Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive76

User: Fragments of Jade reported by User:Thaddius (Result: 48 hour block )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 14:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Result - I have blocked Fragments of Jade for 48 hours. Scarian Call me Pat!  14:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

User: Thaddius reported by User Fragments of Jade (Result: Declined/Malformed )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: July 6th, 10:33


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Result - I will take no action on this; the report is malformed with your own reverts and, plus, Thaddius has made just 2 reverts (at most) today. Scarian Call me Pat!  14:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Stuthomas4 reported by CyberGhostface (talk) (Result: 24 & 48 blocks )
. : Time reported: 21:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 19:00,  6 July 2008  (edit summary: "/* Atheism and totalitarian regimes */")
 * 2) 20:47,  6 July 2008  (edit summary: "rv unexplained rem")
 * 3) 20:55,  6 July 2008  (edit summary: "actually its a rebuttal and appropriate for a NPOV")
 * 4) 21:00,  6 July 2008  (edit summary: "then feel free to make additions for balance - leave my edit alone")
 * 5) 21:08,  6 July 2008  (edit summary: "It is indeed a rebuttal of the above material. Please don't not change it again.")

—CyberGhostface (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Result - I have blocked Thomas for 24 hours and Ghost for 48. Scarian Call me Pat!  00:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Zredsox reported by User:Latish redone (Result: 2x 24 hour blocks )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 23:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 2008-07-06T17:45:36


 * 1st revert: 22:16, 6 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 22:32, 6 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 22:39, 6 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:59, 6 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-07-06T18:41:11


 * Result - I have blocked both editors for 24 hours each. Scarian Call me Pat!  00:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Latish redone reported by User:Zredsox (Result: See above )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 23:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 2008-07-06T17:45:36


 * 1st revert: 22:16, 6 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 22:32, 6 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 22:39, 6 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:59, 6 July 2008


 * Result - See above. Scarian Call me Pat!  00:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:ZippyGoogle reported by User:CastAStone (Result: 24 hour block )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 00:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of recent warnings:
 * 
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ZippyGoogle&oldid=223862105

The second is for copyvio problems that he's having, copying full sections of the Walmart website. These reverts are illegal additionally because they copy text others wrote from Sam's Club and Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market in violation of the GDFL.

--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 00:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Result - I have blocked Zippy for 24 hours. Scarian Call me Pat!  00:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Tinguat reported by User:IronDuke (Result: 24 hour block )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 02:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 4 July 2008 05:45, 27 June 2008 User keeps removing or replacing phrase "Best known"


 * 1st revert: 23:28, 4 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 22:07, 5 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:32, 6 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 21:55, 6 July 2008
 * 5th revert: 01:05, 7 July 2008
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:20, 6 July 2008

A couple things to note. Though this editor has just begun, he has almost certainly been here before. He must have seen my warning, as he rolled back a bot edit on his talk page 23:13, 6 July 2008 after I warned him. I believe he is well aware of policy, and may actually be an SPA or harassment account (Of the four articles he has edited, I am active on three.) If he were a true newbie, I’d say warn him, but I think it’s pretty clear what’s going on here. IronDuke 02:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Result - I have blocked the user for 24 hours. Scarian Call me Pat!  03:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Erik Baas reported by User:Guido den Broeder (Result: Stale )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 07:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:51, 5 July 2008

Above mandatory 'previous version reverted to' doesn't tell the whole story. User has been doing the same thing for days on end now, with other edits on the page in between. These last four diffs below are not within 24 hours, but user is gaming the system. This editwar over IP's signature should not be allowed to go on. User is doing the same thing on User_talk:Sue_Gardner, see. He has already been blocked on de:Wikipedia for the same thing. Basically, he is stalking and harassing the IP.


 * 1st revert: 18:51, 5 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:22, 6 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 18:23, 6 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 21:45, 6 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 14:18, 2 July 2008


 * Result - Stale; 14 hours since last revert. Scarian Call me Pat!  13:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:121.72.133.194 reported by User:lausianne (Result: Stale/Malformed report )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Probably the same user, different names and IPs: 121.72.143.183, 121dot72dot149dot211, 121.72.145.82

(see history of Getting_Things_Done)

Time reported: 09:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Result - 16 hours since a revert; stale. Report is also malformed. Scarian Call me Pat!  13:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:86.148.111.13 reported by User:Kariteh (Result: 72 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 11:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The user reported before at has reverted again under a new IP at  after his block. Kariteh (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Result - I have blocked the IP for 72 hours. Scarian Call me Pat!  13:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Logitech95 reported by User:Caspian blue (Result: 24 hour block and page prot. )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 12:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 2008-07-05T17:30:42


 * Supporting evidence:
 * 1st revert 2008-07-06T19:17:19 by 68.32.196.69
 * 2nd revert 2008-07-07T03:53:20 by 128.120.161.137
 * 3rd revert 2008-07-07T03:52:09 by 128.120.161.137
 * 4th revert 2008-07-07T04:07:20 by Logitech95
 * 5th revert 2008-07-07T06:36:17 by Logitech95
 * 6th revert 2008-07-07T08:20:48 -> this is related to Bataan Death March, not the article in question
 * 7th revert 2008-07-07T10:00:33 by 128.120.161.137
 * 8th revert 2008-07-07T11:01:53 by Logitech95
 * 9th revert 2008-07-07T11:36:34 by Logitech95


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-07-07T10:06:00 and 2008-07-07T10:09:14


 * The editor in question began to editing Korea under Japanese rule in a biased view without consensus/discussion as well as s/he did on several articles. Logitech9 initially seemed to use sock IP, {{User|128.120.161.137} in order to avoid 3RR sanction. However, as thins got heated, the editor clearly violated 3RR with his/her sole account. The editor also produced disruptive edits; original research, distorting death toll unlike already attached citation. S/he also violated a rule Liancourt Rocks under Arb Committee ruling for Liancourt Rocks. He/she received warnings from 3 administrators for his edit warring, wiki-staking, breaking the arbcom rule. The guy inserted original research to Mike Honda and even blindly reverted unrelated articles of him, such as Yaksik, Kimera (singer) which I edited yesterday. The editor is fully warned, so a block is in order, I believe. --Caspian blue (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Result - I have blocked the account for 24 hours and also prot'd the article for 24 hours in order to prevent his other IP's returning. Scarian Call me Pat!  13:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Otterathome reported by &mdash; Arthur Rubin (talk) (Result: 24 & 48 hour blocks )
. : Time reported: 15:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 14:04,  7 July 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 223829829 by Arthur Rubin (talk)")
 * 2) 14:16,  7 July 2008  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Arthur Rubin (talk) to last version by Otterathome")
 * 3) 14:30,  7 July 2008  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Arthur Rubin (talk) to last version by Otterathome")
 * 14:36, 7 July 2008  (edit summary: "rm badlink only") (changed to partial revert, in consecutive edit)
 * 1) 15:00,  7 July 2008  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Arthur Rubin (talk) to last version by Otterathome")


 * Diff of warning: 15:01, 7 July 2008
 * Claims 3RR doesn't apply here 15:03, 7 July 2008, so was almost certainly aware of it before.


 * Result - I have blocked Arthur for 48 hours and Otter for 24. Scarian Call me Pat!  16:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Otterathome reported by &mdash; Arthur Rubin (talk) (Result: See above )
. : Time reported: 15:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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

7 July 2008] (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Arthur Rubin (talk) to last version by Otterathome")
 * 1) 14:15,  7 July 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 224138350 by Arthur Rubin (talk) did you read WP:TALK?")
 * 2) 14:30,  7 July 2008  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Arthur Rubin (talk) to last version by Otterathome")
 * 3) 15:00,  7 July 2008  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Arthur Rubin (talk) to last version by Otterathome")


 * Diff of warning: 15:01, 7 July 2008
 * Claims 3RR doesn't apply here 15:03, 7 July 2008, so was almost certainly aware of it before.


 * Result - See above. Scarian Call me Pat!  17:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Otterathome reported by &mdash; Arthur Rubin (talk) (Result: See above. )
. : Time reported: 15:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 14:03,  7 July 2008  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Arthur Rubin (talk) to last version by Otterathome")
 * 2) 14:15,  7 July 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 224138312 by Arthur Rubin (talk) did you read WP:TALK?")
 * 3) 14:30,  7 July 2008  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Arthur Rubin (talk) to last version by Otterathome")
 * 4) 15:00,  7 July 2008  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Arthur Rubin (talk) to last version by Otterathome")


 * Diff of warning: 15:01, 7 July 2008
 * Claims 3RR doesn't apply here 15:03, 7 July 2008, so was almost certainly aware of it before.


 * Result - See above. Scarian Call me Pat!  17:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:WN1971 reported by User:ViperNerd (Result: 24 hour block )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 20:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:31, 7 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 19:17, 7 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 19:21, 7 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 19:27, 7 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 19:31, 7 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:38, 7 July 2008

The editor in question began editing Clemson University football recruiting scandal by blanking the entire article and posting links to two shorter articles they authored without consensus/discussion. The original article was restored and the editor was notified that discussion about such a drastic edit should be held on the original article's talk page so that consensus could be reached. Editor then decided rather than discuss the merits of the proposal for splitting the article, to fill up the "discussion" with old comments from my user talk page copypasted out of context, and of course drama then ensued, none of which was relevant to improving the article or furthering discussion on the stated topic at hand. Editor was notified that this was in violation of WP:TPG guidelines, and I deleted all comments from the article talk page that were irrelevant to discussion about improving the article (per WP:TPG guidelines. Editor reverted the talk page numerous times making the statement that they would continue to do so "all the way to ArbCom." This editor has been contentious ever since his original edit of this article was questioned. Furthermore, the editor appears to be a single-purpose account, other than a few minor edits made back in April when the account was created, all activity has been constrained to this article and talk pages of users associated with the dispute. I might also suggest that a checkuser be performed on the IP this editor is using, as numerous sockpuppets have cropped up around this article and others related to it over the past several months.


 * Result - I have blocked WN for 24 hours for violating 3RR. Scarian Call me Pat!  20:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:ViperNerd reported by User:Colfer2 (Result: 72 hour block )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 21:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:19, 7 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 19:19, 7 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 19:26, 7 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 19:29, 7 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 20:59, 7 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:29, 7 July 2008 (this is the editors acknowledgment of my mention of 3RR on the Talk page in question. I came there as the result of a WP:Third Opinion request, which I deleted due to more than 2 editors.  But I stayed on to revert ViperNerd's deletion of large parts of the discussion.  We then discussed that, he or she had two possible reasons. In any case, ViperNerd then reported the original disputant for 3RR, so is aware of the policy.)

I would rather not report this editor, as I came to the page in question as a WP:Third Opinion editor, but:
 * 1) the case is strong
 * 2) the third opinion was canceled (by me)
 * 3) the Talk reverts in question, though related, are not the Article edits the 3rd opinion request concerned.


 * Result - Viper blocked for 72 hours. Scarian Call me Pat!  22:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Para reported by User:Crum375 (Result: 24 hour block )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 23:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:31, June 21, 2008


 * 1st revert: 16:50, July 7, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:49, July 7, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 20:29, July 7, 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:32, July 7, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning and encouragement to self-revert: 22:58, July 7, 2008
 * Diff of removal of 3RR warning: 22:59, July 7, 2008


 * This editor persistently removes a Wikimapia link from Brown Dog affair, a featured article, and has reverted two editors 4 times in less than six hours to remove the link he doesn't like and replace it with another. We have proposed a compromise solution that includes both links, but this editor keeps removing one of them. He removed my 3RR warning and encouragement to revert himself with an uncivil attack in his edit summary. Crum375 (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please internalise WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Para (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not involved, but I noticed the 3RR warning is after the last edit. -Colfer2 (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3RR warnings are only needed for novice editors, and this one is an experienced one. He also declined the encouragement to self-revert by reverting it with an insulting edit summary. Crum375 (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Result - I have blocked Para for 24 hours. <font color="black" face="tahoma">Scarian Call me Pat!  00:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User:208.104.222.85 reported by User:Loodog (Result:Fully protected)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 03:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:50, 7 July 2008

Has been reverting the exact same section of text 208.104.238.191 and 24.74.61.75 have been. Is likely same user. Request extended block.


 * 02:38, 8 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 03:03, 8 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 03:28, 8 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 03:48, 8 July 2008
 * 5th revert: (03:52, 8 July 2008)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 03:35, 8 July 2008
 * Article has been fully protected. Please use the talk page to resolve the dispute. <font face="Harlow Solid Italic"><font size="2px" color="teal"> « Gonzo fan2007  (talk ♦ contribs) @  '' 04:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Publiusohio reported by User:Ave Caesar (Result: Stale.)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 06:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:52, 4 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 23:13, 7 July 2008
 * 1st revert: 02:34, 8 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 03:00, 8 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 03:32, 8 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: -Blocked multiple times for 3rr violations. --Ave Caesar (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Result - Stale. <font color="black" face="tahoma">Scarian Call me Pat!  15:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Dbachmann reported by User:Sindhian (Result: mistaken block, later rescinded)
User Dbachmann is involved in edit war on article Hinduism. He has protected his talk page so we cannot leave any warning. He is also indulging in name calling and is abusive to other editors. Please block the user following are the diffs.
 * 1st revert: 10:45, 8 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 10:56, 8 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 11:06, 8 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 11:11, 8 July 2008
 * 5th revert: 11:12, 8 July 2008
 * 6th revert: 11:50, 8 July 2008
 * 7th revert: 12:11, 8 July 2008
 * 8th revert: 12:12, 8 July 2008
 * 9th revert: 12:12, 8 July 2008


 * Result - I have blocked Dbachmann for 48 hours. <font color="black" face="tahoma">Scarian Call me Pat!  16:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about this. I made a mistake because this was my first time reporting a 3 RR voi;lation. I have been a user for less than a month as you can see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhian (talk • contribs) 22:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Andycjp reported by User:Vinh1313 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 02:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:29, 25 June 2008


 * 1st revert: 05:14, 8 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 13:37, 8 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 00:58, 9 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 01:55, 9 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:56, 8 July 2008
 * Stifle (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Godraegpot reported by User:Looneyman (Result: 24 hour block )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 14:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:27, 8 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 21:24, 8 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 12:04, 9 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 13:01, 9 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 13:20, 9 July 2008
 * 5th revert: 13:28, 9 July 2008
 * 6th revert: 13:47, 9 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 13:14, 9 July 2008


 * Result - I have blocked Godraegpot for 24 hours. <font color="black" face="tahoma">Scarian Call me Pat!  14:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Dp76764 reported by User:DoctorFrench (Result: no vio)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.


 * 1st revert: 18:52, 9 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:37, 9 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 18:31, 9 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 15:08, 8 July 2008
 * I would like to draw attention to the fact that the indicated 4th revert was made yesterday, about 27.5 hours before the oldest of the other three reverts indicated. - Vianello (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a typo, all 4 of them were today, the 9th July 2008. DoctorFrench (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong! The 4th's 'typo' was intentionally falsified to be today. Dp76764 (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A simple mistake, the 3RR rule has still been broken. DoctorFrench (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you read the 3RR? Reverting vandalism, such as what you were doing, is an exception to the ruls. Looneyman (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you read the explantions behind my reverts? I am reverting vandalism from you.  You have been reverting factually correct articles back to non factually correct articles. DoctorFrench (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * CIreland (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:DoctorFrench reported by User:Dp76764 (Result: Blocked 24h)
Another sockpuppet of User:godraegpot


 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Dp76764 (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to affirm and second this. For evidence on the sockpuppet allegation, see Suspected sock puppets/Davesmith33. It seems to be simple block evasion for this user to continue pursuing their obsession. Sorry if "seconding" claims isn't part of WP:3RR process. - Vianello (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 18:35, 9 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:38, 9 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 18:41, 9 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:46, 9 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 18:45, 9 July 2008
 * for 24 hours. CIreland (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog reported by User:Stor stark7 (Result: 24 h)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 20:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:38, July 8, 2008


 * 1st revert: 12:05, July 9, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:05, July 9, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:10, July 9, 2008
 * 4th revert: 19:18, July 9, 2008
 * 5th revert: 21:41, July 9, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:09, July 9, 2008 (Warning given to both, but I think Nick jumped the gun, I think he misread the date of my earlier edit.)--Stor stark7 Speak 20:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just realized, his talk page is full of 3rr warnings, he cant be a newbie to the concept ergo the above 3RR warning diff is unnecessary.--Stor stark7 Speak 21:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 24 h.  Sandstein   22:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Pwnage8 and User:Landon1980 reported by User:Shake 3000 (Result: no action)

 * Three-revert rule violation on {{Article|The Used, Template:The Used, Shallow Believer, Maybe Memories. {{3RRV|}}

Time reported: 21:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1st page war: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shallow_Believer&action=history
 * 2nd page war: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:The_Used&action=history
 * 3rd page war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maybe_Memories
 * 4th page war: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Used&action=history

Okay, I don't think I did this fully correct but it is very confusing so I did my best. The 2 users I reported to do allow me to edit any pages. I never read too much about htis rule thinking it would never apply to me however after they told me I violated it, I read it more and understand it better. I also realize that they were just it violation as I was. I read they were going to report me so I figure I do the same. I think in there case it is worse because they are regular wiki users violated a rule very badly that makes them look like a newbie, I'm and still learning while I violated the rule without realizing it, it appears to me that they think they own the page, which again is against rules. Although regular users, they don't seem to understand this is an open edting site where other people make edits. They revert any improvement or information I add or change. It is very frustrating to have all my improvements removed. From what I read this is an aexample of wiki users that are not wanted on this site. Overall I'd say I'm new and a little confused, violating a rule without knowledge and they are regular users violating rules to extreme measures with all intensions of it. Hopefully this is the right place to report this and hopfully you understand and see what I'm saying and reporting. Shake 3000 (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note to admins: Please read over this before taking any action. Cheers, Landon1980 (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note to admins: Please ignore Landon1980's note due to they are trying to make themselves look better and lie to you acusing me to be some other user that I'm not. Shake 3000 (talk)

No action. Shake 3000 is now blocked by another admin as a sock of a banned user. The report is not in an actionable format, at any rate, and looks unlikely to warrant further review.  Sandstein  22:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Kalamrir reported by User: A Man In Black (Result: 31 h)

 * Three-revert rule violation on Command & Conquer series.

Time reported: 21:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

His talk page is studded with 3RR warnings, so I didn't bother. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked 31 h.  Sandstein   22:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Hubschrauber729 reported by User: (Result: Article protected)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 22:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: [index.php?title=Michael_Ballack&oldid=224673848 22:28]
 * Article protected for 3 days - too many other edit warriors to block them all and no reverts since ChrisO gave out some 3rr warnings. CIreland (talk)

User:Whitenoise123 reported by User:BanRay (Result: No action)

 * Three-revert rule violation on User talk:Whitenoise123 and Talk:Maria Sharapova.

Time reported: 23:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

On User talk:Whitenoise123


 * Previous version reverted to: none, page blanking


 * 1st revert: 21:15, July 7
 * 2nd revert: 22:43, July 7
 * 3rd revert: 10:47, July 8
 * 4th revert: 19:38, July 8
 * 5th revert: 00:27, July 10
 * 6th revert: 00:32, July 10


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 00:29, July 10

On Talk:Maria Sharapova


 * 1st revert: 20:52, July 7
 * 2nd revert: 22:46, July 7
 * 3rd revert: 10:48, July 8
 * 4th revert: 19:37, July 8


 * I do not know if I am allowed to comment here, but I will do it and hope for the best. Firstly, in regards to my reverts on my own talkpage; firstly, I was unaware that 3RR even applied on my own, and secondly, I would like to point out that I only carried out so many reverts because Tennis expert and BanRay were incorrectly saying that I had to keep their comments on, which led me to revert. The edit history proves this: I politely requested they found me where it says in the rules I had to keep what they were trying to put on, and they did not find it, so I think I was entitled to be angry. In addition, I tried to seek a resolution with BanRay on his talkpage (perhaps slightly aggressively, but I still requested relatively politely that he find me where I had to keep his comments, and that I would keep them if he did), but he removed my comments without a proper reason: 1.
 * The second one: I completely did not realise I violated 3RR there, I completely lost count so I am sorry for that. Nevertheless, that is my first offence on Wikipedia, and I would also like to point out that Tennis expert had been reverting my legitimate edit without giving a reason, which was what resulted in my reverting. However, I still realise I violated the rule in this instance, so I will be more careful in future. The first "offence" listed, however, I think is completely not my fault. Whitenoise123 (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Reverting your own user talk page is exempt from 3RR, and the other report is stale. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:PigeonPiece reported by User:Academic38 (Result: no violation)
. : Time reported: 07:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 00:01,  8 July 2008  (edit summary: "Make needed changes. Removed superfluous external links. Added updated information and re-added information that was relevant to the Oxford Round Table.")
 * 2) 06:10,  9 July 2008  (edit summary: "These changes are reflected on other web sources.")
 * 3) 20:35,  9 July 2008  (edit summary: "Please stop removing cited information.")
 * 4) 00:12, 10 July 2008  (edit summary: "Edits reflect no Wikipedia links.")

Among other things, this editor insists on deleting material against the decision of an RfC.

—Academic38 (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Whitenoise123 reported by User:BanRay (Result:warning)

 * Three-revert rule violation on Talk:Maria Sharapova.

Time reported: 14:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

On User talk:Whitenoise123


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:39, June 25


 * 1st revert: 20:52, July 7
 * 2nd revert: 22:46, July 7
 * 3rd revert: 10:48, July 8
 * 4th revert: 19:37, July 8
 * 5th revert: 15:33, July 10
 * 6th revert: 16:05, July 10


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:40, July 10


 * Your report of me performing those first 4 edits has already been rejected as "stale", and I have made just two since, meaning I have not violated 3RR. In any case, the only reason I have been doing these reverts is because you have been reverting my perfectly legitimate edits without reason. How about, in this content dispute, you start actually calmly debating the proper issues instead of trying to cause trouble with things like this? Whitenoise123 (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The article has been reviewed by three established editors and all of them think it's a C-class article, what other reasons do you want? <font style="color:#fef;background:black;">Ban <font style="color:#000000;background:white;">Ray 14:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What reasons do I want? I want you to actually SAY your problems with it. If you think the tone is wrong, you need to give examples of a poor tone and explicitly say why it is poor. If you think the structure is poor, you need to say exactly why it is poor. I find it peculiar how, whenever I ask you to explicitly describe your problems with the content, you mysteriously disappear from the conversation.
 * In any case, considering I have not violated 3RR (your earlier complaint of the first 4 reverts were rejected, and I have only made 2 since), it baffles me why you have brought this content dispute over to here. Whitenoise123 (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The 3RR vio is stale. I'm not going to block for the two recent reverts, but I am going to give this solid warning: Cut it the heck out. Start discussing what "class" the article should be in instead of playing this fort-da game, and by that I mean all of you. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:69.109.174.47 reported by User:Spinacia (Result:Both blocked 31 hours )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 03:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Blocked for 31 hours. Tiptoety  talk 04:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Izmir lee reported by User:Tsourkpk (Result:2 weeks )

 * Three-revert rule violation on Regional power. User:Izmir lee
 * Three-revert rule violation on Template: Greek diaspora. User:Izmir lee
 * Three-revert rule violation on Southern Europe. User:Izmir lee
 * Three-revert rule violation on Template:Asian cinema. User:Izmir lee}
 * Three-revert rule violation on European Americans. User:Izmir lee

Time reported: 19:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Previous version reverted to:

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

Template:Greek diaspora
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:¨

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

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

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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

--Tsourkpk (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 2 weeks - That's massive disruption and it doesn't look like he'll stop.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  19:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * He's back as an IP  --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reporting IP to WP:SSP --Ωfrogger3140Ω2 omega (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Pictogram_voting_keep.svg|24px]]Reported to SSP. --Ωfrogger3140Ω2 omega (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Izmir blocked indef, IP blocked for 2 weeks. --Ωfrogger3140Ω2 omega (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Hillock65 reported by User:Miyokan (Result: 2x Warning )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 16:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:43, 10 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 15:09, 11 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 15:12, 11 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 15:18, 11 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 15:32, 11 July 2008
 * 5th revert: 15:57, 11 July 2008


 * User has had several blocks for edit warring before, check block log.


 * Result - I have warned Kuban Cossack and Hillock for 3RR. Neither made exactly 4 reverts but they are edit warring. Perhaps they will cease after this. 1 more revert from either and they will have violated 3RR. <font color="black" face="tahoma">Scarian Call me Pat!  16:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User:98.218.79.160 reported by User:Sirex98 (Result:24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 23:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 06:42, July 9, 2008

SPA with 12 revisions on the Jerry Yang (poker player), asked bring up the topic on the talk where the issue had already been brought up and refuses to.

and many prior to these dates in the last week
 * 1st revert: 07:43, July 10, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 23:38, July 10, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 05:23, July 11, 2008
 * 4th revert: 21:42, July 11, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 08:34, July 11, 2008


 * No 3RR vio has occurred here. Nonetheless, there is clearly an edit war going on. There's a case to made that multiple editors have taken this too far, but the single editor who has done the most warring with all the other editors involved is indeed the anon, so I am blocking for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Colliver55 reported by User:Everyroad (Result:no block)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 00:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:33, 9 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 08:46, 10 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 12:41, 11 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:38, 11 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 23:25, 11 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:17, 11 July 2008

User keeps reverting something that was already discussed in depth months ago, ignoring said discussion and making absolutely no further effort to communicate his issue aside from a childish verbal attack despite repeated polite requests to do so.
 * It seems to me that both users are edit warring (I'm assuming from the notice on Everyroad's talk that he is the anon who was reverting before Everyroad started to). Neither has quite broken 3RR, as no four reverts fit into 24 hours. I'd prefer not to block if we can refrain from edit warring. Perhaps a third opinion or some other form of dispute resolution? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The dispute shouldn't be happening in the first place, the source doesn't support the insertion of Russia therefor it should go unless a source can be found, what's the dispute? That was already determined months ago. I doubt dispute resolution will be able to force him into responding on talk and arguing his case, because he doesn't have a case aside from some obvious issues with "Russian bias". (Yes, I'm the same IP) Everyroad (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Get others involved. If the consensus is clear, it shouldn't be hard to get others to enforce that consensus. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Kalindoscopy reported by User:Yolgnu (Result:stale)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 04:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:03, 9 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 00:16, 9 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 10:32, 9 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:30, 9 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 17:03, 9 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:07, 8 July 2008 (7 hours before first revert, warning removed by user with the edit summary "laughable")
 * This report is stale; the vio, while it looks valid to me, is a couple days old now. True, the edit war seems to be resuming, so we may end up here again, but no block for now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Clana4life55 reported by User:Kww (Result: 24 hour block)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 23:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:33, 12 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 04:52, 12 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:34, 12 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 18:54, 12 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:03, 12 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:29, 12 July 2008


 * for 24 hours. CIreland (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikidas reported by User:bebrahmin (Result: Declined)

 * Three-revert rule violation on ,,

Time reported: 04:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: VERSIONTIME


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:13, 2008 July 12


 * Malformed report and I couldn't find any edit-warring in this user's recent contributions anyway. CIreland (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Bardcom reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: 24 hour block)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 13:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:, roughly. Add edits remove the words "British Isles" per the users campaign; see-also Requests_for_arbitration


 * 1st revert: 2008-07-12T16:43:19 (marked as revert)
 * 2nd revert: 2008-07-12T17:40:44 (ditto)
 * 3rd revert: 2008-07-12T22:04:35 (ditto)
 * 4th revert: 2008-07-13T11:42:54 (not marked, but also removes "British Isles"


 * Diff of 3RR warning: has been warned before:


 * for 24 hours. CIreland (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Publiusohio reported by User:Loonymonkey (Result: Stale/Already protected )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 23:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:46, July 11, 2008


 * 1st revert: 08:20, July 12, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 12:32, July 12, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 20:46, July 12, 2008
 * 4th revert: 21:59, July 12, 2008
 * 5th revert: 22:10, July 12, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: multiple previous blocks for 3RR violations


 * Result - The article has already been protected and there hasn't been a revert since 6 am yesterday morning. <font color="black" face="tahoma">Scarian Call me Pat!  00:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Philscirel reported by User:Nandesuka (Result: Protected)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 03:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:50, July 13, 2008


 * 1st revert: 17:52, July 13, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 02:06, July 14, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 02:25, July 14, 2008
 * 4th revert: 02:50, July 14, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 02:32, July 14, 2008

Comments: The Fethullah Gülen article has been a perennial trouble spot, subject to severe sockpuppetting over the past few years. This is just the most recent example. Given that this user's very first logged-in edit was a request for peer review, and that this is the only article this user edits, I suspect this is the return of a previous long-term violator. I have no checkuser evidence to support that statement, but it seems like a good bet to me. Nandesuka (talk) 03:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There are several different editors involved here, so I've protected the page for 4 days. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Arianewiki1 reported by User:Jmount (Result: Warned)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 03:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:16, July 14, 2008


 * 1st revert: 02:19, July 14, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 10:49, July 14, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 12:05, July 14, 2008
 * 4th revert: 13:33, July 14, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:18, July 14, 2008

Arianewiki1 is now being disruptive. I've provided a comprehensive explanation of the corrections on the talk page, but Arianewiki1 has not sought to resolve the issues on the talk page, rather reverting without explantion.
 * A warning in an edit summary isn't likely to be seen. It's customary to leave the warning on the user's talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Swampfire reported by User:Legotech (Result:No action)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 03:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: VERSIONTIME


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME


 * Please check the history, these two are going at it over a music genre.
 * Indeed. No 3RR vio, but unacceptable edit warring. Because neither has reverted since receiving the warnings you gave, I'm going to leave this one alone for now, but feel free to bug me if they start again (within a reasonable timeframe, of course), and I'll revise my decision. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Back at it...if this still doesn't qualify, can we at least protect the page? LegoTech &middot;(t)&middot;(c) 05:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Back with socks even  LegoTech &middot;(t)&middot;(c) 23:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispute seems to have been resolved. El_C 09:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Maldek reported by User:Ashill (Result: Declined)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 04:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 04:14, 12 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 19:35, 12 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 22:13, 12 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 03:49, 13 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 01:06, 13 July 2008

Part of long term pattern of edit warring on this article (see article history), including personal attacks in edit summaries and repeatedly replacing reliably sourced material with unreliable sources. See Personal comments and reliable sources warning on user's talk page. User normally avoids a technical violation of the 3RR, reverting daily but usually not 4 times in a day. ASHill (talk &#124; contribs) 04:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Warning is sufficient. There are no personal attacks (username of the editor in questions, is Spacepotato). El_C 09:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:71.100.6.175 reported by User:Someguy1221 (Result: No action; Amended: ips blocked)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 04:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:18, 13 July 2008


 * 4th revert: 21:18, 13 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:14, 13 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 21:06, 13 July 2008
 * 1st revert: 09:18, 13 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (21:17, 13 July 2008

This user has been readding a "cultural references" section that grossly violates WP:OR and has accused his reverters of vandalism and trolling in his edit summaries. Also, upon noticing the closeness of the report and his edit, Popups shows the warning was made exactly sixty seconds before his last revert, and I doubt it took him that long to hit the undo button. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The "previous version reverted to" is after all the reverts have taken place and does not show how the quoted revert is in fact a revert. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Amended. Various ips blocked (see below). El_C 09:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:71.100.6.175 reported by User:Badger Drink (Result: page protected; ips blocked)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 11:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:06, 14 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 04:14, 14 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 04:18, 14 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 07:08, 14 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 10:54, 14 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 04:17, 14 July 2008


 * Note also that this user uses a dynamically-assigned I.P. address, and has also edit-warred from and  (check contribs).


 * Update the user is also editing from . As established above, a rangeblock should be in order - anon-only, account-creation enabled. --Badger Drink (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Update User is now at 71.100.161.81 Special:Contributions/71.100.161.81. He is getting tiresome. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * --Kralizec! (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Various ips blocked for 24-48 hrs. El_C 09:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Proxy User reported by User:tedder (Result: 72 hrs)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 14:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 13 Jul 2008

Basically, User:War and User:Proxy User have been engaged in a very long-running revert/edit war about whether this organization should be called a "club" or a "gang". Both consider the others' edits to be vandalism and revert as such. I left a 3RR warning on the talk pages of both users, as well as requesting a cease fire on the talk page. War has ceased, at least since my 3RR warning; Proxy User has deleted the warning from his page, accused me of attacking him and showing bias, stated on the Banditos Talk page that he would not comply, and has edited/reverted since the warning. Note his block log shows previous blocks for disruptive behavior.


 * 1st revert: 2 Mar 2008
 * 2nd revert: 7 Mar 2008
 * 3rd revert: 17 Jun 2008
 * 4th revert: 20 Jun 2008
 * More reverts: 23 Jun 2008 24 Jun 2008 26 Jun 2008 27 Jun 2008 28 Jun 2008 29 Jun 2008 29 Jun 2008 30 Jun 2008 1 Jul 2008 1 Jul 2008 2 Jul 2008 4 Jul 2008 6 Jul 2008 6 Jul 2008 6 Jul 2008 7 Jul 2008 8 Jul 2008 8 Jul 2008 8 Jul 2008 8 Jul 2008 8 Jul 2008 8 Jul 2008 10 Jul 2008 10 Jul 2008 10 Jul 2008 10 Jul 2008 10 Jul 2008 11 Jul 2008 11 Jul 2008 13 Jul 2008 13 Jul 2008 14 Jul 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 13 Jul 2008

72 hrs. Don't forget to make a note in this field, and also register the block length at the top. El_C 09:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:66.255.99.91 reported by User:Soman (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 20:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:56, 14 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 18:11, 14 July
 * 2nd revert: 18:43, 14 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 19:48, 14 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 19:52, 14 July 2008
 * 5th revert: 19:55, 14 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:57, 12 July 2008 (at main account)
 * Stifle (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Beat me by seconds. I would have opted for 24 hours due to the 7RR per 24 hrs. El_C 09:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:84.67.247.30 reported by User:Soman (Result: 24 hrs)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 20:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:00, 12 July


 * 1st revert: 18:57, 14 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 19:02, 14 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 19:25, 14 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 19:43, 14 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:41, 10 July 2008 (same user, different ip, diff nr. 4 makes that quite clear)

24 hrs; also noting the (one-sided) personal attacks on the part of this ip. El_C 09:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Corticopia reported by User:AlexCovarrubias (Result: No action)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.


 * Previous version reverted to in Northern America: 14:00, 10 June 2008

NOTE: Admins. please take a look at this case. This user is always disrupting pages, he has been blocked multiple times for 3RR, Edit Warring, sockpuppetring violations. He uses profanity and is highly uncivil. Please check his block log. Help us out to keep a peaceful working environment.

Reverts in article Northern America
 * 1st revert: 12:22, 13 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 11:28, 14 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 11:59, 14 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 12:02, 14 July 2008

Comment: Please note that the article was unilaterally reverted by User:Jcmenal after an apparent hiatus, and later by the reporter , without ANY comments. The reporter has also been blocked for edit warring (e.g., with Brazilian editors) and has committed sockpuppetry (e.g, submitting admin report as another user.) If I am to be sanctioned, both of these users should too. I have no comment regarding other comments herein. Please don't be hoodwinked by pernicious and disruptive POV pushers who seem to collude and insinuate a pro-Mexican bias into articles they edit. Corticopia (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Warning is not immediately visible, so no action. El_C 09:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Corticopia reported by User:AlexCovarrubias (Result: No violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.


 * Previous version reverted to in Northern America (disambiguation): 05:21, 28 April 2008

NOTE: Admins. please take a look at this case. This user is always disrupting pages, he has been blocked multiple times for 3RR, Edit Warring, sockpuppetring violations. He uses profanity and is highly uncivil. Please check his block log. Help us out to keep a peaceful working environment.

Reverts in article Northern America (disambiguation)
 * 1st revert: 12:23, 13 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 12:52, 14 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:06, 14 July 2008

Comment: see above. As you can see, 3 edits in 24 hours. While a user may be in breach of edit warring even while not reverting thrice in 24 hr, see above: there is obviously a concerted effort by the above three editors to push a certain POV, and explicit attempts to escalate the situation. . Corticopia (talk) 05:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As admins. can see, this is the second report in one day for user Corticopia (the other report is above this one). As you read, he is well aware of the 3RR and is just trying to play the system by limiting himself to revert "only 3 times in 24 hours".  Alex Covarrubias  <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:green;">( Talk? )  06:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As usual, bytes of illogic and nonsense: you revert without commenting or discussing, and hurl insults. Herein, you also seem to favour unnecessary use of the bold feature to merely highlight your confirmation bias.  Is your argument so weak that you cannot render simply?  Anyhow, if you and your cohorts would discuss rationally, we'd be better off.  So, who is being disruptive and gaming the system?  I'll comment again when someone has something meaningful to say or contribute.  Corticopia (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No 4th revert, so 3RR was not breached. One instance of 3 edits/24 hrs is not indicative of gaming the system. We've seen far too many seemingly selective blocks that effectively lower the threshold of the 3RR — time to get back to the basics. El_C 08:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * TY. Corticopia (talk) 09:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Stifle (talk) 09:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * However, Corticopia does have quite a long history on this page and further reverts will be looked on very negatively. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As does the reporter. And, please point out why reverting without commentary (as the reporter and accomplices have done above, instigating subsequent actions) after months of inactivity is any less acceptable?  If said editors cannot discuss and compel, then the editorial reaction seems fairly obvious.  Corticopia (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Sephiroth_BCR reported by User:210.87.17.39 (Result: No action)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 07:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:33, 9 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 07:21, 15 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 07:22, 15 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 07:28, 15 July 2008
 * 4th revert: DIFFTIME


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 07:30, 15 July 2008

Comment: see above.

There is no 4th revert, so 3RR was not breached. El_C 08:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Dbachmann reported by User:Rokus01 (Result: No action )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 08:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Comment: DBachmann keeps removing sourced information on food production and ignores my requests to give an explanation.Rokus01 (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no 4th revert, so 3RR was not breached. El_C 08:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Yasis reported by User:NJGW (Result: Reported and reporting users blocked for 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Note see Suspected_sock_puppets/Yasis as this editor is using multiple IPs to engage in edit wars on multiple pages. The set above is only one example.

Time reported: 19:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:29, 14 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 14:23, 14 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 04:43, 15 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 14:47, 15 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 14:50, 15 July 2008
 * 5th revert: 14:55, 15 July 2008
 * 6th revert: 15:14, 15 July 2008
 * 7th revert: 15:33, 15 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:12, 15 July 2008


 * Comment user:Yasis and at least 8 IP addresses have been inserting the exact same links (to the Progressive Labor Party, the Communist Party of Australia, and various home-brew conspiracy websites) into several different articles.  Requests for discussion result in pedantic antics.  Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Decision: It seems pretty clear cut that the IP is a sockpuppet. I have blocked both the reported user and the IP for 24 hours (only this IP seems currently active). To be even handed, I have also blocked the reporting user who, no doubt with the best intentions, also edit warred against the reported user, while clearly being fully aware of 3RR and aware of the fact that they were engaged in an edit war. TigerShark (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:206.75.32.142 reported by User:Collectonian (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 19:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:22, July 14, 2008


 * 1st revert: 01:11, July 15, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 12:08, July 15, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 13:02, July 15, 2008
 * 4th revert: 14:03, July 15, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 13:08, July 15, 2008

Anon IP continues linking the town Mooseknuckle Iggy Arbuckle to Mooseknuckle, which redirects to Cameltoe. Despite three editors telling him that the link was inappropriate WP:OR. Despite a warning and editors still telling him was wrong on the talk page, he reverted again. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Decision: Even though the IP has tried changing the target page into a disambig they have continued to revert the article after being warned and after acknowledging the warning. I have blocked them for 24 hours. TigerShark (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Corticopia reported by User:AlexCovarrubias (Result: 1 month)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 20:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:52, 9 June 2008 (1st revert) and 04:41, 15 July 2008 (subsecuent reverts).


 * 1st revert: 04:41, 15 July 2008
 * Version reverted to 15:52, 9 June 2008 (see diff.) Revert consist in re-adding the words a country situated in the Americas comprising much of southern North America... instead of simply "a country situated in North America". Also Mexico is bounded to the north by the United States (specifically, from west to east, by California...etc., rewrote that whole paragraph. And finally Mexico is generally not considered part of Central America and its southwestern border delimits the region, instead of "Mexico is usually considered part of North America".


 * 2nd revert: 05:58, 15 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 10:04, 15 July 2008 (reverted additions of another editor, for his version to prevail. See actual diff. between this and 1st. revert)
 * 4th revert: 12:47, 15 July 2008 (See actual diff. between this and 1st. revert)


 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * 1st. warning 04:03, 15 July 2008 by Admin. Stifle (user has been reported less than 24 hours ago for 3RR in other two different articles, see reports below)
 * 2nd. warning 06:32, 15 July 2008

Comment: USER IS WELL AWARE OF 3RR AND EDIT WARRING POLICIES (check his block log). This user was just reported for violating 3RR (see reports below) less than 24 hours ago. Administrator Stifle had just warned him about edit warring and 3RR breach. User with a long history of 3RR and edit warring, not just in this account. Uses anonimous IP to trick the system and avoid block (See IP 216.234.60.106 especially the last edit, where he erases the warning in Corticopia's talk. Also his 1st revert was made to a version wrote by that anon. IP)  Alex  Covarrubias  <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:green;">( Talk? )  20:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Decision: User has edited warred in this case, and has an extensive block history for previous edit warring. I have blocked them for 1 month. TigerShark (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:207.237.137.37 reported by User:Mosmof (Result: No action)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 12:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:24, July 14, 2008


 * 1st revert 20:33, July 14, 2008
 * 2nd revert 20:59, July 14, 2008
 * 3rd revert 21:03, July 14, 2008
 * 4th revert 21:07, July 14, 2008
 * 5th revert 06:12, July 15, 2008
 * 6th revert 06:23, July 15, 2008
 * 7th revert 06:36, July 15, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:10, July 14, 2008


 * No action. The user sole attempt to communicate, should not have been respondedto with a template. This isn't a license for the ip to continue to revert (and 7rr is a lot), but please try to find out what's behind the removal. It doesn't appear any efforts were taken to find this out, and all I see on the ip's talk page are uw templates. Someone please give normal talking" a chance. El_C 10:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Lemons&Limes reported by User:Mosmof (Result: indef)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 00:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:12, July 12, 2008


 * 1st revert: 07:32, July 15, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:15, July 15, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 19:17, July 15, 2008
 * 4th revert: 19:24, July 15, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:22, July 15, 2008


 * I have also listed the user at Long term abuse, as this account and a range of associated IPs show a pattern of abuse that stretches over years.
 * The page after the edit marked "1st revert" is not the same as the "previous version reverted to", therefore I cannot be sure that it was a revert. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On a further review of this user's contributions I am blocking him indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. Stifle (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User: 81.79.158.57 reported by User:Bookworm857158367 (Result: 8 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 00:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: VERSIONTIME


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Please stop adding your political commentary to the article. Calling people "murderers" without even a prosecution is not only a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR but also vandalism. --81.79.158.57 (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The above diffs show that User:81.79.158.57 reverted the page in question five times. I suspect the same user under address User:81.77.90.237 had earlier reverted this same page, bringing the total number of reverts higher, as well as six other Romanov articles multiple times. This user has also refused to attempt to reach consensus on the talk pages of these articles as requested by User:Nunh-huh --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You cannot compromise with Wikipedia violations. How can you have a murder when the executioner was not even prosecuted? --81.79.158.57 (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 2nd and 3rd reverts are the same, but there are still four. With some misgivings I am blocking for 8 hours for edit warring. However, I would strongly encourage editors at the page to discuss the matter rather than just reverting back and forth, because the matter of whether the death was a murder or an execution (or neither) is very much in issue. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User:128.120.161.137 reported by User:Ferromagneticmonopole (Result: 48h)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 01:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 2008-07-15T19:13:36


 * 1st revert: 2008-07-15T20:55:15
 * 2nd revert: 2008-07-15T20:56:20
 * 3rd revert: 2008-07-15T20:59:24
 * 4th revert: 2008-07-15T21:00:56
 * 5th revert:21:52, 15 July 2008
 * 6th revert: 01:27, 16 July 2008
 * 7th revert: 01:33, 16 July 2008
 * 8th revert: 01:36, 16 July 2008
 * 9th revert: 01:45, 16 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Reported by —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferromagneticmonopole (talk • contribs)


 * FYI is a sock IP of  who was blocked for his violation on 3RR (he used 7RR) one week ago. Checkuse confirmed that the two are the same one.Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Logitech95 Therefore, this repeated disruptive behaviors by the user in question without proper discussion are all disruptive. Hard block is likely in order. --Caspian blue (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I add one more of his revert.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides, the user in question pours personal and racist attacks to me, so I think he should learn his second lesson at this time.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that
 * who also edited as ,
 * see
 * is currently involved fairly heavy weight gaming of the Korean war crimes, Comfort women, Chinilpa and other Korean related topics.


 * I fear that whatever the merits of this allegation, this action should be seen in the context of a pattern of such allegations and distractions from the primary activity of content production and reference checking. Such wasteful activities can only discourage newcomers and genuine academics from participating in the Wikipedia.


 * Please note the author themselves also nominated the same topic for deletion. See;


 * For transparency sake, I am the original author of the topic in question and have already come under a barrage of such allegations from this individual. --Ex-oneatf (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, your personal attack parade. However, your repeated false accusation here has nothing to do with Logitech95's violation. The user obviously violated more than 3RR (reverting 9 times!) just one weeks after his block for his 5RR violation. That is very disruptive. Besides, how do you know my previous user name. Although you created your current account two days aga, you're not clearly a new comer per your unreasonable behaviors at the mentioned articles and here. As you see I changed my name via WP:CHA. So what? The article has been disputed by many other editors. The two are against consensus. --Caspian blue (talk) 05:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think any action I could take here would de-escalate this edit war without causing further drama. Please use dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Another admin can feel free to review. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur. But it can't keep going like this. El_C 10:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This report is as clearly reporting continued 3rr violation. Why the user in question are free of block sanction? This is very disruptive violation. --Caspian blue (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I blocked both the IP and the parent account Logitech95 earlier today, 48 hours each. There may well have been blockable edit-warring on the other side too, but it seems pretty clear this guy was among the worst. By the way, I also deleted the article in question, but on independent grounds, it was a great big pile of plagiarism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Yes, that's fair enough. Thanks for intervening. El_C 20:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User:190.79.177.245 reported by User:Becky Sayles (Result: 24h for vandalism)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 06:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 2008-07-16T03:25:42
 * 2nd revert: 2008-07-16T03:26:30
 * 3rd revert: 2008-07-16T03:39:43
 * 4th revert: 2008-07-16T03:43:07
 * 5th revert: 2008-07-16T03:51:33
 * 6th revert: 2008-07-16T04:35:53
 * 7th revert: 2008-07-16T05:37:53
 * 8th revert: 2008-07-16T06:01:20
 * 9th revert: 2008-07-16T06:04:58
 * 10th revert: 2008-07-16T06:15:10
 * 11th revert: 2008-07-16T06:15:44
 * 12th revert: 2008-07-16T06:26:49
 * 13th revert: 2008-07-16T06:33:15


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-07-16T06:35:54
 * The majority of those reverts are exempt due to there being no intervening edits. Also, it's customary to warn people and then report them here only if they make further reverts. However, a 24-hour vandalism block is appropriate here. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User:The Cat and the Owl reported by Fut.Perf. ☼ (Result: 6 hours)
. : Time reported: 08:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version: 9:50, 15 July (different reverts)

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


 * 1) 17:24, 15 July 2008  (edit summary: "rv, biased??") (reinstating contentious reference)
 * 2) 22:59, 15 July 2008  (edit summary: "/* Nearest places */ Nearest places back after unexplained removal") (reinstating list of links)
 * 3) 08:16, 16 July 2008  (edit summary: "accurate ref.") (reinstating contentious reference 2nd time)
 * 4) 08:27, 16 July 2008  (edit summary: "Oh, come on, ref. clearly states "zone of Greek majority"!") (reinstating contentious reference 3rd time)

Experienced user, no warning necessary. Habitual politically-motivated edit warrior on many Balkans-related articles. —Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Cat and the Owl and Knonis have both violated 3RR and are both blocked for 6 hours. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Indycust reported by User:Cumulus Clouds (Result: 12 block)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 15:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Prior reversions:


 * 1: 15:29, 15 July 2008
 * 2: 15:39, 15 July 2008
 * 3: 16:50, 15 July 2008


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:22, 16 July 2008


 * 4th revert: 08:22, 16 July 2008
 * 5th revert: 08:28, 16 July 2008
 * 6th revert: 08:32, 16 July 2008
 * 7th revert: 08:48, 16 July 2008
 * 8th revert: 08:56 16 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 08:46, 16 July 2008, 08:46, 16 July 2008 and 08:50, 16 July 2008.


 * User's edits are POV and username is a possible violation of that policy (and/or a COI). Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * for 12 hours. Not sure about the username but it's stretching the definition to imply a COI. CIreland (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Traditional unionist reported by User:BigDunc (Result: 72 hrs)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 18:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:03, 8 June 2008


 * 1st revert: 19:26, 15 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 19:34, 15 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 17:46, 16 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:27, 16 July 2008

Editor has been blocked for edit warring several times in the past, yet continues to edit war without discussing properly on the talk page. Most reverts are to that version of the lead or one similar to it, despite the attempts of more than one editor to come up with a sourced version free from synthesis. BigDunc Talk 18:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unbelievable. Seriously, take a look through the edit history.  Each revert is with a reference, or fully referenced.  This report is spurious, and must be taken in light of my reporting this user for incivility a couple of days ago.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would go so far as to say this situation was manufactured by this user.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh how very civil of you TU. I'm sure you are aware that you can be blocked for incivility. I asked you to supply the refs and you just reverted as per usual without even going near the talk page. BigDunc  Talk 18:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

72 hours. Please be more careful with reverts. This is likely to be your last 3rr block that will measured in hours rather than days and weeks. El_C 19:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Milk of magnesia reported by User:.:Alex:. (Result: 16 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 20:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:12


 * 1st revert: 19:22
 * 2nd revert: 13:12,
 * 3rd revert: 15:37
 * 4th revert: 19:47


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 18:05

User kept reverting without any reasons given. Ignored my attempts to communicate and resolve the issue with him and then this user proceeded to blank my user page in retaliation. I left a warning about 3RR on talk page, and realised that this user has already received one for this incident about an hour before violating the rule. -- .: Alex  :.  20:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

16 hours. El_C 21:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User:24.123.210.230 reported by User:Amatulic (Result: 31 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 23:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:24 2008-07-16 and earlier


 * 1st revert: 02:50 2008-07-16
 * 2nd revert: 02:54 2008-07-16
 * 3rd revert: 12:39 2008-07-16
 * 4th revert: 18:37 2008-07-16 user warned at this point
 * 5th revert: 23:08 2008-07-16

User persists in adding game guide information and other fluff to article; won't respond on talk page.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:53 2008-07-16


 * -- slakr \ talk / 23:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Svernon19 reported by User:Theserialcomma (Result: No action)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 01:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)6:10 PM


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:35, 16 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 19:07, 16 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 22:01, 16 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 02:50, 14 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

user is reverting to unsourced/poorly sourced/pov changes without a consensus

There is no 4th revert, so 3RR was not breached. El_C 02:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There isn't even a 3rd; the one listed is from two days ago.-- Koji †  Dude  (C) 02:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: my mistake, i added the wrong links. there is a 3rd, but not a 4th. [19:07, 16 July 2008], [22:01, 16 July 2008], [00:13, 17 July 2008]


 * No problem. I do see a lot of new editors do that (see a few of the reports I closed directly above); they mistake 3rr for needing three rather than four reverts (although they must be faced with a discrepancy when they copy the example template) El_C 03:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Gdewilde reported by User:Yilloslime (Result: Blocked for 12 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 06:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:05, July 15, 2008


 * 1st revert: 17:46, July 16, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:53, July 16, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 03:51, July 17, 2008 (partial revert--same material as previous 2 reverts.)
 * 4th revert: 04:41, July 17, 2008 - this is revert is unrelated to the prior three. (Version (partially) reverted to: 04:29, July 17, 2008)
 * 5th revert: 05:57, July 17, 2008 - this is a partial revert of my preceding edit: 05:16, July 17, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:58, July 13, 2008 Note: user maintains a highly refactored talkpage and has removed this warning.


 * I note admit that I myself am at 3 reverts for this page, although this one was the removal of unattributed, non-encased-in-quotation-marks copyrighted material. Also note that in the edit summaries of the first two reverts noted above Gdwilde labels the good faith edits of no less than 5 editors as "vandalism." Yilloslime (t) 06:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit unclear about the last two diffs (are these actual reverts?); although I can't say I'm too impress with Gdewilde's tone at the talk page. El_C 08:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * . I reviewed Yilloslime's edits too, and couldn't find any three actionable reverts. &mdash; Werdna &bull; talk 10:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Écrasez l'infâme reported by DJ Clayworth (talk) (Result: No further action)
Article:Book of Mormon. Here are the edits:
 * 17 July 15:28
 * 17 July 15:46
 * 17 July 16:02
 * 17 July 16:15
 * 17 July 1623

Warning: DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Check the links. These are all for different issues.  First it was length, which was fixed.  Then it was for "balance", in which this editor replaced with an easily checked error. Then it was a different reason for another editor. These are not reverts, but attempts to edit in WP:VF from WP:RS while addressing concerns raised while doing so. Écrasez l&#39;infâme (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether they were related or not does not change the 3RR. However, it's customary to warn people earlier in the process, and only to report them in the case of a further revert after that. Coupled with the fact that this case is nearly a day old, I don't think any further action on my part would accomplish anything. On a side issue, would DJ Clayworth please use the proper template (found at the bottom of this page) for future reports? Stifle (talk) 13:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

User:83.142.202.41 reported by User:Syxx (Result: Both blocked)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 23:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

As can be seen from 83.142.202.41's user contributions, they are on a constant barrage of changing all Scooter related articles they can think of to reflect their incorrect views about the genre of the band, with scant regard for how many reversions are required. Wikipedia should not be a war of attrition in my eyes.Syxx (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Pro66 reported by 62.64.210.156 (Result: page protected for 72 hrs)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

User cannot accept that there are 2 views on when the new millennium began. The popular view (1 Jan 2000) and the other (1 Jan 2001). I keep trying to establish balance on this question but he keeps reverting in an intolerant and bullying way.
 * a number of editors have warned Pro66 about 3RR - see his talk page history.

Time reported: 14:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: this user is threatening others with 3RR!
 * Pro3RR has removed the official 3RR warning from his talk page. I have restored it.

The user appears to have a history of edit warring. He constantly reverts on a number of articles to protect a blatantly POV position. 62.64.210.156 (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The user itself has violeted the 3rrs many times under one range of IP Addresses, it is acepted that one view is correct which is not the IP Address POV other usrs have reverted him calling him a vandal. Also lying that i have "a history" of edit warring which a quick look is not true and of course this is the only user i have warned that he is in violations of the 3rrs. he is enforcing his own POV onto wikipedia and shows lack of regard for other wikipedians. This report should be about the user not the other way round. Pro66 (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also a quick look at the reverts shows that my edits were more nuetral and about what the article is about.....Music not what year the millennium had started this shows that he has been disrupting this article. Pro66 (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * format diffs 62.64.210.79 (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * the user is unfairly targeting me as he dissagree with me and what other wikipedians had put onto some articles, refuse to acknowledge what was said to him and what is accepted on theses articles, he never had discussions with others on why i have my views (which is accepted by many on wikipedia), and also he is the one who has breaked the 3rr. Pro66 (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's be honest. Both have technically violated WP:3RR.  Pro66 has been warned.  The IP hopping edit acting against consensus made the warning.

(←)Pro66's edits which remove the phrase: "Being the first year in the new millennium"


 * 1) 18:31, 17 July 2008  (edit summary: "the year is not the first of the millennium, 2001 is as there is no such thing as a year 0 in our calender, look at this article first if u wish to vanderlise my edit: Year zero") a removal, not necessarily a revert
 * 2) 19:34, 17 July 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 226291224 by 62.64.212.209 (talk)get an education the millennium started in 2001 look at Year zero")
 * 3) 22:34, 17 July 2008  (edit summary: "no its not the convention to do so its only popular culture that says so (incorrectly) and this is an enclopedia not some pop culture website.")
 * 4) 23:08, 17 July 2008  (edit summary: "coz of popular culture as i said its incorrect, the calender says no year 0 the 1st milliunium starts wiv year 1 therefore 2000 cant be the first year of the 3rd it will be 2001.")
 * 5) 11:06, 18 July 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 226418865 by 62.64.210.157 (talk)rm v")
 * 6) 12:10, 18 July 2008  (edit summary: "......")
 * 7) 12:18, 18 July 2008  (edit summary: "....")
 * 8) 12:32, 18 July 2008  (edit summary: "POV again your breaking 3RR")

The IP's edits which insert the phrase:
 * 1) 62.64.212.209 18:43, 17 July 2008  (edit summary: "This millennium started 2000. Last millennium 1000. First millennium 1. Get used to it.  And learn to spell !!")
 * 2) 62.64.208.233 22:15, 17 July 2008  (edit summary: "All millennia AD end in years x999. Therefore the following year always begins a new millennium.  That's the naming rule (convention) people follow.")
 * 3) 62.64.208.233 23:00, 17 July 2008  (edit summary: "Odd. Nearly  everyone celebrated the new millennium 31 Dec 1999 - 1 Jan 2000.")
 * 4) 62.64.210.157 09:57, 18 July 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 5)  62.64.210.156 12:04, 18 July 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 6)  62.64.210.156 12:17, 18 July 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 226433213 by Pro66 (talk)")
 * 7)  62.64.210.156 12:29, 18 July 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 226434258 by Pro66 (talk)")

Warning of Pro66 by 62.64.210.156 12:48, July 18, 2008

The user had been warned previously for 3RR, as can be seen from the talk page, but I can't find the diff to see whether the warning was based on actual reverts or even edit warring.

I'm not going to block, because I believe the user's edits were supported by consensus at WikiProject Time, and I'd reverted a number of the IP range's edits on other articles, but it's important to get the complete history. &mdash; Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your detailed work on this, Arthur. It is so useful, now and in the future, to have the history spelled out as you just did. I just finished leaving messages about the millennium issue on the talk pages for the article, Pro66 and the most recently used IP. --<font face="Futura">A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have semi-protected the article for 72 hours, locking it in to the version compliant with WP:SEASON (i.e., the millenium began in 2001). --<font face="Futura">A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I escalated to full protection to the page, because semiprotection only prevents the ip from editing (let me know if that's a problem). Also, note that a "removal" does count as a revert. Finally, please do not restore 3rr (or other warnings) when a user removes them from their page — take that removal to indicate that they are now privy to it. Thx. El_C 17:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * El_C, full protection is fine by me although I'm not sure I see the point; the version I semi-protected was the WP:MoS-compliant version. I'm not aware of restoring any warnings deleted by either party. I did reinforce the earlier warning with additional comments and advice at User talk:Pro66; this was in response to the message Pro66 left me at User talk:A. B.. If you think my comments there are inappropriate, please let me know -- thanks! --<font face="Futura">A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Np. I just didn't want one side to have access while the other remains restricted. No, I think you have this under control. El_C 17:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

User:12.219.77.232 reported by User:Sesshomaru (Result: 24 hours )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 03:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:21, 19 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 04:57, 18 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:29, 18 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 02:04, 19 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 03:18, 19 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 02:18, 19 July 2008


 * Anonymous user is edit warring for no reason in spite of the discussion on the talk page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Nouse4aname reported by User:MinYinChao (page protected)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Note, the dispute is over whether or not the page should be decapitalized, like iPhone is. Since "britic" has been marketed in lower-case, like the iPhone, with, in fact, the use of a capital 'B' in the spelling of "britic" going against the very definition of the britic spelling system itself, it was decided on the request for page moves before that it would use the decapitalization template. User:Nouse4aname however kept removing this, and refused to listen to explanations or warnings.

Time reported: 9:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The user appears to have a history of edit warring, and has been blocked for it before. I fear that a perhaps longer block may be needed to deter the user in future. MinYinChao (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No mention of any previous agreement was provided to me regarding an agreement to place the page using lowercase. I realise I exceeded 3RR and have not changed the page since. My "history" of edit warring is only when previously dealing with the disruptive editor User:USEDfan and his socks. I have requested an explanation as to why the page should be in lowercase here as I can see no reason in the English language as to why lowercase is used. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the first diff above is not a revert. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In future, can the reporter please use the template below to make reports? Stifle (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Now unprotected as the issue seems to be resolved. Stifle (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. MinYinChao (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Mitigating circumstances aside, it is a pretty straightforward 3rr violation by a user who was blocked for 3rr about a month ago. I would have opted for a block. El_C 17:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, that's right, I have a couple of blocks (one which was over-turned), and so I must be only interested in disrupting the encyclopedia and have nothing to contribute, so why not block me, right? How about a little WP:AGF? I assume that the other user would also have been blocked considering they also broke WP:3RR.... Oh, and again, the first diff provided above was not a revert Nouse4aname (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikisurfer61 Result: no block
reported by User:Ward3001 (Result: on hold) ==


 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 20:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:06, July 18, 2008


 * 1st revert: 19:27, July 18, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 20:03, July 18, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 20:10, July 18, 2008
 * 4th revert: 20:17, July 18, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:12, July 18, 2008


 * Resolution of this matter is underway. Chergles (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have discussed it with the user and the user now understands 3RR. I have also discussed with administrator Cailil who writes in his own talk page that blocking is inappropriate...writing "Having looked over this a bit I have to say that a block in this case now would be punitive and that's not what blocking is for - we don't block as punishment for infractions of the rules, we block to prevent further disruption. If Wikisurfer61 edit wars again report them to WP:AN3 and note the warning you gave them in this instance, but I think it best to AGF that this user has got the message"
 * So to those wanting block, I discussed it with the user, I asked an admin to block but the admin said it was not appropriate. I close this as a clerk. Chergles (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

User:218.186.65.34 reported by User:L0b0t (Result: 72 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 15:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This IP is a sock of blocked User:Yasis, he has been IP hopping to evade his block and stalking me to Talk:Water memory, Lemon Bay High School, Gump Roast, and other articles. Yasis was blocked for 3rr here and has since been on an IP hopping spree, see also Suspected_sock_puppets/Yasis. He is also trying to contact the user referred to here Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive449, as this diff shows. I have no desire to edit war with Yasis, he is just being pedantic and needs to stop. Perhaps a range block is in order. He is also at 3rr 4rr on Lemon Bay High School where he keeps changing the section header "References" to "External links" or "Notes" saying that that is the way wikipedia likes it.

"Notes" is the common proper usage. That is true. Grow up. 218.186.65.34 (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Given the pattern of edits, definitely, who has been blocked multiple times. -- slakr \ talk / 16:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Kurfürst reported by User:Bzuk (Result: Already blocked)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.




 * 1st revert: Admonished to "take it to the talk page."
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: User claimed he was reverting due to "Revisionist attempth thwarted again (sic)."
 * 5th revert: User now claiming "Revisionist attack on article integrity thwarted."
 * 6th revert: User now claiming "Vandalism reverted." Although comments are made on the talk page, the user continues to edit war with another user and does not refer to the talk page as advised. Comment made on the Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-19 Aircraft of the Battle of Britain mediation page and on the WP:Aircraft Project Group Page..

This series of 3R reverts has escalated what was a simple content issue into a very heated set of attacks. User:Dapi89 and User:Minorhistorian are both experienced and well-regarded editors in the WP:Aviation Project Group and I was acting as a kind of surrogate peacekeeper but it wasn't working. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC).
 * by User:Chetblong. EdJohnston (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Ronjohn reported by User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 18:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:07, 2008 July 19.


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:   (+ others)

User repeatedly inserts Wikinews-style material into Barack Obama article, despite warning and reverts from numerous editors. Initial insertion is clearly good faith by new editors; however, editor has also left belligerent comments on user talk pages or each reverter and declined to read guidelines for inclusion of material. LotLE × talk 18:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Badagnani reported by User:Jerem43 (Result: Protection)

 * Three-revert rule violation on Herb and spice mixtures and Herbs & spices.

Time reported: 04:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version of H&S Mixtures reverted to: 04:10, 20 July 2008
 * Previous version of H&S reverted to: 04:29, 20 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 04:27, 20 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 4:33, 20 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 04:47, 20 July 2008

Related:
 * 1st revert: 04:31, 20 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 04:47, 20 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: DIFFTIME


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Problematic user with a history of 3RR/Edit warring violations, at least 6 blocks in the past for such violations


 * There was no consensus for this merge, as seen at this discussion. Reporting user has a personal vendetta against me, and has often attempted to make my life difficult, despite my always editing in good faith and being a long-time and highly productive editor at Wikipedia. The right thing to do on the reporting editor's part was not to revert, over, and over again, insisting on this merge without discussion nor consensus, but in fact to discuss and develop consensus first. Badagnani (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no personal vendetta, when he is right, I acknowledge it; when he is wrong I point it out and when I am wrong I accept it. While I have tussled with him in the past, he does make good contributions when he follows the rules, the problem is when he doesn't. This is another case of him going loose cannon. I understand that he does get overzealous and forgets what to behave according to the roles set forth by WP, I simply want to know that others and I will not tolerate his mis behavior. Please look at his block log and you will see what I mean.

Also, he has a habit of using verbiage and wording that attempts to deflect his behaviors onto other, of which I am one of.


 * I was reasonable and quite correct in asking for discussion and consensus prior to (not after) the significant idea of a merge in this case. This request should have been accepted after the first revert (the request for discussion and consensus was made from the very start); instead it was escalated by the reporting editor into many reverts on his part, showing an impetuous character that is quite opposite the thoughtful, considered, collaborative, and collegial manner we should aspire to at Wikipedia. Badagnani (talk) 05:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked for the discussion on the issue of the merge, but I could find neither Badagnani's rationale of his initial revert or Jerem43's rationale for his re-revert. It would be very helpful if one of you could provide me with a link to where you have been discussing since I am clearly looking in the wrong places (i.e. template and user talk pages.) CIreland (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There was no discussion. I made the edits per WP:Bold, Badgnani disagreed with my edits and just began reverting them instead of asking me why I was making them or starting a discussion on the template talk page, on my talk page or the general WP:F&D page. When I asked him, on his talk page, not to revert the changes I had made and ask for an RFC if he disagreed with my changes, he did not respond. I also asked him not to revert in my edit summaries and ask for an RFC if he did not agree. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 05:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The discussion does indeed exist, and is linked in my first response to this report. Such discussion (and consensus) is needed before such a significant merge, and, as mentioned above, was requested from the very first revert. A thoughtful, considered, collaborative, and collegial Wikipedian would likely have agreed to such a reasonable request rather than choose to revert again and again in an effort to get his ("bold") way. The request still stands (as well as the request to not report other users he does not like, on what are essentially content issues that are not germane to this page). Our fundamental cornerstone of discussion and consensus should be utilized in such cases, before (not after) such major edits are made. Thank you for your consideration.


 * Regarding the message on my talk page, it was made in an intimidating and somewhat threatening manner, something that the reporting editor has unfortunately become known for.


 * I see that the reporting editor, just after reporting me, in fact reverted yet again, to his preferred (merged) versions, again showing the lack of collegial manner this editor has unfortunately become known for. It's not too late to revert yourself and actually discuss and seek consensus, as requested from the very beginning. Badagnani (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The point being: somewhere in middle of the revert war, one of you could have (by which I mean should have) started a discussion since it was clear their opinion was contested. No-one has made a fourth revert yet but I would normally block an editor for edit-warring without any discussion regardless of the three-revert-rule. Start an RFC, ask at WikiProject Food and drink, get a Third opinion or maybe even just discuss amongst yourselves but please make some concrete attempt to resolve the dispute that doesn't involve seeing who can get who blocked first (Answer:It would be a tie). CIreland (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi CIreland, the discussion you seek is indeed linked in the first comment I made at this report, just above. It is a bluelink and says "this discussion." As it's clear that the reporting editor has chosen to use "brute force," indeed reverting yet again just after making this report, do you agree that it's best to revert the templates to their original versions pending discussion and consensus? Badagnani (talk) 05:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That is all I am asking for, for a discussion before the whole sale issue of reverting several hours of work. My main problem was that Badagnani just starting hitting the Undo button, which I asked not to do. I will gladly accept this suggestion. The reason for my report is because of past dealings with him and his refusal to accept the requests and suggestions of others in those cases. I was afraid that he would follow the pattern of behavior that he has displayed before on this template (here) and other articles (here). --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 05:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you as well; as the reporting editor has reverted yet again, just after making this report, do you agree that it's best to revert the templates to their original versions pending discussion and consensus for the merge? Badagnani (talk) 05:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Good, I'll watchlist the discussion page. I dropped a note on Jerem43's talk page, since the location of the discussion is quite obscure. I'll also drop a note on the main WikiProject talk page. I'm going to protect the templates until such time as a consensus is reached. CIreland (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I thank you for this; however, I see that you've protected the templates in the merged versions I had objected to, as the merge took place by "brute force." As the reporting editor reverted yet again, just after making this report, do you agree that it's best to revert the templates, in their protected versions, to their original versions pending discussion and consensus for the merge? I don't think that's too much to ask; otherwise it sends a strong message to the reporting editor that such "brute force," significant non-consensus merges may indeed be conducted without utilizing our project's fundamentally collaborative manner of editing, but may be imposed through insistent, repeated reverting prior to actual discussion and consensus. Badagnani (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Discussion moved to user talk pages and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink/Herbs and Spices task force. CIreland (talk) 06:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

User:InternetHero reported by User:Wolfkeeper (Result: Both blocked 24 h for edit warring)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 22:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 2008-07-19T22:41:38
 * 2nd revert: 2008-07-19T19:09:01
 * 3rd revert: 2008-07-19T04:11:05
 * 4th revert: 2008-07-18T23:16:23

(Note user not logged in in the 4th example but he's admitted it was him: 'friend's IP'- but it's obvious from context anyway.)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-07-01T15:55:34

Both were edit warring.  Sandstein  07:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Unidare reported by User:Guliolopez (Result: indef block)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 00:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:20, 20 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 23:38, 19 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 23:53, 19 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 00:06, 20 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 00:20, 20 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 00:10, 20 July 2008

indefinitely for doing nothing but edit warring; this account can safely be assumed to be involved with the subject.  Sandstein  07:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

User:89.138.145.123/User:217.132.92.118 reported by User:Themightyquill (Result: article semiprotected)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

<BR />

Time reported: 01:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 13:15, 19 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:03, 19 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:00, 19 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 21:08, 19 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:15, 19 July 2008

TheMightyQuill (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This involves changing IPs; a brief semiprotection is appropriate.  Sandstein  08:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

User:93.107.137.177 reported by User:Bastun (Result: blocked )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 21:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:36, 19th July


 * 1st revert: 01:59 20th July
 * 2nd revert: 13:28 20th July
 * 3rd revert: 16:34 20th July
 * 4th revert: 19:38 20th July
 * 5th revert: 19:50 20th July
 * 6th revert: 20:56 20th July
 * 7th revert: 21:05 20th July


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:12 20th July

User is edit warring over inclusion of a sentence in River Shannon saying its the longest river in the British Isles. One editor agrees with him/her, several others don't. But while there is discussion on the talk page, s/he is not engaging. From the last edit summary, its clear this isn't a new editor. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 21:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Edited to add: No action needed User has since been blocked for block evasion. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 22:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For block evasion. No need for further action here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Vexorg reported by User:The Evil Spartan (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 23:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: June 30 2008 (note next revision has me inserting the figures).


 * 1st revert: 21:51, July 19, 2008 (removes information from Factbook on Germany)
 * 2nd revert: 15:01, July 20, 2008 (removes information from Factbook on Germany)
 * 3rd revert: 15:30, July 20, 2008 (removes information from Factbook on Germany)
 * 4th revert: 18:31, July 20, 2008 (removes information from Factbook on Germany)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:46, July 20, 2008 (Vexorg warns me, indicating he is aware of the policy - also see other warnings from the past on Vexorg's talk page).

This is indeed a complex case (see recent page history), but it involves Vexorg has continually edit warred on these figures, and has been edit warring against several other people (see talk). Please note that, despite consensus to the contrary, and much discussion on the talk page, this is still edit warring (which this user has a history of), and it will continue if this user continues to think edit warring will be ignored. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Eplgleplcl and User:Vria reported by Ohconfucius (talk) (Result: No violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 07:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Single purpose accounts Eplgleplcl and Vria have been persisting in disrupting the article and associated talk page in concert, with flagrant attacks against people living or dead, and in violation of WP:A, WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:Coatrack.
 * Previous version reverted to: 12:50, 20 July 2008


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:22, 20 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 00:36, 2 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 12:02, 19 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 01:57, 20 July 2008


 * Related talk page vandalism
 * 1st occurrence: 01:58, 20 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:17, 19 July 2008

Related vandalism by suspected sockpuppet User:Vria

 * 1st revert: 7 June 2008
 * 2nd revert: 00:13, 8 June 2008
 * 3rd revert: 12:11, 14 June 2008
 * 4th revert:12:54, 18 June 2008
 * 5th revert:07:44, 7 July 2008
 * 6th revert: 11:28, 15 July 2008


 * Related talk page vandalism
 * 1st occurrence: 12:12, 14 June 2008

Ohconfucius (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:49, 15 July 2008
 * Stifle (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply: with all due respect, I feel that you are apply the letter of the rule, rather than its spirit. the relevant section within WP:3RR states: "Edit warring is disruptive, and attempts to avoid this rule are even more disruptive. Trying to avoid breaching this rule by only making two reverts per day over an extended period, for example, is "gaming the system" and can also lead to administrative action. Rules such as this exist as guidelines for action, but are not set standards. Editors should remember that edit warring is not helpful to building an encyclopedia, and adhere to the spirit of the rules rather than the letter." Ohconfucius (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * BLP problem. I took a look at the article. Vria and Eplgleplcl are adding unsourced defamatory material about specific teachers who work at the school. They keep putting in a section called Unpopular staff with questionable conduct and inadequate academic background. I have left admin warnings for both of these editors and urge that they be blocked if they restore this material again. EdJohnston (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * These are several reverts over the course of a month. If there were, say, five reverts in 30 hours I might make a different decision. This noticeboard is specifically for violations of the 3RR — if there are long-term vandalism or other editor problems, consider dispute resolution, requesting protection, or reporting to the admin noticeboard. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:86.83.155.44 reported by User:Wammes Waggel (Result: IP 86.83.155.44 blocked for a month )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Unfortunately I do not have the time to make a full report, but similar events (user adding reference to his own book) occurred on Light rail and HTM Personenvervoer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wammes Waggel (talk • contribs) 10:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Time reported: 10:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:

--
 * 1st revert: 18:10, 19 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 21:55, 19 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 23:35, 19 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 23:47, 19 July 2008
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 14:24, 2 July 2008
 * → That kind of cases were recently withdrawn from meta-wiki, because your only purpose is "inadmissible stalking" by repeated reverting against me with 3 à 4 persons. This ref. was already there from September last Year without any objections at all. As usual with most regards: ing. D.A. Borgdorff - PEng. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC) For the last s.c. Diff, see but e.g. the following excuses from user:SarekOfVulcan (Talk | contribs) = about an apparently mistaken warning. D.A. Borgdorff - MASc EE by 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC) - Details here please, just as my complaints regarded, lodged to WMF.


 * If the user resumes edit warring, he'll be blocked. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A couple of minutes ago. --Brownout (msg) 11:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And again:, , . - Erik Baas (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile taking over this "ref. deleting" - the well-known Dutch co-stalkers: Baas & Robotje from said mr. "Waggel" cum suis. I know my nagging onions. D.A. Borgdorff speaking on behalf of co-writer: Dr. H.D. Ploeger LL.M. (ed.) 86.83.155.44 (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC) PS: a significant proof of this behavior is the efficient reversal of cause and effect by a reverted statement of Robotje about something else: of the record. Supposedly he is replacing it again and again all the time. D.A. Borgdorff as above 86.83.155.44 (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And here again a new case of violating WP:3RR. Besides that violation it is also obvious he is ignoring WP:COI even after I pointed him to that on my talk page. He read it and after his reply on my talk page he keeps reinserting references to his work mentioning his name in several articles these edit wars are about. For similar self promotion (usually in combination with related edit wars) he has recently been blocked for a month or longer on several language versions of Wikipedia:
 * 1 year on bg
 * 1 year on de
 * 1 month on el
 * 3 months on fr
 * 1 month on it
 * 6 months on pl
 * 1 year on sv
 * "indefinite" on tr
 * Since these edit wars are going on on several articles, protecting all of them against editing doesn't seem a logic solution so blocking this anonymous user seems to be the only way to stop this. - Robotje (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the IP 86.83.155.44 for a month, due to disruptive editing, pushing reference (without attempting to achieve consensus with involved editors) etc. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Christo jones reported by User:Travelling Tragition (Result: Both users blocked 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 18:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User is removing a band from the list - T.Rex - despite a source which meets the requirements of WP:V, as well as adding another artist to it - Whitney Houston - without a reliable source, and instead using a Last.fm biography, a Wiki which is written by its users. &mdash; Travelling Tragition (Talk) 18:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * for 24 hours. Both users have violated the three-revert-rule and, whilst may have a point about sourcing to a wiki, that is no excuse for edit-warring - especially when the article's talk page has not even been used to discuss the issue. CIreland (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have discussed this issue directly with Travelling Tragition at his talk-page, I even asked for the opinions of others at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard after he continuously insisted on his source being reliable, but they didn't think of the source as reliable or acceptable, however, Travelling Tragition chose to continue to abuse List of best-selling music artists--Harout72 (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:89.242.104.114 reported by User:Angr (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

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


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 18:24, 21 July 2008 (The first time, he reverted my removal of sources that don't say what he claims they do.)
 * 2nd revert: 19:56, 21 July 2008 (The second time is the same as the first.)
 * 3rd revert: 20:32, 21 July 2008 (Rather than revert him a second time, I instead added tags indicating that the sources had failed verification and don't show that linguists support this view; only non-linguists do. However, he reverted that too.)
 * 4th revert: 21:06, 21 July 2008 (The fourth time is the same as the third.)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 18:29, 21 July 2008 (This is him warning me about the 3RR, even though I had only reverted him once at that point. Still, it shows he's aware of the rule.)


 * note I came here to report the same user, he has also violated 3RR on the article Maltese language. The language he uses also leaves a lot to desired, he has been attacking at least four other users only today. JdeJ (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Language I use leaves a lot to be desired? I have used one word of stress - "hell" - hardly a profanity. And I removed the tags due to the fact that they are not correct. If you actually cared to read them, it would be helpful. Also, reverting all my edits of today is Wiki-stalking, harrassment, and vandalism, considering that the other edits were undoubtedly correct, even if you are to consider the removal of the tags as not so. I also note that User:Angr was not given a 3RR warning for doing the exact same as I did? Hmm? 89.242.104.114 (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You removed tags without explaining why and without using the talk page. Even if your reasons would be valid, you still violated 3RR. As for "Wiki-stalking", it is hardly unusual for users to check the actions of a user who during his first day of edits gets into edit wars and personal conflicts on multiple pages. JdeJ (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you actually telling me you have the cheek to suggest I did not use the talk page?! Waves this around, aghast. And no, but it is unusual for them to remove valid contributions:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 89.242.104.114 (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As if the above weren't bad enough, this anonymous IP is constantly posting "warnings" on my talk page, which I keep removing. I've told him to stay off my talk page several times, but he continues on regardless, , .  He has also made numerous personal attacks, accusing users of "hypocrisy", "POV pushing" and the kicker, "making unacceptable edits".--Tsourkpk (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Tsourkpk, you do not have the right to tell other users to stay off your page, and that is actually what helped contribute to some of your warnings. And those are not personal attacks. Deary me. You are the one that has been warned by multiple different users, and been blocked - I am the one who is correct. Now run along. ;) 89.242.104.114 (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:89.242.104.114 reported by User:JdeJ (Result: already blocked )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 22:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 11.08 21 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 15.58 21 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16.22 21 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16.48 21 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 17.31 21 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17.28 21 July 2008


 * -- slakr \ talk / 22:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:CrazyCats60201 reported by User:Madcoverboy (Result: No violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 04:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * CrazyCats60201 repeatedly reverts existing and new images to: Northwestern Universty Rock.jpg
 * I subsequently uploaded a new image (University Hall and the Rock.jpg) created by myself in good faith attempt to improve upon previous image (Northwestern-Rock.JPG). This new image was likewise reverted by CrazyCats60201.


 * 1st revert: 17:08, 21 July 2008 (Uploads Northwestern Universty Rock.jpg)
 * 2nd revert: 17:28, 21 July 2008 (Reverts again to Northwestern Universty Rock.jpg)
 * 3rd revert: 18:21, 21 July 2008 (Reverts new image - University Hall and the Rock.jpg - introduced by me to Northwestern Universty Rock.jpg)
 * 4th revert: 22:43, 21 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:54, 21 July 2008
 * The first quoted revert is not actually a revert because it introduces new content. The new image was uploaded three minutes before that edit. A revert constitutes undoing the edits of other users — making a new edit does not count. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Nevertheless, there have since been 3 reversions since then, including after a warning. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

92.12.76.4 reported by Bzuk (Result: 1 month)

 * Three-revert rule violation on by

Time reported: 14:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Note that this appears to be Harvey Carter, a previously banned editor who, despite some good intentions expressed on the user talk page, has continued to editwar with a number of editors and has now extended the 3R into more reverts and is still at it. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC).
 * See User talk:92.12.76.4 where this IP editor admits he is a sock of a banned user, most likely User:HarveyCarter. See also an earlier SSP and a checkuser from 2007. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User:87.198.252.66 reported by User:Domer48 (Result: 72 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 20:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:30, 15 May 2008


 * 1st revert: 19:40, 22 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 19:46, 22 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 19:53, 22 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 20:00, 22 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:58, 22 July 2008

Editor has previously been blocked for disruption on this same issue before, see and. <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  20:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Three IPs who are probably the same person have all violated policy on Kevin Barry. EdJohnston (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

User:93.107.64.86 reported by User:CarterBar (Result: IP Range Blocked for Six Months)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 20:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

IP is banned User:Gold heart. Can an IP range block be applied. He can change his IP within the range 93.107 at will.


 * Range block the whole of Ireland over 2 words? 93.107.64.86 (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Alison, a CheckUser has stated that despite Gold heart claiming that this is the whole of Ireland, that Gold heart is the only user on that /16, and ok'd a range block if he continued to evade his ban. (diff of alison's statement is here) SirFozzie (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Over two words, SirFoz? 93.107.134.96 (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In agreement on range-block. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This banned user is disrupting numerous articles and talkpages. TharkunColl (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If WP wants to rangeblock the whole of Ireland over two words, it might be interesting to some people. 93.107.134.96 (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. As said previously, by CheckUsers, the rangeblock is the whole of Gold heart, not of Ireland.) SirFozzie (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * over one policy, Gold heart. WP:BAN SirFozzie (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, when does this range block take effect? Gold heart is now vandalizing User:TharkunColl's page. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Should be in effect now. SirFozzie (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Badagnani reported by User:Magioladitis (Result: 72 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 20:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: VERSIONTIME


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME


 * Comment - This was an undoing on my part of a mistaken category removal. The individual Tan Kai was born ca. 1973, but the year and date of birth is unknown. Thus, the category was quite correct.


 * After each of my restorations of the proper cat, I wrote to the editor who had removed it and left clear edit summaries stating that it was a properly placed category and should not be removed; however, that editor chose to engage, aggressively and without response, in reverting my correct restoration of the proper cat each time. Thus, the report is illogical 1) because the editor's edits were admittedly incorrect, and 2) because the reporting editor reverted his/her mistaken edits the same number of times, even after having been informed at least five times that his/her edits were mistakes (i.e., the removal of an accurately placed category). Badagnani (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Decision: The reported user was clearly edit warring although they have only reverted 3 times. I have blocked for 72 hours due to their fairly extensive history of blocks for edit warring, including two recent ones (the first of these two recent blocks was eventually reverted due to staleness of the request, but not due to an apparent lack of edit warring). TigerShark (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User:62.65.239.189 reported by User:206.186.8.130 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 20:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 18:15, 22 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:27, 22 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 18:30, 22 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 20:06, 22 July 2008
 * 5th revert: 20:39, 22 July 2008
 * EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

User:62.65.239.189 reported by User:206.186.8.130 (Result: Already blocked)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 206.186.8.130 (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 18:19, 22 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:27, 22 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 20:09, 22 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 20:40, 22 July 2008
 * EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Birthplace of Marco Polo (Result: Malformed report)
I don't know if this is the proper place, because this is not a classic 3RR violation. I was adding edits to Birthplace of Marco Polo, but two Croatian users revert my edits. Despite I'm new in English wiki, I was already present in the Italian wiki, and I've alredy read En. wiki. so I had the chance to know about user:DIREKTOR and User:Zenanarh. This two problematic users often act together when a 3d revert is necessary, as in the present case. I am open to discussion in the talkpage. I'm sure I did errors! But the two allied users can't revert me, to force me to explain even evident things. I've asked them to re-correct my edits to point out the disputed claims, but they refused. They refuse to tell me where I am wrong! They just revert me! I ask the restoration of my version. I will give to the two user the time to correct just the disputed claim of my version. That seems me a correct agreement.

Marco Pagot (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3d revert
 * We would expect to see a much more thorough discussion at Talk:Birthplace of Marco Polo before we would review this as a case of edit warring. Your only contribution to the talk page so far is a personal attack on the other editors. When we see contentious editing on pages about Italian/Croatian issues by brand-new editors, we do keep in mind a previous sockpuppet case. Please consider giving a pointer to your Italian Wikipedia username on your user page. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Ausonia reported by User:Troy 07 (Result: No Action )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: ~ Troy (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

--<font color="00CD32">Koji Dude  <font color="90EE90">(C) 00:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But it's a sockpuppet. Take a look at Suspected sock puppets/200.215.40.3. It was trying to continue yesterday's revert-warring using a different identity—first as an IP, then Italicus, and now this. What now? ~ Troy (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Report the sockpuppeting to a different board (WP:ANI) or request a checkuser. There may be a blockable offense, but not for 3RR. You'll have to find the apporpriate place to report, or personally contact an admin.--<font color="00CD32">Koji Dude  <font color="90EE90">(C) 00:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Krzyzowiec reported by User:M0RD00R (Result: 4 days)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 23:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 01:29, 23 July 2008.
 * 2nd revert: 02:26, 23 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 02:29, 23 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 02:35, 23 July 2008

This user was blocked for disruptive edit warring before, so he knows the rules. Some history of related incidents ,. --- M0RD00R (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RR warning:.
 * Due to this violation, in the light of a lengthy block history. EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Troy 07 reported by User:Ausonia (Result: Protected)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: Ausonia (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Ausonia (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The first one was your edit. ~ Troy (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As well, there is evidence that charges you of being a sockpuppet. You ignored it. ~ Troy (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Three days. Any sockpuppet charges should be filed at WP:SSP. Editors who continue to revert after protection expires may be sanctioned. EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Troy 07 reported by User:Ausonia (Result: Protected)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: Ausonia (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Ausonia (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Three days. Editors who continue to revert after protection expires may be sanctioned. EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

User:InternetHero reported by User:Wolfkeeper (Result: ?)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: - (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User has returned from ban, the previous report is still on this page, and within some hours has started reverting/edit warring again. (FWIW: I didn't do the intermediate revert- User:UB65 did so, completely unprompted from me, either on or off wiki.)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 2008-07-21T18:39:40
 * 2nd revert: 2008-07-19T22:41:38
 * 3rd revert: 2008-07-19T19:09:01
 * 4th revert: 2008-07-19T04:11:05
 * 5th revert: 2008-07-18T23:16:23

(Note User was suspended for 24 hours, which explains the gap, and note that user was not logged in in the 5th example but he's admitted it was him: 'friend's IP'- but it's obvious from context anyway.)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-07-01T15:55:34
 * Stifle (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: - There were 4 reverts from the 18th at 23:16 to the 19th at 22:41. This is 4 reverts within a 24 hour period. However, this is complaint is now stale. DigitalC (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)