of that debate. To avoid risking an adverse decision, I suggest that Matthew should voluntarily undo his last revert. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that Matthew's edits do not fall under the exemption as the compliance or otherwise with NFCC. However, as he has, or had, a good-faith belief that his edits were exempt, I am not going to block now, but am placing a warning here and on his talk page that any further reverting will leave him liable to be blocked (and can be appended to this report). Stifle (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

User:C.Marsh b.Lillee reported by User:Matilda (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 01:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:34, 21 June 2008


 * 1st revert: 08:01, 24 June (AEST = UTC +10 hours)
 * 2nd revert: 08:29, 24 June
 * 3rd revert: 08:57, 24 June
 * 4th revert: 09:13, 24 June AEST


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 23:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC) = 9:06 24 June AEST before 4th reversion
 * note had previously removed text at 15:30 on 19 June (AEST). I had reinstated and explained why the removal of the text was not appropriate 16:18 on 19 June AEST --Matilda talk 01:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In relation to the otherwise inexplicable note posted here and then removed I have posted Requests for checkuser/Case/Prester John --Matilda talk 02:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Agrippina Minor reported by User:DanielEng (Result: Malformed)
Repeatedly erasing sourced material from Nastia Liukin as "unsourced POV." ,, , ,  (one source is offline but was verified by several users before it disappeared; second was given after first deletion). User refuses to discuss actions and has been warned about blanking/discussing content on Talk Page, and when warned, simply said "report away." I'e reverted three times now but will wait to hear from admis before reverting again--if this counts as vandalism (blanking content) I will; if it's a content dispute, I won't.DanielEng (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 08:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

User:The Haunted Angel reported by User:156.34.223.180 (Result: 6 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 01:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:12, June 16, 2008


 * 1st revert: 16:57, June 23, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 21:19, June 23, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:30, June 23, 2008
 * 4th revert: 21:45, June 23, 2008

Comment Editor has come close to violating WP:3RR on a number of pages. He has used the Twinkle vandalism tool to revert edits that clearly are not vandalism. Although he attempts to justify his 3RR violation by claiming the reverted edits were vandalism. Following a warning for 3RR violation the editor blatantly said he was going to ignore the warning as he sees his edits as vandalism reverts even though they are clearly a simply content issue. A clear ignorance of the WP:3RR policy. 156.34.223.180 (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Added note: User has now blanked the 3RR warning they were given earlier. 156.34.223.180 (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 6 hours. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Pseudo daoist reported by User:456hjk (Result: warned)

 * Three-revert rule violation on

Time reported: 08:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: VERSIONTIME


 * 1st revert:  Revision as of 23:42, 23 June 2008
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 03:50, 24 June 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME
 * It's customary to warn users before reporting them here, or at least explain why you have not warned them first. No further action. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

he knew about the three reversions, and he has been warned about it but he blanked that section: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pseudo_daoist&diff=207720560&oldid=207692411 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.139.221 (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

User:92.10.4.231 reported by User:Justin A Kuntz (Result: semiprotected)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 16:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:52, June 24, 2008


 * 1st revert: 11:52, June 24, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 15:30, June 24, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 15:45, June 24, 2008
 * 4th revert: 15:50, June 24, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:10, June 22, 2008

Editor is clearly aware of WP:3RR see and is using a dynamic IP address. All of these are the same editor:

I have attempted to explain to this editor the need for reliable sources and Edit Warring. In response, the edit has followed me onto a friends talk page and  and is clearly ignoring attempts to resolve the situations and to understand wiki policies; see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Edit warring behaviour also on Larry Lamb (actor), Joanna Page, James Thornton (actor) and Bruce Mackinnon. When I've discussed the edit warring behaviour he turns round and accuses me of edit warring, I mentioned the fact that he was stalking me on my friends Talk page and now he accuses me of wiki-stalking see diffs above. In response to the vandalism warning he accuses me of vandalism. Editor doesn't provide sources to back up his changes and misrepresents the source here. I'm kinda bemused by the whole thing because the edits he is edit warring over are fairly trivial. Stopped myself at 3 edits and have no intention of further revisions but for the record Guy Berryman is Scottish not English. Justin talk 16:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Note to editors - "Just A Kuntz" has been repeatedly wiki-stalking me and reverting my edits for no reason. He repeatedly claims I'm wiki-stalking HIM - but if you check edit history/patterns you will see it is in fact the other way round. You may also note he has started edit warring with me on several articles and has reached the 3RR before myself. He also attacked me with vandalism warning, of which he has already been told my edits are not vandalism - when it is actually him who is reverting my edits and removing sourced facts from articles. If anyone should be blocked for 3RR or wiki-stalking it is "Justin A Kuntz".

92.10.193.113 (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC) If the ip is able to change their address then a block is pointless. semiprotected for 7 days. Spartaz Humbug! 21:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

User:86.42.183.1 reported by User:TheRetroGuy (Result: SEMIPROTECTED )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: Multiples, see below


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Note: In addition to this evening's edit warring, edits from the above IP address and others beginning 86.4 appear to have been a problem for some time. The user (probably the same person) typically makes trivial and repetetive edits, listing ten or fifteen random artists as an influence/follower of an artist. Also refuses to engage in dialogue with other editors. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * semi-protected for a week. If thye can change their ip readily it pointless blocking the ip. Youmay wish to ask a checkuser if a range-block can be imposed if the vandalism continues. Spartaz Humbug! 21:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Savvy10 reported by User:MissMJ (Result: stale)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 22:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: Multiples, see below.


 * 1st revert to:
 * 2nd revert to: + user made additional edits while reverting
 * 3rd revert to:
 * 4th revert to:
 * 5th revert to:
 * 6th revert to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert (in 3 steps):
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert (in 2 steps):


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Sorry for the messiness of the report, but this whole situation is messy. User:Savvy10 insists on adding information to the Elimination chart that other editors think should be kept out (talk page discussion on the topic). Not including such information has also been touched on here, here, here, and here. In some instances the user reverts the removal of the information by other editors, in others s/he adds the information manually. This has been going on for over a week. MissMJ (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of these reverts are several days old. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reverts in a 24-hour period. Please report violations promptly. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I originally reported this over at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents because I didn't think it was appropriate to post it here precisely because there technically weren't 3 reverts made in 24 hours. I was told to report this here anyway. I think that although 3RR wasn't expressly violated, this is still an edit war that has been going on for almost two weeks, with one user making the same edits over and over; s/he's just being smart/slow about it. It doesn't make constantly policing that article for changes any less frustrating. Is there anything that can be done? MissMJ (talk) 06:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Try dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

User:456hjk reported by User:pseudo daoist (Result: both editors blocked 24 hours )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 16:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graphology&oldid=221325047


 * 1st revert: 2008-06-24T01:06:19
 * 2nd revert: 2008-06-24T00:34:20
 * 3rd revert: 2008-06-23T23:45:14
 * 4th revert: 2008-06-23T02:37:23


 * Diff of 3RR warning: //16:45, 24 June 2008
 * --Matilda talk 22:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Pseudo daoist reported by User:456hjk (Result:both editors blocked 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on

Time reported: 08:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: VERSIONTIME


 * 1st revert:  Revision as of 23:42, 23 June 2008
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 03:50, 24 June 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME
 * It's customary to warn users before reporting them here, or at least explain why you have not warned them first. No further action. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

he knew about the three reversions, and he has been warned about it but he blanked that section: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pseudo_daoist&diff=207720560&oldid=207692411 456hjk (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please format the request properly - ie follow the instructions and place it at the bottom as per the instructions --Matilda talk 22:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that there were two notifications was very uncool! --Matilda talk 22:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * --Matilda talk 22:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Raryel reported by User:Killerofcruft (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 15:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 17:16, 22 June 2008


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 14:27, 24 June 2008
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 14:33, 24 June 2008
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 14:51, 24 June 2008
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 14:56, 24 June 2008
 * 5th revert: Revision as of 15:00, 24 June 2008

seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  15:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RR warning: Revision as of 14:59, 24 June 2008
 * This block appears to have been improper. The user was not warned until 14:59. The last revert was at 15:00. The block was at 15:02, prior to the filing of this report. One minute is not adequate to respond to a warning, the user may, indeed, be in the middle of an edit and have no knowledge of it.--Abd (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

User:218.186.68.124 reported by User:Musashi1600 (Result: 24 hours each, semiprotection)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 09:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:

I'm slightly confused how to report this, since this user appears to be in an edit war with User:129.71.73.243 over this article, and the two keep reverting each other's edits. In any case, both users have clearly violated the 3RR rule, as the article edit log makes clear.


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

Musashi1600 (talk) 09:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Both IPs blocked for 24 hours for ridiculous levels of edit-warring; I've also semiprotected the page for 1 week to prevent continuation by other dynamic IP's. MastCell Talk 21:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

User:129.71.73.243 reported by User:Musashi1600 (Result: 24 hours each, semiprotection)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 09:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:

As mentioned in my report above this, this user appears to be in an edit war with User:218.186.68.124 over this article, and the two keep reverting each other's edits. Both users have clearly violated the 3RR rule, as the article edit log makes clear.


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


 * See above; I've blocked both IP's for 24 hours and semiprotected the page for a week given the likelihood of ongoing issues with dynamic IP's. MastCell Talk 21:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

User:AzureFury reported by User:Jaysweet (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 18:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:51, 24 June 2008


 * 1st revert: 23:54, 24 June 2008
 * 2nd revert: 05:06, 25 June 2008
 * 3rd revert: 17:37, 25 June 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:14, 25 June 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:41, 25 June 2008

User:Ada Kataki reported by User:Frédérick Duhautpas (Result: 24 hours for both participants)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 19:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Pretty egregious edit-warring. I've blocked both and  for 24 hours. The IP  appears to be in use for this edit war as well by a participant, so I've also blocked the IP for 24 hours. MastCell Talk 21:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles reported by User:Protonk (Result: No violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 22:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:27, 25 June 2008 This is the original WQA and has not been reverted to.


 * 1st revert: 16:26, 25 June 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:52, 25 June 2008
 * 3rd revert: 17:05, 25 June 2008
 * 4th revert: I haven't reverted a fourth time.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:04, 25 June 2008, 16:27, 25 June 2008, 17:09, 25 June 2008.


 * First off, I did not violate 3RR by the diffs indicated above. I have NOT reverted a fourth time nor will I.  To further address the above, the user who reported is currently engaged in a dispute that I am trying to resolve in a civil and amicable manner on our talk pages.  He appears to now be venue shopping and if you notice from the diffs, I have not merely revert warred, but rather have offered a few DIFFERENT versions of the title of the thread so that it more accurately reflects the nature of our disagreement.  I have not and would not outright edit war with someone.  I am trying to defuse tensions by having a less biased and more correctly titled thread, which I believe to be unncessesary anyway as he and I are trying to iron out our differences on our talk pages.  Please note, for example, that when I tried to get us back on track in a discussion, he said he wanted to "escalate" the dispute.  I did not respond further to him in that discussion, but he went ahead and started a Wikiquette report anyway?!  I don't know what the deal is, but if you look at the editor's last nearly fifty edits they all are to or about me:  see .  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * you didn't revert it a fourth time because the current version is to your liking. Also, let is be PERFECTLY clear.  Almost all of the diffs on the WQA are prior to your first comment on my talk page.  The WQA isn't about any tensions between us.  It is about allegations of YOUR violations of guidelines.  As such, if you wish to make a WQA about my violations of guidelines, be my guest, but don't add in your allegations as though the WQA is a referendum on the conflict between us.  Protonk (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As you are a new user, I am assuming you may not understand how certain things work here. But this thread here is frivolous, because in order for there to be a 3RR violation, it must be the FOURTH revert, which I have not and will not do.  The WQ report is indeed about a conflict between us, because whatever you claim I have done, you have done just as much if not even more harshly.  It is parallel behavior and in your case more concerning, because you started the report AFTER I had made overtures to agree to disagree and disengage with you.  It represents a needless escalation of a disagreement that could have and has been resolved through talk page discussions.  As others have indicated to you, the thread like this one serves no proactive purpose at this point.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I don't understand how things work. Protonk (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither party went over three reverts. An edit war at WP:WQA is particularly ironic, and it had better not continue. EdJohnston (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Ism schism reported by Anon ip (Result: No further action)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 05:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:33, 26 June 2008


 * 1st revert: 02:33
 * 2nd revert: 03:19
 * 3rd revert: 03:45
 * 4th revert: 04:06
 * 5th revert: 04:16
 * 6th revert: 04:53


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 04:07


 * Using the inflammatory term "vandalism" in a content dispute, despite it not being a matter of vandalism. 75.175.29.40 (talk) 05:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The warning was by means of an edit summary. I have placed a warning at User talk:Ism schism at 5:22 UTC . I note both editors were in breach of 3RR Matilda talk 05:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Rezistenta reported by User:Desiphral (Result: 24h (Re); 36h (De))

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 11:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

I warned this user yesterday for 3rr, but instead the admin PeterSymonds blocked me only with 3 alleged reverts (one of them as explained in my motivation, was requested by Rezistenta, to add the sources that I already put in the talk page). I want also to bring to your attention that the Rezistenta has a history of vandalism and verbal violence (just to remind the last revert where he named me mad), that PeterSymonds supports him in an unjustified manner and that the initial move from Romani people to Roma people, as controversial as it may be, was done by another admin, Bogdangiusca, only with a fallacious reason, without discussing it first. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 11:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * and have both been blocked, for twenty-four and thirty-six hours, respectively, for edit-warring on this article. --  tariq abjotu  12:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't contest the nominator's right to list this here, because it was a legitimate block, reviewed externally by at least two well-respected editors and one admin and declared thus. However, I want to make one thing clear before it goes any further. I am not supporting one side over the other. I know nothing of this dispute; I know nothing of the article; I've never edited any related articles. It is a coincidence that I warned you before, but I came here twice because I happened to be around, and not because I have a vested bias for, or interest in, either view. PeterSymonds (talk)  08:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

User:DCGeist reported by Septentrionalis (Result: 48 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 14:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:55, 23 June 2008 (This is itself a revert, as the edit summary admits)


 * 1st revert: 17:48 23 June
 * 2nd revert: 19:17 23 June
 * 3rd revert: 17:49 24 June
 * 4th revert: 22:44 24 June
 * 5th revert: 03:04 25 June
 * 6th revert: 07:11 25 June
 * 7th revert: 00:26 26 June

It is the third through sixth reverts which consistute the violation; but I include the others which demonstrate a pattern. These are exact reversions of two different editors, including at least some reversions of different variants inserted as an effort at compromise; if it were not continuing, I would not have brought it here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

While DCGeist is an experienced editor, and should know about 3RR, he was reminded in this edit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Three reverts in 24 hours is not a 'strict' violation of 3RR, but pattern of editing clearly shows disregard for the rule. Editor has been blocked four times in the past for 3RR violations, so blocked for 48 hours. Talk Islander 16:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reversions 3, 4, 5, and 6 are 4 in fourteen hours; but another recasting of the sentence is in place, and we'll see what happens when the block ends. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I too was involved in the edit war on RKO Pictures, and am willing to take whatever block is prudent. I don't know if I necessarily violated 3RR, but if two people were engaging in equal edit warring, it would be wrong for only one to be blocked. --Golbez (talk) 02:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Plyjacks reported by User:Jerem43 (Result: no violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 16:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:26, 25 June 2008


 * 1st revert: 15:09, 26 June 2008
 * 2nd revert: 15:09, 26 June 2008
 * 3rd revert: 15:09, 26 June 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:56, 25 June 2008
 * 5th revert: 18:55, 25 June 2008
 * 6th revert: 18:53, 25 June 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 16:41, 26 June 2008

There is a content dispute over who created the character. I thought we had reach a consensus to leave both versions in and mention that the two stories and include a note in the infobox that the creators were disputed. Twice with in the previous 24 hours Plyjacks has blanked the information on Willard Scott. This also includes previous removals and editorial changes to weigh the article to the side he supports, which involves two other individuals purported to have created the clown - Terry Teene and George Vorhees. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 16:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment-


 * Consecutive edits count as one for the purposes of the three-revert-rule. CIreland (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

User:86.146.108.159 reported by User:MRSC (Result: Already blocked)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 21:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:30, 26 June 2008


 * 1st revert: 19:53, 26 June 2008
 * 2nd revert: 21:18, 26 June 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:38, 26 June 2008
 * 4th revert: 21:46, 26 June 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:42, 26 June 2008
 * Blocked for 24 hours last night by User:Ddstretch. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Alastair Haines reported by User:Ilkali (Result: 31 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 09:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In most cases, the user is not reverting to the same specific version, due to the article being developed throughout the incident. In the 3rd, 4th and 5th reverts, he is reverting the removal of some sections (discussed here - note that the editor did not contribute). In the 1st and 2nd, he is restoring to earlier versions of the article, as discussed here. User was recently blocked for 24h for violating 3RR over the same article . He is editing alone against the consensus of myself, User:Alynna Kasmira and User:Abtract.


 * 1st revert: 22:21, 25 June
 * 2nd revert: 08:09, 26 June
 * 3rd revert: 14:19, 26 June
 * 4th revert: 15:36, 26 June
 * 5th revert: 22:46, 26 June


 * Diff of 3RR warning: No warning given - user is assumed to know the rules, since he was recently blocked for violating 3RR on the same page.


 * Comment - Sorry, I made a mistake on the dates. Ignore the first revert. Ilkali (talk) 09:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Warning! User Ilkali is gaming the system.


 * The links and times Ilkali has given do not match. They also include revisions that were part of text building sequences that included text that was accepted by both Alynna and Ilkali himself. They do not constitute a 3RR violation as claimed. In fact, quite the opposite, they evidence User:Alastair Haines progressing the article on the basis of sources, despite sections of this being repeatedly removed by two editors, without them citing sources or attempting consensus.


 * Ilkali's last edit summary says, "removed irrelevant text again - see talk page. you're already arguably in violation of 3RR, Alastair. don't push yourself completely over the edge". This is a claim that Rodney Stark, William Sims Bainbridge and Emile Durkheim are "irrelevant" to an article on cross-cultural views of the gender of gods. Together with a threat. There is no consensus that the views of these scholars are irrelevant, and I find it hard to believe that such a consensus would ever eventuate. These are "canonical" scholars.


 * I notified Ilkali that I was going to report his violations, but that I would be absent for a while. He appears to have taken the "forewarned is forearmed" approach, and is countering by accusing me. I strongly suggest the edit history and talk page of this article be investigated closely.
 * It will be observed that none of the editors mentioned above have supplied a single source to the article or talk page.
 * I further note that I have already allowed one administrator error in this matter to pass. I recommend at least two administrators confer in assessing this case.


 * Ilkali's example above is not a 3RR violation from me because it involves a series of sourced edits building the article.
 * On the other hand, here are two examples of Ilkali breaking 3RR, and me letting it pass:
 * User Ilkali removing a talk page post I made in reply to another long standing editor of the page:
 * 01:13, 27 May 2008 Ilkali
 * 01:08, 27 May 2008 Ilkali
 * 17:34, 26 May 2008 Ilkali
 * 03:06, 26 May 2008 Ilkali
 * User Ilkali repeatedly removing sourced text in the article namespace:
 * of God 00:10, 27 June 2008 (current revision)
 * 07:54, 27 June 2008
 * 01:15, 27 June 2008 <- 3 in 24 hours
 * 07:26, 26 June 2008 4th slightly before


 * Over the course of about a month, Ilkali has consistently used reversion edits on the article, and never once provided any sourced text. Additionally, he has frequently done this with no talk page comment before or after. When he has used talk to support his reversions, his arguments have been ad hominem, personal attacks, appeals to majority or his own authority, not to sources, nor to consensus.


 * My WQA failed. My appeal for mediation has not been answered. Please do something. I do not seek Ilkali's banning.
 * This is not just a matter of progress being disrupted on one article. I am concerned about time lost having to defend attacks on my character as an editor, while I have several higher priority projects within the Wiki community, including List of New Testament Latin manuscripts and Bible (Free)/1 Corinthians. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "I notified him that I was going to report his own violations, but that I would be absent for a while. He took the "Forewarned is forearmed" approach and is counter-accusing me". That's a somewhat uncivil accusation. I am reporting you because the results of the first report didn't seem to have an effect on you - your behaviour hasn't changed in the slightest. Both of your claims that I've violated the 3RR rule are baseless: In the original instance, you count two edits that aren't actually reversions (perhaps this is why you give links to versions rather than to diffs?) and in the second case, I only reverted three times. Why would I need special tactics to draw attention from these vacuous accusations?
 * "It will be observed that none of the editors mentioned above have supplied a single source to the article or talk page". This isn't the place to discuss these things. Bring it up at mediation.
 * "My WQA failed". Because those involved agreed you were wrong.
 * "My appeal for mediation has not been answered". Because we are all waiting for you to approve Rushyo as mediator. Ilkali (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No one has informed me of Rushyo's arrival. I will have a look directly. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This conversation would flow better if you didn't continually edit a comment I've already replied to, Alastair. Your latest edit introduces the claim that "The links and times Ilkali has given do not match". The times I cite are the times of the last edit in each diff, as can be seen by clicking the link and looking at the "Revision as of ..." text for the 'after' version. You also claim that "They also include revisions that were part of text building sequences that included text that was accepted by both Alynna and Ilkali himself". Again, this is untrue. I hand-selected only those edits with which you reverted the removal of text, or restored the article to an earlier version. Ilkali (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That'd be my point, then, you admit you "hand-selected" the edits you're claiming are a 3RR.
 * In context, the edit history merely reflects a long standing pattern. Constructive edits and sources from me. Endless reversions from you. I rest my case. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Second 3RR this month on the same article. EdJohnston (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Generalmesse reported by User:noclador (Result: Already Blocked)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 12:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to (this is the correct version): at 11:34, 27 June 2008


 * 1st revert: 12:20, 27 June 2008
 * 2nd revert: 12:40, 27 June 2008
 * 3rd revert: 13:00, 27 June 2008
 * 4th revert: 14:08, 27 June 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:35, 27 June 2008

User:Generalmesse has decided that the original German Panzer Army Africa battle reports 1  about the First Battle of El Alamein and the historical truth are nothing compared to his source: WWII fascist Radio Rome and therefore is continuing (for days now) to vandalize with a plethora of socks the article First Battle of El Alamein with fascist propaganda about the heroic exploits of Italian troops. Discussion attempts have been tried and ignored by him. The enitre talk page of the article in question Talk:First Battle of El Alamein is only about trying to reason with him: 2 Military history Wikiproject coordinators, me and a historian from New Zealand have tried in vain to explain to him, that nothing supports his version of events. He simply ignores it and has reverted himself today 4 times and together with his various socks he has reverted the correct version 12 times in the last 60 hours.) User:Generalmesse and his various socks are incarnations of already banned user:Giovanni Giove, Radio Rome broadcasting to English personnel during WWII is not an acceptable source, furthermore he refuses to discuss and prefers to insult other editors (an example) and as he and his socks behave in the same way in all WWII articles with Italian participation my patience is finished. --noclador (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk Islander 16:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

I realise this is slightly unorthodox but it seems clear that this user is using a sock puppet to edit disruptively at First Battle of El Alamein‎. Can I ask that an admin be WP:BOLD, look at the evidence on the talk page and intervene to stop this disruption of the article. Justin talk 23:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Kendrick7 reported by User:Wiendietry (Result: No violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 16:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Comment: User Kendrick personally attacked User:WilyD about this same article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WilyD&diff=prev&oldid=219531751)
 * Talk Islander 16:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, yes it has to be in 24 hours. But user kendrick will just revert the article back tomorrow after more than 24 hours anyway, to avoid 3RR violation on ground of technicality. He's done this before. --Wiendietry (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What you've cited is four reverts in twelve days - though the last two are today, it's still miles from violating 3RR. When four reverts are made in 48 hours, alarm bells should start ringing, and when four reverts are made in 36 hours, feel free to report again. Right now, you're on the same peg as him - two reverts in 24 hours. Talk Islander 17:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, user kendrick is someone who has personally attacked an admin (User:WilyD). So his actions should not be tolerated. --Wiendietry (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

User:IronAngelAlice reported by User:Ferrylodge
First series of reverts

Second series of reverts

Third series of reverts

3RR WARNING

Fourth series of reverts

Most of the reverts are to versions of the article that this editor attempted to insert months ago (e.g. see here). The editor is declining to seek consensus at talk page.

Ferrylodge (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ferrylodge likes to bully me. When will it end?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * When you seek consensus, and stop demanding that the article reflect your POV.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Page protected. Please pursue dispute resolution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Was there a 3RR violation? If there wasn't, it would help me (and perhaps others) to understand why there wasn't.  Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

de Broglie hypothesis
Massive editwar linked to other language versions of Wikipedia as well. Can't begin to list the diffs, the page history speaks for itself. Neither side bothers to discuss whether the reference they're fighing over is relevant. Dutch group of stalkers v Dutch anon, I'm sorry to say. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

User:John celona reported by User:jkp212 (Result: Protected)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported:


 * Previous version reverted to (this is the correct version): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raegan_Butcher&diff=222063434&oldid=221936225

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

also see:
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Celona, a perennial edit-warrer, is at it again. --Jkp212 (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This editor has not (quite) violated 3RR, but there appears to be a large-scale edit war going on. Talk Islander 16:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No violation. One of 4 reverts was on June 24, another on June 27! Unless the Laws Of Nature have changed, that is more than 24 hours. Jkp212 has a long, long history of edit warring, having just been blocked [] upon my complaint for violating the 3RR Rule. In any event, the article has been protected to the status quo version (the one that has been on the article since another user created it and the one Jpk wants to change) until July 4. John celona (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Ronpillao reported by User:Justin_A_Kuntz (Result: Already blocked)

 * Three-revert rule violation on First Battle of El Alamein.

Time reported: 23:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:31, June 27, 2008.


 * 1st revert: 20:30, June 27, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 20:32, June 27, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 20:51, June 27, 2008
 * 4th revert: 21:23, June 27, 2008
 * 5th revert: 22:54, June 27, 2008
 * 6th revert: 23:02, June 27, 2008
 * 7th revert: 23:10, June 27, 2008
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 23:00, June 27, 2008

Additional information. Seems clear that this editor is a sockpuppet of edit User:Generalmesse, which is itself a sockpuppet of banned editor user:Giovanni Giove. The editor User:Generalmesse is already blocked. Justin talk 23:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Indef as a sock, by User:MaxSem. See also Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove 2nd‎. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Planhand reported by User:FJcave (Result: Already blocked)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 14:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:23, 28 June 2008


 * 1st revert: 11:31, 28 June 2008
 * 2nd revert: 12:54, 28 June 2008
 * 3rd revert: 12:56, 28 June 2008
 * 4th revert: 13:06, 28 June 2008
 * 5th revert: 14:05, 28 June 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 13:30, 28 June 2008


 * 31 hours by User:Orderinchaos. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Kober reported by User:Pocopocopocopoco (Result: 31 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 18:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous versions reverted to: 17:01, 25 June 2008 and 17:38, 28 June 2008


 * 1st revert: 17:04, 28 June 2008 Previous version: 17:01, 25 June 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:08, 28 June 2008 Previous version: 17:01, 25 June 2008
 * 3rd revert: 17:38, 28 June 2008 Previous version: 17:01, 25 June 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:00, 28 June 2008 Previous version: 17:38, 28 June 2008
 * 5th revert: 18:08, 28 June 2008 Previous version: 17:38, 28 June 2008


 * Kober is an experience user, he has been blocked before for 3RR, he has also been warned in the past by admin user:Camaron to stay below 3rr.
 * User:Pocopocopocopoco has a long history of attempts at calumniating me and provocative actions in order to spur an edit war and then report me here. A highly illustrative example can be seen here when he tried to convince the admin Moreschi to block me even though I was reverting a vandal and Moreschi explained that my reverts were legitimate.


 * In this case, I was reverting an anonymous ip/a recently created account who kept removing a well-documented info on Russia's role in the Abkhazian conflict, references to which are provided throughout the article. Pocopoco, true to his tradition, decided to maintain his antagonizing stance towards me, without caring to discuss his changes in the talk page (even though I brought the case to the talk for discussion). The problem had previously been discussed ad nauseum and the article had been relatively stable for several months.--KoberTalk 20:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Second block for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Mormoncrunk reported by User:Numyht (Result: Page protected)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 18:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: VERSIONTIME


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Notes I have been reverting User:Mormoncrunk attempts to remove the Speedy Delete and Unrefrenced tag on a Afd article which was already deleted twice (inculding today). --Numyht (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Other Notes I proboaly haven't done this right. This is my first time reporting a user here so please assume WP:AGF
 * Comment: Apparently the article has been deleted; therefore no further action is required. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The article in question has been deleted and protected against recreation until 2 July by, so further action is unnecessary. CIreland (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

User:81.215.75.143 reported by User:Flamarande (Result: Blocked 24h)
Hy, I'm hereby reporting the actions of this user who basicly is trying to push his POV and reverted the edits of the article in question at least three times (perhaps 4? I'm not sure) today. This user has already been duly warned by User:Brando130 at his personal talkpage and invited to resolve the issue at the articles talkpage. I'm sorry if this report is a bit crude (and I extend my apologies if I missed something; this is my second time I report something like this and I'm not interrested in becoming a Pro in these matters - reporting ppl). Time reported: 21:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on.

(The following was added by Coppertwig:)
 * Previous version reverted to: 11:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Each revert removes "476 /" from "year_end =". Some reverts also revert other material. The year_end issue has been discussed extensively on the talk page.


 * 1st revert: 13:03, 28 June 2008
 * 2nd revert: 13:16, 28 June 2008
 * 3rd revert: 13:27, 28 June 2008
 * 4th revert: 20:43, 28 June 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:23, 28 June 2008 (A version link rather than a diff because it's the first post to this user's talk page. There are only 9 edits under this IP account.) Coppertwig (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

--Selket Talk 00:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Sindhian reported by User:Ism schism (Result: No action)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 12:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Please see the editing history at . Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME


 * These are not reverts but as you can see there is slight variation in each edit to make it acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhian (talk • contribs) 13:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a more complex than that. Sindhian keeps trying to add his own "Contraversies" section. S/he is the only editor who thinks this is a good idea. Other editors disagree and have reverted his attempts to push his/her POV into the article. The edit history of the article speaks for itself. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already apologised for my misunderstanding and in any case I did not accuse but expressed my suspicion.


 * Comment In reverting other edits - the reasoning given was that other editors are "leaders of a disrutive gang." Attention to organized disruptive gangs. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I stand by this charge that some editors were working as a gang because a number of users were deleting section in tandom to avoid 3RR rule. They were also not expressing their reasons for delete. As well as many previous editors who tried to add references negative to CPI(M) were banned.Sindhian (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Hkelkar was banned for sockpuppeting, not for introducing criticisms agaist CPI(M). --Soman (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No action. Per Talk:Communist Party of India (Marxist) Sindhian has agreed to leave his disputed material out of the article. If he adheres to this deal, that resolves the edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Bobanni reported by User:Miyokan (Result: No action)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 13:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:49, 27 June 2008


 * 1st revert: 10:55, 28 June 2008
 * 2nd revert: 04:19, 29 June 2008
 * 3rd revert: 05:06, 29 June 2008
 * 4th revert: 06:21, 29 June 2008
 * 5th revert: 11:16, 29 June 2008
 * 6th revert: 12:10, 29 June 2008

User has been editing since September 2007 with over 2000 edits, well aware of the rule.--Miyokan (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair, note that has been placed on 1RR and broken it:, . Colchicum (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Bobanni, has been a hassle in a wide range of articles where he was persistently silently reverting without even edit summaries but making sure his reverts are slow enough to technically remain under 3RR. Most of his article edits in general are reverts. Bobanni's edits were undone by a multitude of users but he persisted with his reverts trying to achieve his changes through sterile revert warring. As for a link provide by Colchicum, I see a proposal to place Miyokan on an editing restriction but the thread above indicates no community concensus to do so. Unlike Bobanni, Miyokan writes much content and reduced the reverts significantly. Punishing the user for 2 reverts of an SPA who made 5 (and was reverted by a multitude of others) just makes no sense. --Irpen 19:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Miyokan is just involved in suppressing all ukrainian references in many article, as an expression of his own extremist point of view, without any reference ...(See Ilia Repin articles, and others) This is his main contribution to Wikipedia, and I'm not sur he is doing a good job with all these suppressing ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.29.219 (talk • contribs)
 * Please log in and sign with your real username. --Irpen 22:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Bobanni has reverted past 3RR. I've left a comment at User talk:Bobanni inviting that editor to respond here and express his willingness to follow the WP:3RR policy. I indicated that whichever admin closes this 3RR complaint might be willing to take Bobanni's response into account in his or her closing.  EdJohnston (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for bringing this issue to my attention - I was under the impression (incorrectly) that this did not apply to the POV tag since in states "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." I now know this is not the case since two wrongs do not make a right. It is my intention to follow the WP:3RR policy Bobanni (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No action. Accepted Bobanni's promise. Mitigations were: (a) the edit war seemed to have stopped, (b) imperfect 3RR notification, (c) a revert war over 'POV' suggests that the tag may truly be needed. Bobanni should be careful not to edit war in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:CubOfJudahsLion reported by User:Mhking (Result: Blocked for 12 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 20:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 21:25, 28 June 2008
 * 2nd revert: 10:27, 29 June 2008
 * 3rd revert: 12:09, 29 June 2008
 * 4th revert: 14:52, 29 June 2008

Oren0 (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 13:15, 29 June 2008

User:Qilinmon reported by User:J Greb (Result: Page protected )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 22:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Nutshell is that Qilinom changed an image used by the artile on June 23 the image was changed back on the 24th. Qilinom reverted on the 25th and the I changed it back on the 26th. This was reverted by Usser:66.56.146.34 on the 27th and changed back on the same day. This was follwed by the chain starting with the first revert above just shy of 24 hours later.

During the revert chain of the last 24 hours, the undoing of Qilinmon's edits have included the suggestion/appeal for the editor to take the suggested image Image:318640-80191-psylocke super.jpg‎ to the articles talk page as per the informal guideline BRD. Qilinmon has insisted on just pushing ahead with changing the image. The informal guide, as well as a project level guideline and policy relevant to the situation were pointed out to the editor.

This was posted to Qilinmon's talk page after the editor's 3rd revert within 24 hours and just after the editor had placed a 3RR warning after my 2nd revert within a 24 hour period.

The response to the 3RR warning to Qilinmon was the editor's 4th revert in 24 hours.

I am also curious whether 66.56.146.34 is also Qilinmon and the two relevant edits were the result of Qilinmon either not having the time to log in or having just logged out before making the edits.

- 22:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * : To be frank, if anybody was going to be blocked here, it would be both of you. You were both edit warring.  Anyhow, the page has been protected for a while.  Please discuss the dispute on the talk page, and try to come to some sort of agreement. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Berlinerzeitung reported by User:Pureditor (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 04:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * I'm not particularly happy with the format of the report above, but there was still a violation. has been blocked for twenty-four hours. --  tariq abjotu  08:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:EEMIV reported by User:GameJunkieJim (Result: Protected)
Don't want to revert it back or I will be just as guilty. GameJunkieJim (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * If GameJunkieJim were to take a closer look, he'd see my first edit within the 24-hour period removed a single sentence of OR. I stopped blanket reverting at the third occurrence to avoid violating 3RR. --EEMIV (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, please be aware that this isn't really a 1 on 1 situation here. This is one editor and a number of IP's. Protonk (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The article has been protected. --  tariq abjotu  08:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Dvakili reported by NewbyG (talk) (Result: 16 hours)
. : Time reported: 06:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * 1) Previous version reverted to 04:40, 29 June 2008  (edit summary: "")


 * This appears to be a very new user, who may not yet understand the application of 3RR.

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


 * 1) 19:44, 29 June 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 21:07, 29 June 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 21:37, 29 June 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 05:52, 30 June 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 06:07, 30 June 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 06:15, 30 June 2008  (edit summary: "")


 * warned of 3RR :

—NewbyG (talk) 06:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked sixteen hours. --  tariq abjotu  09:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Apollo Augustus Koo reported by User:Skalskal (Result: No violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 14:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:00, 25 June 2008


 * 1st revert: 11:05, 28 June 2008
 * 2nd revert: 14:02, 30 June 2008
 * 3rd revert: 14:08, 30 June 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 16:27, 25 June 2008

Note: This user appears to have a political motivation, removing Taiwan and Kosovo flags.

New Note: Dispute may be resolved, may just have been a misunderstanding. If no further edits are made to the page, recommend no action. Skalskal (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether the dispute is resolved or not, Talk Islander  21:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:60.254.218.50 reported by User:Caspian blue (Result: Page protected)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . with other dynamic IP addresses

Time reported: 15:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 008-06-29T12:42:30


 * 1st revert: 2008-06-29T12:05:37 by 60.254.202.68
 * 2nd revert: 2008-06-29T13:47:12 by 119.72.42.239
 * 3rd revert: 2008-06-29T22:12:39 by 60.254.196.151
 * 4th revert: 2008-06-29T22:15:42 by 60.254.196.151
 * 5th revert: 2008-06-30T14:36:17 by 119.72.53.116
 * 6th revert: 2008-06-30T15:19:28 by 60.254.218.50


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-06-29T22:33:392008-06-29T22:34:3


 * Comment:

The anons with the same specific ISP designated in Japan vandalised the article in question as distorting information from his/her citation. The anon previously was warned by me for his/her WP:3RR breach, but one hour past after his previous reverts, the anon began to do the same thing. It is a clear gaming Wiki rules, so block is in order, I believe. --Caspian blue (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As none of the IPs have individually breached 3RR, it's probably best to drop it for now in the hope that the page protection solves the problem. If, however, problems persist after the protection has expired, consider making another 3RR report. Talk Islander 21:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Ooao reported by TheMightyQuill (talk) (Result: indefinite)
, and multiple other articles (all edits by this user). : Time reported: 00:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 16:52, 30 June 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 17:27, 30 June 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 19:18, 30 June 2008  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here

Thank you.

—TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely; attempts have been made to influence this user's disruptive behavior and ignored. east. 718 at 02:49, July 1, 2008

User:WorkerBee74 reported by User:Brothejr (Result: 72 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 23:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:25, 30 June 2008


 * 1st revert: 14:34, 30 June 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:22, 30 June 2008
 * 3rd revert: 17:16, 30 June 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: There had not been a warning issued before I came across this edit war.

This user has engaged in contentious edit wars in the past both with this article and also the Barack Obama article to name a few. He also has a a SSP report and also there is an AN/I report  filed too. I tried to fill out this new form as best as possible. Brothejr (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * After I filed this report I also added a 3RR warning to User:WorkerBee74's talk page. Brothejr (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see only three reverts, but they were to attempt to shove in poorly cited negative material about a living person; there was also no corresponding discussion on the talkpage. Viewed in the context of WorkerBee74 being a repeated edit warrior, I'm inclined to believe that this is a behavior problem rather than a momentary lapse. Blocked for three days. east. 718 at 02:36, July 1, 2008

User:Sindhian reported by User:Dance With The Devil (Result: Blocked)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 07:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:49, June 30


 * 1st revert: 09:15, 30 June
 * 2nd revert: 01:25 1 July
 * 3rd revert: 05:04 1 July
 * 4th revert: 07:18 1 July


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 07:25 1 July
 * User has been edit warring for days on this article, also reported for another violation above on CPI (M), where he promised to discuss his contentious edits. Dance With The Devil (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He has now made another revert . Dance With The Devil (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * -- A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 22:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Scjessey reported by User:Kossack4Truth (Result: No violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 11:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:18, 18 April 2008


 * 1st revert: 19:25, 30 June 2008
 * 2nd revert: 20:33, 30 June 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:37, 30 June 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:10, 30 June 2008

No discussion on Talk page. This user has engaged in contentious edit wars in the past, both with this article and also the Barack Obama article to name a few, resulting in multiple blocks. Brothejr reported WorkerBee74 (resulting in three-day block) but for some reason, neglected to report Scjessey. Scjessey has repeatedly been blocked for edit warring and 3RR violations, is in the habit of using WP:BLP as an excuse for removing well-sourced criticism about Obama, and has participated in warning and seeking blocks against other editors for violations, so is well aware of the rule.

It takes two to edit war. If one is blocked, the other should be blocked as well. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but this is a retaliation report because Kossack4Truth's editing buddy got blocked. Only two of the edits listed were reversions (the second and third), and all the edits involved the removal of a WP:BLP violation (some conjectural interpretation), which doesn't come under 3RR per WP:GRAPEVINE. Kossack4Truth's assertion that I have received "multiple blocks" is a complete fabrication, as my block log indicates. No violation. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The three-revert-rule usually requires 4 or more edits in a twenty-four period. Moreover, looking at the content that was reverted, Scjessey's three edits listed above are exempt from the three-revert-rule. CIreland (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User:87.9.131.127 reported by User:Kww (Result: blocked for 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 16:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:31, 30 June 2008


 * 1st revert: 08:08, 1 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 14:25, 1 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 15:04, 1 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 16:32, 1 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:10, 1 July 2008

Editor keeps changing to a tense not supported by the source.

People taking a quick look might think that I've been edit warring, but this is a heavily vandalized article. 90%+ of those reverts you see in the history are "Zac Efron is SOOO GAY!" or the like. Kww (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You were indeed close to violating 3RR, but in this case I think WP:BLP prevails. Talk Islander 21:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Maracana reported by User:Martintg (Result: No Vio)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 22:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:54, 29 May 2008


 * 1st revert: 21:44, 29 May 2008
 * 2nd revert: 11:44, 30 June 2008
 * 3rd revert: 13:20, 30 June 2008
 * 4th revert: 07:41, 1 July 2008
 * 5th revert: 17:21, 1 July 2008
 * 6th revert: 21:04, 1 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Editor keeps reverting info box data, despite there being no concensus for the change. Martintg (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

All editors on this article are hereby warned about edit warring. --Selket Talk 03:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Amoruso reported by User:RolandR (Result:　No Violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 22:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 11:33, 1 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 15:58, 1 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 20:14, 1 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:45, 1 July 2008

Very experienced editor, who marks his return from a two-month block for "very abusive sockpuppetry" by edit-warring on a sensitive article relating to a libel case, by repeatedly introducing material which breaches WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:NOR


 * user:RolandR is making a false report of course. He has been removing a reliable source, and abusing the article. I have not made 4 reverts. I have made 3 reverts like user:RolandR himself. The first "revert" is the first edit I've made, an original edit by mine using the actual original source. 3RR comes after the 4th revert. That is why he did not show an original version. I try to assume WP:AGF but it seems he just tried to lie by this faulty report. He's an experienced user and should be punished for that behavior. He has been reverting using a pop-up tool, which is vandalism. Note: user:RolandR has been blocked many times for WP:3RR on the similar page Steven Plaut. He should know better. Amoruso (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't been blocked "many times" for 3RR on Plaut. I was blocked twice; one of which was a mistake, quickly removed, and the blocking editor apologised. RolandR (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This page is not a tool for continuing disputes. Amoruso (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Previous version reverted to" is missing. As the text says, this is mandatory. &mdash;Ashley Y 23:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No Vio, only 3 reverts. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 02:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:IbrahimMC reported by User:Angelo De La Paz (Result: Blocked 24 Hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 00:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * Note: 5th revert with Sock puppetry of WesKagle

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

--Selket Talk 03:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:72.0.36.36 reported by User:Enigmaman (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 02:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:14 July 1, 2008 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 20:14, July 1, 2008 (UTC)
 * 2nd revert: 01:52 July 2, 2008 (UTC)
 * 3rd revert: 02:02 July 2, 2008 (UTC)
 * 4th revert: 02:38 July 2, 2008 (UTC)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 02:08 July 2, 2008 (UTC)

--Selket Talk 03:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Jonathanmills reported by User:Historičar (Result: Stale)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 06:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:35, 30 June 2008


 * 1st revert: 14:31, 1 July 2008 using his IP
 * 2nd revert: 14:44, 1 July 2008 using his IP
 * 3rd revert: 15:36, 1 July 2008 using his IP
 * 4th revert: 15:41, 1 July 2008 using his IP
 * 5th revert: 15:47, 1 July 2008
 * 6th revert: 15:52, 1 July 2008
 * 7th revert: 15:55, 1 July 2008
 * 8th revert: 16:07, 1 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning -1st time: 15:58, 1 July 2008
 * Diff of 3RR warning -2nd time: 16:00, 1 July 2008

Note

Regarding IP addresses used by Jonathanmills, I would like to say that he admits those addresses were his. Take a look here: Talk:Srebrenica_massacre. There you can see his insults as well, for example he said: I have no interest in pushing shit uphill against a bunch of dickheads with no interest in the facts...However,if any dickhead re-inserts the word 'panicking' about that Bosniak soldier, expect it to be deleted at some point.

He is acting as he is the owner of Wikipedia. What does it mean: expect it to be deleted?! I am shocked. He also insults other users in edit summary: : like this ''YOU ARE A COMPLETE FUCKWIT, MATE. i don't mind putting the tag further down, but LOOK UP THE FACTS ON 'PANICKING'!!!!!''

I think he should be blocked for a longer period. Historičar (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This was yesterday and the edit war has died down since. 3RR blocks are intended to be preventative and not punitive. Both users warned of the arbitration remedies. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:De Broglie hypothesis (Result: Warned)

 * Continuous editwarring over User:86.83.155.44's artificial signature by User:Erik Baas. AFAIK, extra wikilinks in sigs is not a good idea, but editwarring over it doesn't look like the correct response; anon simply seems to be testing. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Users are continuing their editwar despite warnings issued. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Savvy10 reported by User:Aspects (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 19:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:44 30 June, 2007


 * 1st revert: 21:58 1 July, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 00:31 2 July, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 1:57 2 July, 2008
 * 4th revert: 15:17 2 July, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 2:36 2 July, 2008

Aspects (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk Islander 20:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Ancientworld reported by User:Laveol (Result: 24h )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 19:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:19, 27 June 2008


 * 1st revert: 00:19, 2 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 13:59, 2 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:06, 2 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 17:17, 2 July 2008
 * 5th revert: 17:27, 2 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 16:10, 2 July 2008


 * Additionally the user has most probably created a sockpuppet to enable him to edit-war on Heraclea Lyncestis -- L a v e o l   T 19:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, blocked for 24 hours. GDonato (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Maracana reported by User:Martintg (Result:24h)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 20:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:54, 29 May 2008


 * 1st revert: 11:44, 30 June 2008
 * 2nd revert: 13:20, 30 June 2008
 * 3rd revert: 07:41, 1 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 17:21, 1 July 2008
 * 5th revert: 21:04, 1 July 2008
 * 6th revert: 11:58, 2 July 2008
 * 7th revert: 14:12, 2 July 2008
 * 8th revert: 14:44, 2 July 2008
 * 9th revert: 17:54, 2 July 2008
 * 10th revert: 20:53, 2 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 04:48, 2 July 2008

Editor keeps reverting info box data, not accepting the compromise offered on the talk, and despite being aware of the ANI report Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents and the community's view that he should be more courteous towards other people and consider their opinions rather than simply changing stuff; and also warned by an admin on his talk page to obtain concensus first before changing or be blocked. Just made a 10th revert, Maracana seems to be thumbing his nose at the community and the need to get concensus on talk. Martintg (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly a violation (reverts 6-10 being within 24 hours for 3RR). I am also suspicious of and whether there is any relationship with  (Vecrumba having made 3 reversions) but I could not find any evidence I would encourage editors to seek a compromise and have the article on watch, willing to protect it if disputes continue, GDonato (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an Estonian IP, but is a Latvian editor (from USA?). There are many anonymous editors from Estonia. Oth (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:80.5.143.72 reported by User:Kariteh (Result: 48 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 22:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:05, 1 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 21:32, 1 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:10, 2 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:37, 2 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 23:20, 2 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:26, 28 June 2008
 * with the hope that they will stop. GDonato (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * User has now reverted again despite final warning. Kariteh (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * -- slakr \ talk / 18:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

User:81.157.83.142 reported by User:Kariteh (Result: 48 hours )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 22:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:05, 29 June 2008 (a bot added a few dates in maintenance tags inbetween )


 * 1st revert: 17:13, 1 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 23:41, 1 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:13, 2 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 23:02, 2 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 00:08, 2 July 2008
 * with the hope that they will stop. GDonato (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * User has now reverted again despite final warning. Kariteh (talk) 08:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * User has reverted three more times despite final warning. Kariteh (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * -- slakr \ talk / 18:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

User:162.83.201.159 reported by User:Tomas_e (Result:24h )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 22:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:56, 23 June 2008 or 21:33, 2 July 2008

Mixed approach of reverts and reentry of text. Basic dispute with several other editors concerns the unsourced addition of "Along with Mavrodaphne, it is used as Altar wine in the Orthodox Church". The two versions mentioned above differ only by a "source needded" tag, but have the same substance.


 * 1st revert: 16:05, 2 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:14, 2 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:25, 2 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 21:28, 2 July 2008
 * 5th revert: 21:33, 2 July 2008
 * 6th revert: 21:38, 2 July 2008
 * 7th revert: 21:46, 2 July 2008

Was given "the benefit of doubt" by going through uw-unsourced1 to uw-unsourced3 before uw-rr3 was applied.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:43, 2 July 2008
 * Fairly obvious violation, GDonato (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * User is now under a new IP address, reverted the article, and evading his ban. El Greco(talk) 23:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, interesting, couldn't find any real link GDonato (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

User:82.19.41.23 reported by User:Btharper1221 (Result: Semi-protected

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 22:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:06, July 2, 2008


 * 1st revert: 13:59, July 2, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 14:11, July 2
 * 3rd revert: 16:59, July 2
 * 4th revert: 20:14, July 2


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:09, July 2, 2008

User also has similar edits to the Phil Spencer article, containing the same comment. The user was provided with additional warnings concerning his "Note to the moderators", he has been told numerous times to provide something verifiable. The user has been blocked three times previous to this for vandalism and disruptive edits which may also apply in this case. Thank you Ben (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Page has been semi-protected by User:Scarian. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Arjuna316 reported by User:terrifictriffid (Result: 8 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 08:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Stifle (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Publiusohio reported by User:Ave Caesar (Result: No action)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 12:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:10, 2 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 02:47, 2 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 05:32, 2 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 14:28, 2 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 19:33, 2 July 2008
 * 5th revert: 22:56, 2 July 2008


 * User has been blocked for violating this rule several times before.
 * The edit war has ceased and as 3RR blocks are preventative and not punitive, there is nothing really to do here. Stifle (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

User:DuckerM reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 21:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:01, June 30, 2008


 * 1st revert: 03:31, July 2, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 11:47, July 2, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 17:57, July 2, 2008
 * 4th revert: 04:14, July 3, 2008
 * 5th revert: 15:37, July 3, 2008
 * 6th revert: 23:57, July 3, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:50, July 2, 2008


 * Comment: Technically this is not 3 reverts within 24 hours, but it is clearly gaming the system. In addition, "the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked the single purpose account for 24 hours for disruptive editing/edit warring. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  04:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:De Broglie hypothesis (2)

 * Continuous editwarring over User:86.83.155.44's artificial signature by User:Erik Baas. Continued despite warnings (see above). Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 09:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by 'declined', since I didn't ask for anything. This page's header reads: Please feel free to leave a message or report a violation. I did the former. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Taulant23 reported by User:Gkmx (Result: Dealt with by way of arbitration remedy)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: Gkmx (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:03, 4 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 23:29, 3 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 05:35, 3 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 17:55, 1 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 06:13, 27 June 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 02:39, 4 July 2008


 * Comment. The user is just short of the time frame of 24 hrs. However, it has clearly been an ongoing problem. Whenever other users restore the original version of the item in question, the user Taulant23 reverts them within several hours. The intent of the 3RR is to limit edit warring and the item in question is becoming subject of an edit war due to the actions of Taulant23 on one side and several users on the other side.
 * Gkmx (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policies won't work in an uncollaborative environment. Your editing here is doomed to fail.It is easy in the "heat of the moment" to forget violations in the face of warnings to cease such activity.Your presence here does nothing but create severe irritation, edit wars, and lots of wasted time. I and other users have provided you with plenty arguments and still you are reverting(more than 5 times).I do not wish to loose any time explained to you what your actions do translate in here but one is for sure WP:POINT.These kinds of "Balkan mentality" debates are always so silly and take so long.I would advise that we can come to a consensus before you edit or revert again. .Please change your attitude.Thank you.--Taulant23 (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Just short of the time frame"? It's well out of time. However, I think I will be giving out some uw-balkans. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, they're both already warned. I am going to investigate this separately and deal with it. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User:208.104.238.191 reported by User:loodog (Result: 3 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on Charlotte, North Carolina.

Time reported: 04:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:42, 3 July 2008.

Flagrant edit warring, of which user has a long history. On multiple pages.


 * 1st revert: 02:12, 4 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 02:31, 4 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 02:46, 4 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 02:55, 4 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 02:47, 4 July 2008

Stifle (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User:208.104.238.191 reported by User:JuJube (Result: Already blocked)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 04:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:08, 4 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 02:10, 4 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 02:31, 4 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 02:46, 4 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 02:55, 4 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 02:49, 4 July 2008


 * See above. CIreland (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Folantin reported by User:Kuban kazak (Result: 2x 12 hour blocks)

 * Three-revert rule violation on

Time reported: 15:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:29, 25 June 2008


 * 1st revert: 15:22, 3 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 08:09, 4 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 14:28, 4 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 15:06, 4 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 09:04, 4 July 2008


 * Both reporter and reportee blocked for 12 hours for edit warring. Scarian  Call me Pat!  16:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User:71.212.14.210 reported by User:Visionholder (Result: Blocked for 24 hours )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 19:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:23, 1 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 10:14, 30 June 2008
 * 2nd revert: 12:46, 30 June 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:23, 30 June 2008
 * 4th revert: 11:29, 1 July 2008
 * 5th revert: 10:49, 2 July 2008
 * 6th revert: 22:39, 2 July 2008
 * 7th revert: 04:32, 4 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:39, 2 July 2008
 * Single-purpose editing, edit-warring at Tamarind, and then resorting to blanking the page. Blocked for 24 hours. --Elonka 22:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Muntuwandi reported by User:PelleSmith (Result: Blocked for one month )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 20:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:54, 4 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 15:51, 4 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:12, 4 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 17:02, 4 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 19:15, 4 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: last block for same thing and I gave him a general warning days ago.

The Diff to the "warning" is actually a diff to his block log and the more general warning I gave him when he reappeared at the entry some days ago. His last 2 week block was for this exact same reason - editing warring on Origin of religion. He's more than well aware of 3RR and has been warned too many times about the very thing he's decided to start up once again.PelleSmith (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked for one month, since this has been an ongoing problem at this article, and the last block was for two weeks. --Elonka 21:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User:MargBarBahaim reported by User:Jeff3000 (Result: Already blocked )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 04:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:00, June 28, 2008


 * 1st revert: 02:48, July 5, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 03:23, July 5, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 03:41, July 4, 2008
 * 4th revert: 03:45, July 4, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 03:43, July 4, 2008

This user is a sockpuppet of User:Thamarih, who was indefinitely blocked after many many blocks for personal attacks, and which has spurned a list of sockpuppets including User:SecretChiefs3, User:Thamareh, User: TheAuthenticSkeptic, User: YaAli110, User:Ahwa85, User: Mistsister303 (see Requests for checkuser/Case/Thamarih for more information). -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Already blocked for being a sock! Scarian  Call me Pat!  04:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Ronz reported by User:Levine2112 (Result: Discussed )

 * Three-revert rule violation on User_talk:Levine2112.

Time reported: 23:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:05, 4 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 19:27, 4 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 19:54, 4 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 19:59, 4 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 21:39, 4 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 8:01, 2 July 2008


 * I'm not going to block for this. I'll make a suggestion anyway. This is just silly behaviour from both editors. Scarian  Call me Pat!  04:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the consideration. I apologize for using the revert action as a way to continue my discussion with Levine2112.  I will not do so again.  In the future I will summarize my previous statements as needed.  Thanks again. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Figment1 reported by User:Wildhartlivie (Result: No action )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 20:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:48, 5 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 11:16, 4 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:08, 4 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 07:40, 5 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 15:01, 5 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:47, 5 July 2008

This is one of two single-purpose accounts (the other is Gators855) created and only used to make and defend a link addition to this article. Figment1 makes the addition, and Gators855 defends the change on the talk page. The link is to what appears to be a newsblog and was questioned by 3 separate editors. When the point was made that the material on the diaday page was from something called "Tactical News Service", a notice was then posted on the Tactical News Service front page, asserting that diaday is an official licensee of TNS. The two websites appear linked as do these accounts. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A couple of things: 1) The warning was given after his fourth revert. 2) Some of the reverts are done yesterday morning, ergo, slightly stale. If the user reverts once more after his warning then a block may be warranted. Just come straight to me with the diff and I'll see what can be done. Scarian  Call me Pat!  21:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

User:80.5.143.72 reported by User:Kariteh (Result: 72 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 22:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The user reported above at has reverted at  again after his block. Kariteh (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Result - I have blocked the IP for 72 hours (I think. I can't remember the length). Scarian  Call me Pat!  22:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Cali567 reported by User:Fercho85
Since Cali567 started adding a very controversial genetical study on every argentine article in reference to demographics: (eg. Argentine American, Demographics of Argentina, etc) there has been several edit wars every day, that is why I requested the full protection of Demographics of Argentina. Though there was a consensus on Demographics of Argentina she continues making her edits. User Jersey Devil and I told her that this kind of issues have to be solved on talk pages, still though she continues making her edits.

This user has been warned more than once, nevertheless I have given her the last warning for disruption. If she continues the disruption please block her. --Fercho85 (talk) 06:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Taekwondo edit war- and expansion
Originaly posted on the main admin notice board as not a simple 3RR issue hence not using the template, but due to the lack of responses posted here: The Taekwondo talk page gives a good introduction. Started (several months ago) as an edit war after substantial rewrote the article with a strong Pro-karate/Japanese POV. Several editors felt he went to far beyond what the sources supported, it went to a mediation which stalled. After this failure JJL and engaged in and edit war over a Japanese vs Korean POV, I and some other editors attempted to produce a neutral version and reason with both sides, this was hampered by stubbornness on both sides, policy misunderstandings and Manacpowers poor level of English. Except from brief flare-ups on the reliable sources notice board, and the martial arts project talk pages it has generally keept it self to the Taekwondo and talk pages. I have brought this here Manacpowers has now started editing various Korean martial arts articles in attempt to prove a point that only majority view (in his opinion that Taekwondo is primarily korean) should be shown. I noticed this on the Hapkido article where he as claimed the it might actually have originated 3000 years ago with Bodhidharma (see Asian martial arts (origins), the edit war & POV forks there for how debatable that is) referencing a Korean edition of Britannica, which I tried to translate using babel fish & can't make out anything useful from.

I asked him to read WP:Point, and he then copy an pasted a previous comment of mine about showing all sourced views. showing his previous patten of finding a point policy to stand on and reiterating it regardless of relevance, counter points, misunderstandings of what he has read or contradiction. I realise that I have become embroiled in this and am struggling remain neutral due to my increasing frustration with Manacpowers, and to a lesser extent with JJL. I have asked on several project talk pages for other editors to help but as none have come forward I am left with myself an a couple of other well intentioned editors to try and resolve the dispute. Manacpowers escalation to other articles has lead me to believe that he will not debate but will keep arguing the point and disrupting articles, while a block may not yet be in order some stern words (ideally in Korean) are needed to prevent him from spoiling several articles that have been progressing well and introducing errors (factual and grammatical) that my not be fixed for an extended period. --Nate1481(t/c) 12:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read the top line, it is not a simple 3RR case, but no one responded on the main notice board.
 * This is a bad-faith report unrelated to 3RR for the reporter to get attention from administrators. --Caspian blue (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides, why did you strike the above comment of Stifle? That is no good.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I struck it out because I had explicitly said in the first line of my comment Why I had not used the template. The report is not in bad faith, but is an attempt to get the attention of someone to stop an edit war, and when I checked this is the notice board you are directed to for edit wars. --Nate1481(t/c) 14:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? This board is not for complaints on content disputes or users' behaviors. You're a long-time editor, so you know well about what function the noticeboard does. In light of these, this misfit report is in bad faith in my eyes even I understand your frustration, and you remained clam until yesterday. The last comment is I think personal attacks. The last three times I visited were others' 3RR violations reported by me, not mine.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes it says at the top: EDIT WARS, which this is. Try reading the comments not assuming. --Nate1481(t/c) 14:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless, this report is unrelated to the 3RR board. Why are you behaving so differently at this time from your usual attitudes?--Caspian blue (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said - this is the 3RR noticeboard. If a violation of the 3RR has occurred, or there is serious edit warring which you believe warrants a block, please show diffs. Otherwise, please stop arguing here. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To be fair, it does say above, please provide a report, or leave a message. So clearly a report itself is optional, or else text above needs to be fixed. Nfitz (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:BGC reported by User:Koavf (Result: 24 hour block )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 01:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 2008-07-05T17:05:17 (in title at least)


 * 1st revert: 2008-07-05T20:14:28
 * 2nd revert: 2008-07-05T21:02:11
 * 3rd revert: 2008-07-05T21:07:14
 * 4th revert: 2008-07-05T21:14:10


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-07-05T20:59:05 - not a note about 3RR per se but a note about the dispute over the name of the article; user deleted it and did not respond there or on the talk of the article. User has since posted on the talk of the article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've explained more than once why the title of the article should remain as is on the talk page, yet the behavior of User:Koavf (reverting my well-meaning edits without asking "WHY" initially) served to exacerbate the situation and display a lack of civility on his part. The fact that the user was banished from Wikipedia not so long ago for continuously unruly behavior should have bearing here. BGC (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? Quoting above:
 * Do not continue a dispute on this page. Please keep on topic.
 * If you want to discuss on the relevant talk, I'm all for that. I don't have any interest in you being blocked, just posting to talk without reverting. If you want to resort to character assassination and bickering, at least post on my talk and not here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Result - I have blocked BGC for 24 hours. Scarian  Call me Pat!  14:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Nemorules reported (Result: Already blocked )
User is repeatedly removing sourced demographic information under the arguments (taken from edit summary) that 'ethnicity does not determine identity', 'Quantum Physics' and 'Humans are Physics'. Arguments are fringe theory at best and no place in determining well sourced demographic content of an encyclopedic entry on a City in New Zealand.
 * Three-revert rule violation on.

[] Time reported: 01:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Result - Already blocked by bibliomaniac. Scarian  Call me Pat!  14:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Hisham 5ZX reported by User:A man of honour (Result: 24 hour block )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 12:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Result - I have blocked Hisham for 24 hours for violating 3RR. Scarian  Call me Pat!  14:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)