Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive77

User:Bedford reported by User:Doncram (Result: Declined)

 * Three-revert rule violation on


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

Time reported: 04:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:

I have not reported 3RR violation before so am not sure i have done this right. Above, last, i am providing the last version that Bedford reverted to. I would prefer the article left at this version, which shows the cleanup tag that he disputes and which disqualifies it from DYK listing, which he had nominated it for, contrary to discussion of informal guidelines for very experienced editors of DYK articles. doncram (talk) 04:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Doncram has been harassing me for a month now, trying to torpedo my DYK noms. His adding that tag is done solely to vandalism it, so it'll be passed over for DYK consideration, as its his form of a temper tantrum as I am not catering to his whims.  He has tried similar measures to torpedo other noms I've made this month, but so far he has not succeeded.  This is the furthest he has gone.  Some have requested that he no longer evaluates my submissions, but he has ignored them. Aside a token edit or two, the large majority of his edits to the Template Talk page for DYK have been to torpedo me.  I can no longer AGF as far as Doncram is concerned; he's even driven me from the NRHP Wikiproject, as I am tired of his childishness.-- Bedford  Pray  04:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Bedford misrepresents. There was one mild suggestion by Daniel Case that i not review his DYK nominations, which i discussed openly at Wikipedia talk:Did you know, and to date no one else has commented as Bedford suggests.  Other comments there and elsewhere, in since-deleted discussions of individual DYK nominations at DYK, have been more against Bedford's churlish and abusive behavior.  I have let many of Bedford's DYK noms go by, but the display of these on the front page of Wikipedia, with him claiming credit on his DYK medals page, offends me, when he discards reasonable feedback.  It is fair to say that his articles are plagiarized -- defined as giving less than adequate credit for the author(s) of the main source, the NRHP nomination, that he often relies upon.  They do not reflect well for Wikipedia on the mainpage. doncram (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing reasonable about your feedback You are doing the misrepreenting.  I have not plagiarized a thing; all are sourced.  You are just craving attention.  I have filed a RfC against you.-- Bedford  Pray  05:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Bedford is an admin and should know this stuff. I left a note for User:Bedford that he is over 3RR; I recommend that he self-revert. His vandalism defence does not work; read WP:3RR for where the removal of tags is discussed. Since I have no more time today to wait for an answer, I'm leaving this  issue for the next 3RR closer to deal with. Normally there would be a block, but an RFC/U could be a more logical place to air out the issue. EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Doncram should know this as well, but yet he gets away with his harassment against me. I put the tag where it has previously gone on similar articles, which is more then it deserves.  It need not be on top.  I've compromised, which is far more than Doncram has.-- Bedford  Pray  05:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * While Bedford has violated 3RR (only reverts of simple and obvious vandalism are exempt, and saying something is vandalism doesn't make it so), I think this report is made in bad faith, mainly based on the diff where Doncram added the tag to start with. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

User:InternetHero reported by User:DigitalC (Result: Page protected, user blocked)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 00:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 22:03 22 July
 * 2nd revert: 02:11 23 July
 * 3rd revert: 04:55 23 July
 * 4th revert: 17:47 23 July


 * Previous block within last week for edit warring:
 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Previous 3RR report since his recent block


 * This is my first 3RR report, so hopefully it is formatted correctly. Please note that I am involved, as I have reverted one of his edits. - DigitalC (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * , In strong consideration of his other 3 3RR blocks in the past, it is clear to me that this particular user is familiar with when and how the 3RR is enforced and how it is violated by reverts. Although the warning here was placed before a day or so before he actually violated the 3RR, I shall carry less leniency since, as before, he should know the course of action and procedure involved; he violated it less than 4 days ago on another article. The extension of the block period was inline with policy as described here. The page has also been protected for 5 days and all changes must be formed by consensus on the talk page. Rud  get  12:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Raymond Cruise reported by User:Mr Wesker (Result: Decline )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 12:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: []


 * 1st revert: 12:05 22 July
 * 2nd revert: 18:13 23 July
 * 3rd revert: 10:05 24 July


 * This is my first 3RR report, so hopefully it is formatted correctly. Please note that I am involved, as I have reverted one of his edits. - (12:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC))
 * Rud get  12:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Hillock65 reported by User:Kuban kazak (Result: 48 hour block and warn )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 14:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:13, 24 June 2008


 * 1st revert: 16:39, 23 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 14:02, 24 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 14:09, 24 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 14:43, 24 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User well aware of 3rr, previously blocked for it, also please note of the uncivil and rude comments in the reverts. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 14:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, ban me, if I violated anything, but please also look at --Kuban Cossack's edit warring in two different articles and that is less than a month that he got banned for edit warring. Why is it that a persistent edit warrior with one of the longest record of offences gets away with continuous edit warring for so long?! --Hillock65 (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Result - I have blocked Hillock for 48 hours and warned Kuban. Scarian Call me Pat!  15:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User:GreenEcho reported by User:Emilyzilch (Result: 24 hours)

 * WP:3RR vio on Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah

Time reported: 22:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Previous version reverted to:

There are intermediate version, but the reverts are rolled back to User:GreenEcho's added statement. A related conflict by the same user (at the time, an IP only) led to the locking of Druze, which remains locked after a month of his continued refusal to participate. User will not discuss or compromise and simply reverts. He is well aware of Wikipedia, using complex syntax, user and talk pages, (inappropriate) use of user warning templates and user-conflict administrative pages (he has personal conflict with another user, User:Hiram111).


 * 1st revert: 13:57, 2008 July 23
 * 2nd revert: 19:16, 2008 July 23
 * 3rd revert: 11:14, 2008 July 24
 * 4th revert: 14:00, 2008 July 24

The last revert was 3 minutes off from being a violation. No diff of a 3RR Warning has been given. --Koji Dude  (C) 22:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. GreenEcho's first edit was 30 June but there are signs that this is an experienced editor. He showed up at WP:ANI on his second day of editing. His user page suggests he has been an IP before. Both Emilyzilch and GreenEcho seem to have a lot of technical knowledge, but GreenEcho and the IPs he used previously have been very combative on more than one article. I am notifying him of this report. EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The dispute is related to Druze which is awaiting RFC. Please, look at the edits before talking about 3RR. Emilyzilch has been removing sourced edits, reverting his/her edits is enforcing Wikipedia policy. GreenEcho (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User:GreenEcho has reverted the page again. Your sourced edits are inappropriately added to the introduction and you routinely suppress other points of view - which you will note I have not, rather reserving controversy to the body of the articles.  Naahid بنت الغلان  Click to talk 23:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User:206.186.8.130 reported by User:Ptrt (Result: 2 months)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 23:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:23, 22 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 13:18, 24 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 14:37, 24 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 14:52, 24 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 21:39, 24 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:56, 24 July 2008

Editor is well aware of WP:3RR, made yesterday two reports himself - (same article, BTW),. Looking at his talk page history, it seems that he could very well be User:RJ CG, who has been blocked numerous times for edit warring, there's one old checkuser confirming this too. Both article choice and editing style are extremely similar.

, 206.186.8.130 is also edit warring :
 * 18:46, 24 July 2008
 * 19:00, 24 July 2008
 * 21:25, 24 July 2008
 * 21:31, 24 July 2008
 * and :
 * 20:31, 23 July 2008
 * 15:41, 24 July 2008
 * 18:36, 24 July 2008
 * 20:05, 24 July 2008
 * 206.186.8.130 is confirmed IP sock of . --Martintg (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

, perhaps placing a long would be most appropriate here, given that the IP address appears to be an IP of the Toronto Transit Commission, a Canadian transportation company. Martintg (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is a clear 3RR violation. The IP is edit-warring across multiple articles, so it's hardly a borderline case or a momentary lapse of judgment. I suggest, since User:RJ_CG was last blocked for one month, a two-month block on him and a block of the same length on (anon only). I'll wait for comments on this proposed action, or let another 3RR closer resolve the matter in any way they think appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this action is fair, User:RJ_CG is a notorious edit warrior previously cited for his disruptive behaviour in a recent Arbcom case. --Martintg (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Both the IP and RJ CG. As part of the Digwuren case (October 2007) Arbcom found that User:RJ CG "has engaged in sustained edit-warring ([68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73]) as well as incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith ([74])." EdJohnston (talk) 05:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Yankees10 reported by User:Certified.Gangsta (Result: No violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: --Certified.Gangsta (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: --Certified.Gangsta (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I didnt revert the last time, you undid the entire thing, and got rid of good edits
 * Comment

Reported user has been blocked twice for 3RR. Most recent block was April 27, 2008.--Koji Dude  (C) 01:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something, neither the first nor the fourth diffs appear to be reverts. CIreland (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Myominane reported by User:58.165.119.85 (Result: warning)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 08:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:31, 24 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 06:18, 25 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 06:23, 25 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 08:26, 25 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 08:40, 25 July 2008
 * 5th revert: 08:55, 25 July 2008
 * Stifle (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters reported by User:Kossack4Truth (Result: No violation )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 13:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 01:07, 23 July 2008


 * 2nd revert: 04:06, 23 July 2008


 * 3rd revert: 16:25, 24 July 2008


 * 4th revert: 01:23, 25 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: LotLE is fully aware of the 3RR rule and all of its components. He/she has successfully had other editors blocked under this rule, not for four reverts in a 24-hour period, but for violating the spirit of the rule.

He/she is attempting to remove any mention of controversial Catholic priest Michael Pfleger, and a photo of Obama with Gen. David Petraeus.

This is low-level edit warring coupled with low-level provocation. Please notice the edit summaries. He/she directs other users to the article Talk page where there is nothing to support him/her. He/she accuses one user of being a "contentious SPA," and notes that another has an "interesting focus" (user's focus appears to be gay rights). See also this diff on the article Talk page, where he/she encourages others to "start ignoring the provocations and sophistry of the SPA."

LotLE has a long and turbulent history of combative and provocative behavior that resulted in several blocks and countless warnings that he/she has deleted from his/her User Talk page. This is gaming the system. Both Barack Obama and Talk:Barack Obama are already semi-protected, and the article is on the verge of community probation at WP:ANI, due to such edit warring and continued provocation. LotLE is a significant part of the problem. Please take action, since it is necessary here. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest you go back and read WP:3RR again. Four reverts over three days is certainly not three reverts in 24 hours. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Result - Stale. Do what SoI says Kossack and go read WP:3RR. Scarian Call me Pat!  14:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment It's more than 'stale' - there is no violation, there are 48 hours and 16 minutes between the first and the fourth diff. Considering the history of this dispute, the fact that User:Kossack4Truth is topic banned from the article in question, and the fact that there is clearly no violation here casts a doubt over the good faith of this report--Cailil   talk 14:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Correction: Kossack4Truth is NOT topic banned from the article in question. This is low-level edit warring coupled with low-level provocation. At the very least, a warning to this user from an uninvolved administrator is in order, given the history of that article and the history of the user. Notice also that after a 3RR report, other users have been blocked despite the fact that there were fewer than four reverts in a 24-hour period. The block is for edit warring, not for any technical violation of 3RR. Kossack4Truth (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

seicer &#x007C; talk  &#x007C; contribs  14:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I just noticed this, but want to add a comment before it is archived, since I think K4T will cite this in the future. The above diffs, apart from occupying more than 24 hours, also concern two completely unrelated editing issues.  They are not simply reverts either, but vary somewhat.  In any case, two of the diffs concern the handling of mentions of Michael Pfleger, and two of them concern images that include David Petreus.  Moreover, the types of article concerns that motivated the two sets of edits are completely distinct as well. There is not common "issue" or "dispute" that involves both Pfleger and Petreus (at least none I've ever heard of).  It merely consists of K4T grabbing a few random edits I've made in a relatively small time interval, and filing a misleading report.  LotLE × talk  00:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Responding to LotLE's comment, and fearing that this 3RR complaint might be cited in the future, I note that the 'random edits' cited above are *all* reverts and they all count toward a single total. The fact they are not all on the same topic makes no difference under WP:3RR. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. There are four reverts here. This case fails to be actionable only due to the wide time interval. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your comment is not correct, EdJohnston (it takes a careful look, or knowledge of page changes to see it, I understand). What actually happened was that a neutral editor added two images of Petreus.  I removed one, and explained both in the edit comment and on the talk page why two images was undue emphasis (the adding editor agreed).  A different editor restored the two images as a revert, and I indeed reverted that change with similar explanation and expansion of talk page comment.  So one revert related to images.  On the Pfleger description, one of my edits was a revert, but the other was trying a slightly different phrasing that I hoped would meet consensus.  So there were a total of two actual reverts in the period of 48+ hours (of the four edits reported as such, and only one related to each topic).  Perhaps two is still too many, but I want anyone looking at this in the future to pay attention to the actual edits.  LotLE × talk  05:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Pietervhuis reported by User:LokiiT (Result: Both blocked)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 16:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:02, 23 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 15:51, 24 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:39, 24 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 17:46, 24 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 14:54, 25 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [He informed me of what 3RR was and on his talk page it looks like he's been blocked a bunch of times already for 3RR]

I didn't want to have to take measures like this, but this guy is trying really hard to push his "pro-Chechen" point of view (which he made abundantly clear in the second Chechen war talk page) by removing reliable sources then adding different ones that say something completely different. You can see the sentence he changed, instead of getting "brutalized and killed by Chechen militants", he "may have been thrown out or fell out of a window trying to escape"..This is the same terrorist group who took a school hostage and killed hundreds of children. And obviously he has no consensus to make a change like that, he didn't even bring it up in talk after a bunch of reverts. LokiiT (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * LokiiT blocked for 24 hours, and as Pietervhuis has quite a history of 3RR blocks, he gets 10 days. Stifle (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User:71.141.155.99 reported by User:Enigmaman (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 16:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:13 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 19:29 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2nd revert: 21:03 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3rd revert: 00:33 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4th revert: 15:13 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 03:04 25 July 2008 (UTC)

IP has actually been edit-warring over two different things in the article. Also this and ensuing reverts.  Enigma  message 16:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The "previous version reverted to" needs to be before all the reverting took place. Stifle (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd block for that. Or at least a prot. The IP has made 4 reverts in 24 hours. <font color="black" face="tahoma">Scarian Call me Pat!  18:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to. It's borderline; I wouldn't object. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The IP editor was blocked 24 hours by User:Scarian. EdJohnston (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Écrasez l'infâme reported by User:Blanchardb (Result: 31 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 04:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Although not technically all reverts to the same revision, they are, for the most part, rewordings of the same initial edit. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 05:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * – It's pretty obvious that consensus has been repeatedly against the changes introduced by the user, as multiple editors repeatedly reverted the user's changes; yet, the user persisted in introducing those changes over time, which is edit warring and/or disruptive. -- slakr \ talk / 06:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:99.248.41.122 reported by Dr.K. (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC) (Result: 12 hours each)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 03:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 10:45, 23 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 11:00, 24 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:56, 24 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 17:27, 24 July 2008
 * 5th revert: 18:14, 24 July 2008
 * 6th revert: 19:03, 24 July 2008
 * 7th revert: 22:30, 24 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:42, 24 July 2008)

User refuses to cite and does not engage in dialogue on the talk page of the article.

None of the other names in the article have citations; why is he being pressured for one?--<font color="00CD32">Koji Dude  <font color="90EE90">(C) 05:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My comment is just for the record: The bogus greek version of "Jasper" introduced by the anonymous IP is completely unattested. All other names in the relevant list give ample results when googled. The fact that the supposed Greek form of Jasper does not appear in any google result whatsoever, most certainly merits a proper citation.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In reply to KojiDude's comment, if anyone bothered to see my ill fated attempt at communication on the talk page of the article they would see the reason. I warned the IP that Google yielded 0 (zero) hits for its edit. Do I have to explain what zero Google hits mean regarding the notability of the IP's edit? So here is the picture: An anonymous IP vandalizes the article with demonstrably unverifiable rubbish despite multiple warnings by more than one editor on its user talk page and the article talk page as well and the longstanding editor without prior record of blocks and a stellar mainpage editing record and civil behaviour in all of his edits with long-running vandalism fighting credentials to boot, does not even get the courtesy of even a warning. We have administrators for a reason. The reason is that they have logic and discretion and they can apply the rules according to the principles of Fairness and logic. Otherwise we would have robots to mindlessly enforce the myriad of Wikipedia's regulations. In this case Fairnes, logic and editor prior history were not considered. Maybe it's time to polish up the software to take on the task of meting Wikipedia law. Dr.K. (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Manacpowers reported by User:Pabopa (Result: Page protected)

 * Three-revert rule violation on Kowtow‎

Time reported: 08:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabopa (talk • contribs) 08:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


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

Taekwondo, Samjeondo Monument‎,Seoul National University He does stalking of me,and revert.--Pabopa (talk) 08:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)--Pabopa (talk) 09:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * what are you talking about? you violated 3rr rule. after you created new accounts and violated 3rr rule more. many user revert your edit, but your have a disruptive behavior, and revert revert.... again.

here is the evidence. Manacpowers (talk) 09:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 09:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:86.166.196.75 reported by User:Barryob (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 15:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 14:53, 26 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 15:02, 26 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 15:05, 26 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 15:06, 26 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME
 * This may be a single-purpose IP that was created expressly to edit-war on the names of parties in Scotland. I'm warning User:Barryob as well. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Aviousours76 reported by User:malljaja (Result: 1 week)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 21:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:46, 24 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 21:43, 24 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 23:39, 24 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 11:16, 25 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:48, 25 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:33, 17 July 2008

The user in question is involved in edit warring on several other entries (see here); in fact it appears that the account has been created for the sole purpose of engaging in disputes revolving around the same issue. He/she has received a 3RR warning (by a different user) 17:33, 17 July 2008 here, but has removed it subsequently. I have contacted the user on their talk page here, but so far without avail (reverts similar the ones by this user now are made by anon IPs). I hope this can be resolved with your help. Many thanks! Malljaja (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This editor's main activity since the account was created on June 12 is to revert national identities across a range of articles, for example, 'British' to 'English.' During that period, 37 out of his 40 article edits were reverts. I think it's fair to describe that as POV edit-warring, which falls under 'tendentious editing.' Anyone who is familiar with recent sock cases is invited to check if this is a known sock, because there are nationalist edit-warriors who fit this description. In addition, there was a 3RR violation on John Lydon. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

User:PhilLiberty reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: No Violation)
. : Time reported: 18:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The editor has been engaging in similar types of edit warring on four articles -- Articles of Confederation, United States Declaration of Independence, American Revolution, and American Revolutionary War. He actually went over 3 reverts last night, but an additional warning was given. Recently three different editors -- me, User:JimWae, and User:Bkonrad have been involved in reversing PhilLiberty’s edits. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The last link is not a revert.--<font color="00CD32">Koji Dude  <font color="90EE90">(C) 19:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm missing something -- the last link removed material that I added and restored material that PhilLiberty had previously added. How is this not a revert? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If it was a revert, then there is a previous version of the page that is the same as the version after that edit. Can you please specify that previous version? Stifle (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This diff reflects the edit where I added the material that PhilLiberty subsequently deleted. This diff  came right before and was the one in which I removed material restored by Phil in the same edit that he deleted the material I added. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I need an oldid, not a diff. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Going back to the 4th diff, that is apparently the issue, the section AFTER Phil's revert read:

Historical importance

The Articles are historically important for two major reasons: i) they were the first constitution or governing document for the United States of America and ii) they legally established an alliance ("union") of the thirteen founding states. One legal view holds the Articles (and later Constitution) to be a contract or compact between the states and the union, thus if the union violates the contract states may rightfully secede.[16] This position was held by, among others, Thomas Jefferson[17] and John C. Calhoun. A later interpretation was that the states permanently surrendered the right to secede. This view was used by Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln to justify engaging in a war against secession, the American Civil War,[18] but was stated as early as 1832 by Andrew Jackson during the Nullification Crisis.[19] Law professor Daniel Farber argues that there was no clear consensus on the permanence of the Union or the issue of secession by the Founders. [20]

The section BEFORE Phil’s revert read (major deleted material in boldface):

Historical importance

The Articles are historically important for two major reasons: i) they were the first constitution or governing document for the United States of America and ii) they legally established a union of the thirteen founding states. In 1786 Thomas Jefferson wrote concerning the nature of government under the Articles: '''It has been often said that the decisions of Congress are impotent because the Confederation provides no compulsory power. But when two or more nations enter into compact, it is not usual for them to say what shall be done to the party who infringes it. Decency forbids this, and it is as unnecessary asindecent, because the right of compulsion naturally results to the party injured by the breach. When any one state in the American Union refuses obedience to the Confederation by which they have bound themselves, the rest have a natural right to compell them to obedience.[16] Political scientist David C. Hendrickson writes that two prominent political leaders in the Confederation, John Jay of New York and Thomas Burke of North Carolina believed that "the authority of the congress rested on the prior acts of the several states, to which the states gave their voluntary consent, and until those obligations were fulfilled, neither nullification of the authority of congress, exercising its due powers, nor secession from the compact itself was consistent with the terms of their original pledges."[17] A different legal view holds the Articles (and later Constitution) to be a compact between the states and the union, thus if the union violates the terms of the compact, states may rightfully secede.[citation needed] This position was held by, among others, Thomas Jefferson[dubious – discuss][18] and John C. Calhoun. This view motivated discussions of secession within a minority of states at the Hartford Convention, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, and the Nullification Crisis.[19][20][21] A competing view, promoted by Daniel Webster and later by Abraham Lincoln, was that the Articles established a permanent union of the thirteen founding states and that the Constitution, being a "more perfect union", continued this perpetuity.[22] Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Pabopa reported by User:Manacpowers (Result: No violation proven)

 * Three-revert rule violation on Taekwondo, Kowtow‎, Samjeondo Monument‎

Time reported: 08:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Possibly he is a sock of 210.231.12.98. (exactly same behavior of User:Pabopa). if he is a sock, then he violated 3rr rules more.
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

evidence


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: Manacpowers (talk) 08:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * . There are only three reverts shown for Kowtow (four are required to constitute a violation) and there is no previous version reverted to shown for Taekwondo, so no evidence that the first edit is a revert. You can list a request for checkuser type E if you think that the IP is the same editor as Pabopa. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Request for review: I've watched their edit waring, but their edit wars were so fast. Manac misformatted the diffs on Taekwondo, so I do it. The article is currently in mediation (not formal though), so every sources are under scrutiny. I also agree that Pabopa seems like, a sock of blocked for personal attacks yesterday. It is highly unlikely the Badopa and the IP user are not the same one given the identical edit and appearances. If they are the same user, Badopa is evading his block sanction. Regardless, Babopa indeed violated 3RR twice with his or account.


 * Previous version reverted to: 2008-07-26T01:56:54


 * 1st revert: 2008-07-26T04:22:24
 * 2nd revert: 2008-07-26T08:12:58
 * 3rd revert: 2008-07-26T08:18:51
 * 4th revert: 2008-07-26T08:30:02

--Caspian blue (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-07-26T08:23:30
 * Stifle (talk) 09:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Pabopa reported by User:Caspian blue (Result: Declined)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 13:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 2008-06-12T11:09:59


 * 1st revert: 2008-07-25T23:54:08
 * 2nd revert: 2008-07-26T08:14:21
 * 3rd revert: 2008-07-26T13:09:37
 * 4th revert: 2008-07-26T13:19:13


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Third violation of 3RR within 14 hours by Pabopa. One of the three articles Pabopa violated is now protected, the other is still waiting for review, the latest one is this one. I don't think the user willing to regard with 3RR policy and consensus and discussion. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (comment) I reverted twice. --Pabopa (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You too stop bickering each other and stop editing today!!!!!!!!! --Caspian blue (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The first edit is not a revert, so there are only three in total. Nonetheless, User:Pabopa has reverted three times in one day on each of three different articles. He may be blocked for edit warring if this behavior continues. It is possible he is the reincarnation of an IP who had been previously warring on the same articles.  EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Question, I've thought that adding or deleting a material first is regarded "revert" if somebody oppose and revert the addition or deletion. Although he did not violate 3RR on this Samjeondo article by your review, he really "revert" 4th time on Taekwondo. I also believe that the previous IPs are him, given the time and identical edit. --Caspian blue (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, a revert is an edit that changes the page so it is (almost) identical to a previous version. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Cooljuno411 reported by User:Ludwigs2 (Result: Declined)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 20:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * There was also my attempt at a compromise edit, here which was rejected

My involvement in this begins here, with this compromise edit
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

COMMENT - this is a slow edit war (everyone is being careful to stick to the literal 3rr rules), but it's an obvious attempt to impose a non-standard set of categories on the template, without allowing discussion. I've asked Cooljuno to take the debate over to Sexual Orientation, reach a consensus there, and then come back when the matter is established - instead, he created a POV-fork at Heterosexual-homosexual_continuum - -  and tried to use it as support for his position. further, I think he's aware of what he's doing: Skoojal removed the sidebar from sexual orientation, but Cooljuno edited it back in almost immediately, here. -- Ludwigs 2 20:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The only 3RR violation there is back in March, which is Beyond that, as far as 3RR is concerned, there is  I would suggest requesting protection of pages that are subject to dispute or referring the matter to dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Be Black Hole Sun reported by User:Wiki libs (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 18:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:41, July 21, 2008


 * 1st revert: 13:36, July 27, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 13:52, July 27, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 14:04, July 27, 2008
 * 4th revert: 14:20, July 27, 2008

Comment User:Be Black Hole Sun has a edit war history with the article and it has been previously locked by an administrator. A consensus as to the format for the page has been reached but Be Black Hole Sun has chosen to ignore the consensus and continues to edit war and push his personal view of the page format. Libs (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Kung_Fu_Man reported by User:74.242.122.25 (Result: no violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 18:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:29, 27 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 17:29, 27 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:54, 27 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 18:04, 27 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:04, 27 July 2008

Comment by Kung Fu Man To point something out the anon fellow here did not...the "2nd revert" is actually just a ref addition to the first revert, and was simply an edit and not a reversion of the article. I also received no alert about this discussion being conducted, and found it only by checking this fellow's contribution history.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * — Travis talk  19:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * — Travis talk  19:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Kolindigo reported by User:Sennen_goroshi (Result: Stale. )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 19:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:41, 26 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 19:58, 26 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 00:42, 27 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 01:10, 27 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 01:12, 27 July 2008
 * 5th revert: 02:16, 27 July 2008

There were more than the above 5 reverts made by the user within a 24 hour time span, however to be fair, some of the reverts that I have not listed were reverting clear vandalism - although some of the above edits had a RVV edit summary, however they were clearly content dispute not vandalism.

The user is clearly aware of the 3RR, as they made they following edit summary in the past, while self reverting good faith self-revert, since I'm over 3RR      http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dara_Torres&diff=prev&oldid=224254442


 * Result - This user hasn't made a revert in at least 24 hours. It'd be punitive of me to block him/her or take any action (Article is already protected), so I'm gonna have to mark it as stale. <font color="black" face="tahoma">Scarian Call me Pat!  13:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Cached Entity reported by User:Kariteh (Result: 24 hour block )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 11:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:12, 28 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 11:19, 28 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 11:36, 28 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 12:10, 28 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 12:56, 28 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 23:01, 25 July 2008


 * Result - I have blocked Cached Entity for 24 hours for edit warring. <font color="black" face="tahoma">Scarian Call me Pat!  13:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

User:P-nice reported by User:Bedford (Result: 12 h)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 16:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:20, July 28, 2008


 * 1st revert: 00:54, July 28, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 10:32, July 28, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 11:52, July 28, 2008
 * 4th revert: 12:16, July 28, 2008
 * 5th revert: 19:31, July 28, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 18:35, July 26, 2008


 * Comment I think this involves Bedford peremptorily removing information that can be viewed as somewhat negative about this organisation. I don't know the merits of the specifics here, but it is highly relevant that Bedford has been engaging in DYK-medal-racing related edit wars and in one-sided edits to remove negative information and to build up positive information in other articles about Masonic Lodges, including Grand Lodge of West Virginia.  In the WV case, another user had proposed a DYK nomination with the negative but true and well-supported information that has been in the news.  Bedford repeatedly removed the info and tagged the article various ways in order to preclude it from DYK.  He succeeded.  Others, seeking to intervene, ultimately left all the questioned information in, and called upon him to add other information for balance.  I predicted that he would not, as he won the DYK destruction race, and he has not contributed anything.  Bedford and I have had multiple disagreements.  I reported him for 3RR violation on an entirely different issue recently, in which administrators chastised him, an administrator himself, for flouting 3RR rules in attempting to label his own 4th revert as vandalism reversion.  The ruling administrator chose not to block him, however, saying that I showed bad faith in my own first reversion edit summary (I did not particularly understand that).  But here, bad faith on Bedford's part is plentiful in my view.  And, I have not had any involvement in the present article. doncram (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * P-nice blocked twelve hours. 3RR is merits-blind, but besides that, the verifiability policy puts the onus on those who want information included to source it.--chaser - t 21:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

User:HighKing reported by User:EmpireForever (Result: Both blocked)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 00:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:51, 25 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 23:31, 28 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 00:02, 29 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 00:06, 29 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 00:12, 29 July 2008
 * 5th revert: 00:23, 29 July 2008

Editor has previously been blocked during his one-man crusade to remove British Isles, and administrators are already recommending a block for his disruptive edit warring see Administrators%27_noticeboard. EmpireForever (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * SPA stalking my edits and content-edit-warring on several articles, removing references, and has already been warned for comments referring to Irish as terrorists (although deserved to get a block). --HighKing (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not removed a single reliable source, unlike HighKing was has removed many. As the discussion on the other noticeboard shows, HighKing is a SPA dedicated to removing British Isles, which is what he has been edit warring over tonight. EmpireForever (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * , for 72 hours (repeat offender),  for 24 hours. Both users edit-warring on articles besides the one listed. CIreland (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:76.30.182.131 reported by User:Michellecrisp(Result: blocked anyway)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 01:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Technically the rule kicks in at four, and I'm not sure 76.30 would have seen the warning before the third revert, but the nastiness he recently inserted onto the reporter's userpage merits a block after all the other mess.--chaser - t 01:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Pabopa reported by User:Manacpowers (Result: 24h to both)

 * Three-revert rule violation on,.

Time reported:

Kowtow
 * Previous version reverted to: 12:39, 28 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 16:46, 28 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 01:43, 29 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 02:04, 29 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 02:00, 29 July 2008

Samjeondo Monument


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:09, 12 June 2008


 * 1st revert: 08:16, 27 July 2008 used as sock
 * 2nd revert: 16:39, 28 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 01:42, 29 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 02:00, 29 July 2008

this user blocked 18:26, 25 July 2008 for 48 hours by his personal attacks.

Blocked period 18:26, 25 July 2008 ~ 18:26, 27 July 2008

But this blocked user created new accounts and edited as a newbie accounts for blocked period.

one of the Adminstrator(3rr part) worried about this,

"I find it reasonable that User:Pabopa is a reincarnation of, an account which was edit warring on Taekwondo until he was blocked 48 hours for disruptive editing."

and admin worry about he is a possibly member of meatpuppet campaign which anti-Korean editing. 

I reported this to another admin Stifle. admin said "report his disruptive incidents at WP:ANI". 

This blocked user edited Taekwondo, Kowtow, Samjeondo Monument‎ for Blocked period.

Now, Pabopa created new accounts. Webcamera. exactly same behaviot of Pabopa

210.231.12.98 and 210.231.14.222. this two similar IP range IPs are exactly same behavior of Pabopa, too. He make a disruptive edit war by multiple IPs and Accounts.



Manacpowers (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

this is no 3rr.please stop personal attack.please stop Edit war.--Pabopa (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

please adminstrator, if you want decide to protect these page, before protect, We must revert his edit.(1. This blocked user edited for Blocked period.(violated rule) 2. Disruptive behavior, anti korea meta pupeting campaign 3. technically, he violated 3rr rule in Kowtow page. Manacpowers (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Technically there's no violation, but due to you two edit warring on both articles, you both get a 24 hour timeout for violating the spirit of 3RR. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 10:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:The big U reported by User:ChimpanzeeUK (Result: notice given)
I'm not really asking for this user to be blocked but I wasn't sure of the best place to post this. I have informed the user in an edit summary of how to properly cite audio sourced. Despite this he/she continues to revert my edits. The user has not yet reached 3 but I will hit 3 if I revert the edit again. I have left a message on the user's talk page but I doubt this will have any affect based on the user's response to my edit summary. Maybe something as simple as a message from an administrator might get his/her attention. The article in question is Ratchet & Clank Future: Quest for Booty. Thanks. <font color="#dc5f02" >ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 10:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

<font color="#dc5f02" >ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 10:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing to see here. Notice given. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 10:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Kuban kazak reported by User:Hillock65 (Result: No action required)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 15:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 1st revert 15:40, 28 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 2nd revert 12:17, 29 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 3rd revert 13:49, 29 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 4th revrt 15:08, 29 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: The user is very well aware of 3RR and has long and persistent history of edit warring and blocks for them. In fact, this month alone, he has been banned for edit warring and in addition further received 3 (!) warnings to stop edit wars (1st, 2nd, 3rd) but chose to persist in reverting pages without discussions at talk at all. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a note the fourth revrt, which re-grouped the template was not intended to be a revert. Also may I point out that the reporting party, also back from a 3rr is equally ready to revert changes he does not like. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 15:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that was the reporting party's only and single revert in several days. Care to count how many times you reverted Template:History of Ukraine just today? And that is in addition to reverts elsewhere and the one above, where you exceeded 3RR. --Hillock65 (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have self-reverted btw, and why don't you count the amount of talk page comments, and constructive suggestions that others even my opposites have agreed on? Versus your rather dissappointing: claim. (That is despite your previous revert sprawl prior to your block, you have shown how interested you are in the wellfare of that template...) --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, the discussion is over. It is pointless. The facts are there; if you haven't learned from a block and three warnings for edit warring this month alone, I doubt I can help. --Hillock65 (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you take down the notice then? --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No action required, since Kuban kazak has self-reverted the last change. But if you keep this up, Kuban kazak, another block for editwarring will be necessary shortly, 3RR or not.  Sandstein  19:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We are going for the record! That's 4th warning for edit warring, this month. No comments, I am speechless.--Hillock65 (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think this is going to be the last warning for this user. Judging by the extensive block log, as well as the recent block within the last month, this is starting to get repetitive. I would encourage all future reporters of this user's edit warring to be sure to mention these reports as well as the block log. A user does not need to violate the three revert rule to be blocked for habitual edit warring. -- slakr  \ talk / 20:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:PaulSoms reported by User:Mike Searson (Result: no vio yet)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 19:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:10


 * 1st revert: 10:11
 * 2nd revert: 10:36
 * 3rd revert: 10:55


 * Diff of 3RR warning: He just erases warnings and soldiers on. User seems to know more about this rule than I do. I'd revert back, but think he'll just move to get me blocked.  He's reverted 2 other editors, I gave a warning and he just deleted it as if the rules do not apply to him.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 20:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I thought it was on the third, guess I'll come back when he does the fourth.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson reported by User:SandyGeorgia (Result: 24 hours )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 23:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:12, July 27, 2008
 * Replaces: The only lasting conquest by force was Septimius Severus' annexation of northern Mesopotamia in 195–198 AD. The last of these wars seemed to end the territorial inertia when Khosrau II's Sassanid forces occupied huge swathes of Roman territory for many years and brought the Roman Empire close to destruction. However, a counter-offensive led by Heraclius enabled the Romans to regain their lost territory in a final peace settlement.
 * With: Several campaigns succeeded in occupying territory for years, in two cases for a couple decades, but all but one of these were reversed; the only lasting conquest by force was Septimius Severus' annexation of northern Mesopotamia in 195–198 AD.


 * 1st revert: 15:41, July 29, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:02, July 29, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 17:21, July 29, 2008
 * 4th revert: 17:39, July 29, 2008 (and several others in that series of edits)

In addition to the reverts above, in the last 24 hours, he unilaterally tagged the article, against the opinions of at least six other editors (Khoikhoi, Fedayee, CreazySuit, Yannismarou, Larno man, and Nishkid64):
 * 22:49, July 28, 2008
 * 16:47, July 29, 2008
 * 20:18, July 29, 2008
 * 21:35, July 29, 2008

is a committed edit warrior, with SIX prior blocks for edit warring (the latest in January 2008). He is also a regular participant at WP:FAR, and knows the instructions there just as he knows WP:3RR.

Roman–Persian Wars was featured nine days ago, with 7 Support declarations and one unstruck oppose on copyediting from User:Tony1 (another editor had subsequently performed a copyedit, but Tony hadn't struck yet when I closed the FAC). The instructions at WP:FAR clearly state (and have for several years) that "Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here". Less than 24 hours after he began edit warring on Roman–Persian Wars, Pmanderson initiated a featured article review, over one paragraph ("but as it is, the second paragraph of the lead manages to violate 1a, b, c, d, and e") of an article that had been featured only nine days earlier. Pmanderson's block log and history of edit warring should also be considered in the context of pointy disruption of FAR less than 24 hours after engaging in a dispute over one paragraph of a featured article. He should not be coming up against 3 reverts, and he knows it; he doesn't seem to receive the message of discussing edits rather than pointy and disruptive reverts, tags, and misuse of FAR. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've blocked him for 24 hours. Usually with so many blocks, I'd have increased the block length, but given there's been 6 months since the last block, I've stook to 24.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  00:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous IP reported by User:Miyokan (Result: 12 hrs)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: --Miyokan (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:22, 28 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 06:23, 29 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 06:28, 29 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 19:33, 29 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 00:05, 30 July 2008
 * 5th revert: 00:32, 30 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 09:32, 25 July 2008 and 20:51, 28 July 2008

The same user editing from slightly different IP's.--Miyokan (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No action Yeah, probably the same person, but no point blocking any IPs if it's already changing that rapidly. You can ask for page protection at WP:RFPP, but if you're willing to let the page sit in the IP's version for a bit, a third opinion could break your tie, though that's kind of what The Evil Spartan gave you here.--chaser - t 02:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A third opinion is no use because I and another editor are already against the changes this IP is making. Krawndawg (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC) The IP User:91.122.93.186 has made 5 reverts in the Russia article within 24 hours, out of a total 7 edits from that IP. Krawndawg (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked it 12 hours. No promises about how effective that will be.--chaser - t 03:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User:91.122.81.237 reported by User:Miyokan (Result: blocked and page semied)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 07:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:22, 28 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 08:31, 28 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:32, 28 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 06:23, 29 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 06:28, 29 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 09:32, 25 July 2008 and 20:51, 28 July 2008

The same user editing from slightly different IP's.--Miyokan (talk) 07:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That last edit isn't a revert. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 10:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This anonymous IP is continuing to revert war in the Russia article. He has since reverted the same thing two more times. Krawndawg (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * and due to block evasion/ip hopping. -- slakr  \ talk / 00:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Miyokan reported by User:IP (Result: No violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 07:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:33, 28 July 2008

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.93.186 (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1st revert: 03:33, 28 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 04:58, 28 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 09:33, 28 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 03:19, 29 July 2008

The second and third edits are not reverts, check for yourself. Obviously he is trying to get "revenge" for reporting him above. --Miyokan (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 03:33, 28 July 2008 1st revert
 * 04:58, 28 July 2008 I reword Bobanni's addition, not reverting it, per my rationale. This did not become an issue
 * 09:33, 28 July 2008 I add some information
 * 03:19, 29 July 2008 2nd revert


 * Nothing to see here, move along. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 10:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * – was a block-evading/edit warring sock. -- slakr \ talk / 00:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Krawndawg reported by User:anonymous (Result: no violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 08:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: as edited by Miyokan at 04:58, 28 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 06:33, 28 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:01, 28 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:15, 28 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 16:32, 28 July 2008

Both users User:Krawndawg and User:Miyokan seem to be expirienced edit warriors by theirs block list. They behave this way in different articles. And trying to collaborate in that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.93.186 (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This 06:33, 28 July 2008 is not a revert, he slightly reworded the passage citing the relevant policy, not reverting it, and it did not become an issue. Anonymous IP is obviously trying to get "revenge" for being reported for violating the 3RR above. Instead of seeking WP:CONCENSUS when anonymous IP added a controversial edit to said article, which he still has not got, this anonymous user thinks repeating the same defeated argument over and over at talk while reverting will help his case.--Miyokan (talk) 08:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * He's at 3 reverts if anything (a partial revert is still a revert), but there's nothing here, either. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 10:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Anonymous IP's reporting for rule violations? Is this a joke? FYI this anonymous IP has appeared out of nowhere and started revert warring non-stop on issues that he can't make an argument for in discussion. Now he reports two regular contributors? If anyone should be blocked it's his series of IP's. Krawndawg (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * – was a block-evading/edit warring sock. -- slakr \ talk / 00:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous IP reported by User:Miyokan (Result: 24h; on repeat vio, socks now blocked for 72 + semi)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: --Miyokan (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:22, 28 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 06:23, 29 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 06:28, 29 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 19:33, 29 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 00:05, 30 July 2008
 * 5th revert: 00:32, 30 July 2008
 * 6th revert: 08:16, 30 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 09:32, 25 July 2008 and 20:51, 28 July 2008

The same user editing from slightly different IP's. All IP's traced to the same location (RUSSIAN FEDERATION, MOSCOW, ISP: ST.PETERSBURG TELEPHONE NETWORK - check here).

Block evasion. User was blocked for 12 hours for edit warring here but now he is block evading by reverting under yet another (89.110.20.7) IP .--Miyokan (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * New IP blocked 24 hours. I'll leave it to the previous admin to deal w/ the 91. IPs. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 15:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * and -- slakr  \ talk / 00:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikiarrangementeditor reported by User:Roguegeek (Result:48 hours )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 17:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:31, July 29, 2008


 * 1st revert: 17:54, July 29, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 00:57, July 30, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 07:08, July 30, 2008
 * 4th revert: 09:28, July 30, 2008
 * 5th revert: 09:55, July 30, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:08, July 29, 2008


 * Additional notes: Wikiarrangementeditor has been blocked on three separate occasions for either edit warring or 3RR violations. He's been warned over 5 times on his talk page for these specific acts. All of this from strictly editting only two articles over the last several months. This tells me that, even after the next block is lifted, he will continue to break these policies. His last block was for 31 hours. Is there nothing else that can be done here?  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 17:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And with comments to his edits such as this and this, he seems emotionally invested and hell bent on making sure his edits stick.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 17:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 48 hours given he's got a history.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User:65.6.173.150 reported by User:Gamaliel (Result: 31 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 20:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:44, 29 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 05:26, 30 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:05, 30 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:13, 30 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 16:18, 30 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 10:32, 30 July 2008

I have explained in depth on the talk page why this user's edit is inappropriate. The user has responded with insults and attacks. Gamaliel (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 22:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous IP reported by User:Miyokan (Result: Page semi-protected for 3 days and editor blocked 72h)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: --Miyokan (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:22, 28 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 06:23, 29 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 06:28, 29 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 19:33, 29 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 00:05, 30 July 2008
 * 5th revert: 00:32, 30 July 2008
 * 6th revert: 08:16, 30 July 2008
 * 7th revert: 16:40, 30 July 2008
 * 8th revert: 17:05, 30 July 2008
 * 9th revert: 17:12, 30 July 2008
 * 10th revert: 17:26, 30 July 2008
 * 11th revert: 22:26, 30 July 2008
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 09:32, 25 July 2008 and 20:51, 28 July 2008

The same user editing from slightly different IP's. All IP's traced to the same location (RUSSIAN FEDERATION, MOSCOW, ISP: ST.PETERSBURG TELEPHONE NETWORK - check here).

Repeated block evasion. User was blocked for 12 hours for edit warring here and for 24 hours for block evasion (and he broke the 3RR again) here but now he is block evading again (and breaking the 3RR again) by reverting under yet another (89.110.23.40) IP.--Miyokan (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we get a semi-protection of the article and a rangeblock, this is getting ridiculous.--Miyokan (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Please take a look at here and here, before making decisions. You may find this one also interesting. Thanks! 89.110.23.40 (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: he just revert again, far beyond breaking the 3RR for the umpteenth time (and while block evading) 22:26, 30 July 2008--Miyokan (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Semi-protection shouldn't be used in content disputes, Miyokan, only full protection is in order, rangeblock of such width (tens of thousands of IPs, apparently one of the largest ISP of the second largest Russian city) is equally inappropriate. I am not even sure that they belong to the same user. Possibly a bunch of coordinated meatpuppets. Try to reach consensus on the talk page, this is the best way. Colchicum (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it shouldn't be used in content disputes, but it should be used to stop block evasion. Concensus doesn't matter to this guy as he has been opposed and reverted by multiple users.--Miyokan (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As well as you 91.122.83.159 (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are as many users who have opposed your edits, so apparently consensus doesn't matter to you either. How can semi-protection of a single page prevent block evasion? This is something new. Colchicum (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, there are not, he has been the sole person reverting this edit against many, and he clearly doesn't care about the 3RR rule as he keeps so horrendously breaking it nor sanctions as he keeps block evading. As his IP's are all 89.110.x and 91.110.x, a rangeblock of 89.110.x to 89.111.x and 91.110.x to 91.111.x will do the trick.--Miyokan (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, there are. I am one of them. I am reluctant to take part in edit-warring, though. You may be surprised, but it is not the same thing to be opposed and to do edit-warring. BTW, these ranges amount to 4*256^2 = 262,144 IPs. Too many, sorry. Colchicum (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Great Miyokan! And what you've done after got your requested semi protection? Reverted article to revision that satisfies you best! Nice tricks you using for content disputes. Unfortunately they are working pretty well for you. Thanks to administrator! You are doing a good job of supporting experienced edit warriors at wikipedia. But unfortunately it somehow doesn't benefit to the project. If you would not be so rush about actions, and take a time to read the talk page of that article... well nevermind. Thanks for unleashing nationalists to pushing theirs POV! 91.122.83.159 (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, Miyokan, you've just violated 3RR on that same page. ;) 91.122.83.159 (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * by for 3 days. CIreland (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, as this was directly after release of previous block. -- slakr  \ talk / 00:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

== User:DannyMuse reported by Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions (Result: Blocked 24 hours) ==

. : Time reported: 22:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 19:20, 30 July 2008  (edit summary: "/* Statement */ Balancing comment added to maintain NPOV")
 * 2) 19:33, 30 July 2008  (edit summary: "Then please provide an acceptable citation. BTW, I took this from the RD Wikipage, so you'll want to change it there too. Watch the video. He uses them interchangeably.")
 * 3) 22:28, 30 July 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 228873679 by Dave souza (talk)")
 * 4) 22:30, 30 July 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 228900055 by Orangemarlin (talk)")
 * 5) 22:39, 30 July 2008  (edit summary: "Used publisher citation")
 * 6) 22:47, 30 July 2008  (edit summary: "Not my research, as YOU said, it's Richard Dawkins' research. What are you afraid of?")


 * Diff of warning: here

— Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 22:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * for 24 hours. CIreland (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Darrenhusted and User:Nick_Cooper reported by User:86.56.122.205 (Result: Malformed report )
Technically, a 3RR violation has not yet occurred, because it's 2 different users, but I'm trying to get an experienced and knowledgeable administrator to look at this, and the other pages pointed me at this place.

In the more distant past, some editors appear to have removed a link to the full "The Power of Nightmares" video from the The Power of Nightmares article. The video is hosted with permission at the Internet Archive, an established electronic library institution which among other things also runs the Internet Wayback Machine and collaborates with the Library of Alexandria, the Smithsonian and the Library of Congress.

Because someone had apparently removed the link to the video, I recently readded that link. I was then reverted two times by Nick Cooper, who seems to be totally unfamiliar with the IA, and appears to mistake it for some random YouTube-like site where every random Joe can upload videos and where they are not being reviewed and cleared in terms of copyright. I had a brief exchange with Nick Cooper, who does not appear to be willing to even read the Internet Archive article that I linked to. The third revert however was not done by Nick Cooper but by Darrenhusted, who also didn't appear to know the IA.

I have not reverted Darrenhusted's edit, but I would like to ask a knowledgeable and experienced administrator to talk to both Nick and Darren and resolve the matter, and restore the edit. While the film is also linked from the Internet Archive article, a link really belongs onto the The Power of Nightmares page. Please do not involve me any further, and there is no need to notify me on my talk page. I would however appreciate if an admin could blank my talk page to remove the unsightly template spam that was pasted onto it. I edit as anonymously as possible, and will probably have a new IP soon, precisely because I try to avoid getting too involved in incidents like this. The two said editors' demands are like demanding that editors first prove that content hosted at http://www.loc.gov/index.html or http://www.bibalex.org/English/index.aspx isn't infringing, and this kind of affirmatively willful ignorance is exactly what drove me away. Hopefully the administrator actioning this will at least be familiar with the IA, though my hopes aren't high now. 86.56.122.205 (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Result - Malformed report. No one has violated 3RR or edit warred (per se), please take the content dispute to the talk page and sort it out there. <font color="black" face="tahoma">Scarian Call me Pat!  12:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:VMORO reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 31 hours)
. : Time reported: 17:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Earlier version reverted to: 29 July 17:10 (Complex reverts, common to all is the removal of an image, Image:Macedonian Slavic dialects.png).


 * 1) 00:37, 31 July 2008  (edit summary: "erasal of references (again), incorrect information and factual errors (again), no answer on talk page (again), POV pushing again")
 * 2) 13:06, 31 July 2008  (edit summary: "erasal of references (again), incorrect information and factual errors (again), no answer on talk page (again), POV pushing again")
 * 3) 13:12, 31 July 2008  (edit summary: "Well, explain to me why you are deleting references from Trudgill and Schmieger (you accepted yourself) and why there are factual errors in the intro - yr compatriate has not even bothered responding")
 * 4) 13:46, 31 July 2008  (edit summary: "Please discuss your changes and deletions on the talk page and refrain from making disparaging personal comments, I have asked for administrator's assistance.")

Earlier reverts during the previous days:, , et cetera. Old account, recently returned after two years of absence (was possibly present in the meantime under various sock accounts); no 3RR warning necessary; warning under WP:ARBMAC has been given. Thoroughly disruptive, tendentious POV-pushing account that has never done anything but edit-warring on Macedonian-Bulgarian ideology topics. —Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 05:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User:24.209.234.77 reported by User:ESkog (Result: already blocked - 3 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 18:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:22, 31 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 18:27, 31 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:30, 31 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 18:33, 31 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:42, 31 July 2008
 * 5th revert: 18:43, 31 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 18:34, 31 July 2008


 * – 3 hours, but has since expired. No further edits.  Re-report if user violates again. -- slakr  \ talk / 05:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User:PhilLiberty reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 00:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to:

It seems clear -- four paragraphs were deleted with edit summary “deleted bullshit paragraph about Lincoln "reinterpreting" the Dec”
 * 1st revert:


 * 2nd revert:

Changed sentence FROM “Lincoln and his supporters created a document with “continuing usefulness” with a “capacity to convince and inspire living Americans.”” TO “Another historian gushes that Lincoln and his supporters created a document with “continuing usefulness” with a “capacity to convince and inspire living Americans.””


 * 3rd revert:

Same revert as # 2 plus additional reverts.
 * 4th revert:

Same revert as #2 and #3.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly. In addition, a warning in an edit summary at  was also given.
 * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The editor has been engaging in similar types of edit warring on four articles for several weeks -- Articles of Confederation, United States Declaration of Independence, American Revolution, and American Revolutionary War. Recently three different editors -- me, User:JimWae, and User:Bkonrad have been involved in reversing PhilLiberty’s edits, although in today’s back and forth only I have been involved.

The issue in this series of edits has involved one primary issue -- the mention of Abraham Lincoln as significant to the enduring legacy of the Declaration of Independence.

This user was reported on a different 3R violation on July 25. This can be accessed through the following diff and then clicking on violation 1.12:

[]

I questioned the accuracy of the original determination and responded twice to requests for additional information. Nobody ever replied to my second response. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 06:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Skyring reported by User:Matilda (Result: 12 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 01:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:34, 28 July 2008 (all times given in Australian Eastern Standard time - ie UTC + 10 hours)


 * 1st revert: 21:48, 28 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 03:59, 29 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 09:18, 29 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 10:20, 29 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 06:49, 29 July 2008 Note this editor is very familiar with 3RR breaches (see blocklog) so a templated warning would not have been appropriate.

Skyring claims that the edits breach BLP. The content has been discussed on the article talk page and editors (other than myself) disagree with him. He has now escalated to Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. I do not believe that his assertion of breaches of BLP justifies his breaking of the 3RR when this is a much watched article with other people in the debate. I do not believe thus that the exceptions to the rule apply. Matilda talk 01:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion on talk page shows that the material is contentious, with several noting WP:BLP violation. I have asked that it not be reinserted without a decision on whether BLP has been breached. Matilda prefers to edit-war rather than follow wikipolicy. --Pete (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is quite clear from the article history that I have not indulged in edit warring. I added the material (referenced) following discussions on the talk page.  I have followed the discussions on the talk page and contributed there.  I have reverted Skyring twice.  I have not breached 3RR, nor been provoked into breaching it. --Matilda talk 01:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I just got a bit involved in this situation, so I won't take official action, but I will give you my opinion. I'd be disinclined to block under these circumstances because I think Pete really did believe BLP to be implicated and was acting in good faith. Beyond that, I've recently shortened the bit in question and added it to the Howard Government article. Is that an OK compromise? If not, can we discuss it on the talk page civilly instead of reverting back and forth? If the edit-war continues, one either article, then perhaps a block or page protection is necessary. Otherwise, can we freeze this request for a few minutes while we try to work towards a consensus, please?--chaser - t 01:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I disagree that Skyring should be exempted regardless of his deeply held beliefs on BLP violations. Several admins are involved in the discussions on the talk page. None of them reverted the material despite holding opposing views. (ie Gnagarra and OIC).  The issue of the material should be discussed elsewhere. --Matilda talk 01:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert only because I thought someone already had. Orderinchaos 12:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The same does not apply to Gnangarra who quite clearly left the material in when editing it .  Moreover I count over 10 editors editing on the talk page at the time and presumably watching the article - the 3RR states: if an action really requires reversion, some other editor will probably do it — and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which course of action is preferable.  No issue if other editors had joined in the revert - I do have issues with Skyring single handedly imposing his view. --Matilda talk 17:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This disputed passage is the report of a brief that has actually been filed with a court, as was very reliably reported in a mainstream source, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The inclusion of the report in this article might be (at most) silly but certainly not defamatory. Depending on which 3RR-closer wants to address this one, I can assert you'll find no unanimity that a BLP defence will work in this case. Reverts are exempt from 3RR limits only if the material actually *does* violate BLP, not just because the editor's personal opinion is that it does. I would give Skyring a chance to self-revert first. EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Skyring has been advised of the invitation and appears to wish to ignor it --Matilda talk 02:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * BLP overrides 3RR. However there is a clique of editors who are ignoring the basic tenets of BLP to push through their POV (which is over a rather trivial point) on the article without consensus.  These particular editors (and admin) need to review their own actions prior to handing out warnings and probably should be sanctioned over it.  --Shot info (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not a member of a clique thanks. I would appreciate you clarify your rationale for me to be sanctioned.  --Matilda talk 01:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3RR violation. After checking the discussion at Talk:John Howard I do not find that this material violates BLP. Some of Howard's opponents are choosing to characterize some of his known official actions as war crimes. The fact that his opponents hold this view may or may not be worthy of inclusion, but that is a matter for a Talk page consensus or an RFC. If this were considered BLP, any material critical of a politician might be excluded on supposed BLP grounds. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Normally I would have called for an immediate review on this, but as the block began at the commencement of a twelve hour night shift, I didn't see any real benefit. There are three key points. The conduct of User:Matilda bears closer examination. He engaged in edit-warring to keep this material, ignoring the warnings raised by several regular editors, and then pushed 3RR to silence a critic. This is not due wikiprocess. --Pete (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The launching of a case against a recent head of government of a liberal Western democracy for war crimes should be front page news around the world. John Howard up there with Adolf Eichmann, Slobodan Milošević and Saddam Hussein. But it wasn't. The wikisupporters of this material as encyclopaedic had to resort to googling because nobody could think of anything off the top of their heads (the three earlier comments). The reason that this material was not widely reported, I suggest, is because only one journalist out of the entire Parliamentary Press Gallery, not to mention the international media, regarded it as worthy of coverage, and then only to the extent of a hundred words on a website, rather than being otherwise broadcast, printed or published. The results of a search on Google News is instructive.
 * 2) Mentioning such material in a biographical article is effectively giving it credence - maybe Wikipedia is not flat out branding John Howard a war criminal, but allocating a paragraph of seventy-five words is giving the allegation credence that not even the tabloid newspapers bothered with.
 * 3) The discussion at Talk:John Howard is highlighted by differing views. Given WP:BLP concerns raised by several editors, the correct wikiprocess would have been to remove the controversial material, discuss its merits (or lack thereof) until consensus had been reached, or raise it here for more official comment. The material should have been reinserted only after a positive decision for inclusion had been obtained. That's the essence of WP:BLP violations - we remove them immediately.
 * My reponse to conduct issues raised against me by Skyring here and elsewhere is at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Happy to answer them elsewhere if tht is deemed appropriate but only one place at a time. --Matilda talk 21:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You commenced action here. I suggest you address the points I raise here. Your input into the BLPN notice has been tangential. --Pete (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I commenced action against your edit warring here, no more no less. I suggested (and others agreed) that your edit warring ws not justified as reversion of vandalism.  If you wish to make accusations of edit warring do so - with diffs - I believe I have no case to answer on edit warring and had already stated that above.  I have no interest in silencing you as a critic, if you didn't engage in stupid behaviour by reverting multiple times there would have been no cause for the request to be blocked.  Moreover the blocking admin offered you an opportunity to self-revert and I ensured that you knew about that opportunity.  You chose not to take it.  Please don't blame other people for your block. --Matilda talk 21:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll ignore the personal attacks above. Matilda asks for diffs showing edit-warring:
 * 06:26, 29 July 2008 AEST
 * 09:23, 29 July 2008 AEST
 * This is after he introduced material that he knew would be controversial, and after notification that this was a WP:BLP violation. Rather than edit-warring, he should have kept his cool and sought consensus. My position was that the allegations had very little weight and that repeating them in a biographical article was unjustified. As Matilda knew very well, having performed the google search mentioned above and finding only one brief mention in any mainstream media site. Whether Matilda thinks the ICC brief is significant is his own opinion. I need merely note the lack of interest by mainstream media, who would give this story tremendous coverage if it had any merit at all. Matilda's attempts to pretend that the material was significant and that accusing a public figure of being a war criminal is not an attack on that person's character are despicable and bring into question his judgement as a Wikipedia editor and administrator. --Pete (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It happens to be a personal attack to suggest that somebody's own behaviour is the cause of his block? However this editor has described me as one of a group of editors likewise best described as enemies of John Howard and my actions as despicable. I am not a member of any group and I do not think my edit history bears out Skyring's assertions.  The diffs do not match edit warring per Edit war in my view but I am happy for a review and to be set straight.--Matilda talk 02:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I called your behaviour edit-warring because you reverted multiple times in quick succession. The record is there for all to see. Could you please address the points made above on media coverage and BLP? I'm genuinely interested to hear your response, if you have one. --Pete (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So that others can judge the "quick succession" I have added the time diffs. Reversion in excess of three hours time difference is not the normal standard of quick succession discussed on Wikipedia and my speed of reverting compares poorly with your speed as can be seen from the times against the diffs reported above.  Moreover twice reverting is a multiple but a pretty low one.  The standard threshhold is three reverts from an original - I am not close.  I have received no warnings from anyone else .... (I have asked User:Shot info to elaborate on his call for sanctions but he appears to have declined the opportunity) I have already addressed the issues of BLP and media coverage and BLP in my view on the article talk page but I will address again briefly on the BLP page.  I think there is no edit warring issues for me to answer any longer here. --Matilda talk 05:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, let's get some more eyes on it and take a look at what happened when. I think misbehaviour of an admin is a serious business. You must have known this stuff was bogus, given the almost complete lack of media coverage. I'll get a RfC going soon, once I sort out diffs. --Pete (talk) 10:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * unindent It is now several days since Skyring accused me of misbehaviour and threatened me with an RfC in several places. I have voluntarily put myself on a wikibreak in response to this RfC notification from 21:19, 30 July.  What counts as "soon" and what counts as an empty threat which is actually a personal attack complaining of misbehaviour : 3RR noticeboard 20:25, 30 July 2008, BLP noticeboard 20:17, 30 July 2008 , suggesting he "would take it further" at User talk:Gnangarra 07:16, 30 July preceded by calling my behaviour "despicable and bring into question his sic judgement as a Wikipedia editor and administrator" at WP:3RRN (as well as other places) and he had previously called me in effect an enemy of Howard ... His response was to suggest that I in turn had personally attacked him.  I do not believe I have engaged in personal attack, I had commented on his contributions by reporting him to 3RR for breaking the 3RR rule - he was blocked by another admin after declining to self-revert and in fact performing the same reversion again (of another editor's insertion of the material). I had commented on 3RRN that his own behaviour was the cause of his block and he should not blame others for it. I assumed Silence and consensus on the part of other editors who were editing the same page and talk page at the same time as the edit warring was occurring - they have since indicated that my assumption was not correct. Others have also suggested I goaded Skyring into a 3RR breach deliberately - I deny this accusation. I am extremely disappointed at the ongoing community support of an editor who has personally attacked me and also of the lack of assumption of good faith from many editors of my actions.  I will be posting this message in each of the places where Skyring has stated he will be lodging an RfC a well as his talk page - I have several times indicated that I think it is inappropriate to continue the same debate in several places but my request has fallen on deaf ears. --Matilda talk 00:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Boodlesthecat reported by User:Piotrus (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 20:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: varies


 * 1st revert: 14:12, July 30, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 14:54, July 30, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 15:02, July 30, 2008
 * 4th revert: 15:54, July 30, 2008 smaller revert - only restores the incorrect description of a newspaper (this was part of his revert of 15:02 as well as as in yet another revert of 14:16 (I don't count it as 5th since it can bee seen as part of the 14:12)

The user has been warned of 3RR and blocked already for past violations and edit warring. Seems he is back at it again (he is also revert warring in Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

PS. The user is also engaged in personally attacking me: he is not only criticizing me on talk pages ( - I have a skin thick enough for that) but has just send me an email with content "Your editing tactics are abhorrent and disgraceful for a so-called teacher." That is way over the top (I can fwd his email to any admin that wishes to receive it and confirm it).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Piotrus regularly instigates edit wars and files 3RR complaints as a tactic for pushing his POV. the edits cited concern different sections of the article. As for Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland, check the article-he instigated the revert warring. I even specifically asked him here not to use his usual tactic of baiting a 3RR comlpaint by edit warring. To no avail. His tactics are indeed abhorrent and disgraceful and unworthy of an admin. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Piotrus is edit warring over these two articles himself. WP:3RR doesn't give an editor the right to make three reversions. If anybody is punished because of this matter, I recommend that punishment be meted out to both parties. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * . Boodlesthecat clearly reverted four times in whole or in part, constituting a 3RR violation. Malik, you are correct that 3RR doesn't give an editor the right to make three reversions, and I will be reminding Piotrus of this point. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I try to avoid reverting when possible, but Boody has demonstrated in the past he will not change his opinions, and will revert to his version until he breaks the 3RR. With editors like that, there is no other way of dealing with, I am afraid.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There's always mediation... -- ChrisO (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It takes two to tango, Piotrus. You are just as rigid in your position as Boodlesthecat is, so please don't act as though he's the problem. You and several other editors seem determined to white-wash Polish antisemitism, or to blame it on the Jews, and Boodlesthecat brings quality sources that refute your assertions. You're not an innocent victim here. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Quality sources like Gross? I and others have always been civil and willing to negotiate; Boody is convinced of his own self-righteousness and that Poles are evil. His level of discussion is well shown by the latest email he sent to me: "you are such a dick". It's hard to dance to that tune, I am afraid.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a bit rich, Piotrus. To begin with, there's nothing wrong with citing Jan T. Gross, the Norman B. Tomlinson '16 and '48 Professor of War and Society and Professor of History at Princeton University. More to the point though, Boodlesthecat wasn't quoting Gross, despite persistent claims by you and others that he was. I suppose BTC got a bit fed-up with the egregious victim blaming that's been going on on various pages related to Poles and Jews; apparently it is the Jews who are responsible for any antisemitic acts committed by Poles. I can understand his frustration with that view. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * User Jay-G, this Princeton Uni angle of Gross is out of commission and pretty weathered. Each university has biased professors, especially regarding history, they push their own POV and they even say to students that this is their own opinion, nothing new under the sun if someone has once been a student he or she knows them. But it has been explained once and for all in relevant Wiki articles concerning Gross' that his "mistakes" are of magnitude of at least 1, that his references are based on communist fiction/propaganda from years ago, and no one, not even one respected educational institution has ever corroborated his findings. Only the tendentious newspapers did. Point. Citing such relevations in historical articles is not even wrong, it's preposterous, even ridiculous. By the way, my impression is you as an admin/arb should act in more neutral way and be more impassive, not taking sides of well established trolls against honest and hard working editors. Shame I am kind of busy in real life by now, otherwise I would kick your sorry ass  for this cunctative tactics of yours, admin/arbitrator or not. greg park avenue (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Lalbal reported by User:Wikidas (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule and WP:DISRUPT violation on.

Time reported: 19:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Previous version reverted to: 01:45, 2008 July 30


 * Warned first for removal of context in Edit summary: 02:54, 2008 July 30


 * Also warned in the Talk page for removal and disruptive editing:

18:32, 2008 July 30


 * 1st revert: 18:19, 2008 July 30
 * 2nd revert: 18:31, 2008 July 30
 * 3rd revert: 00:44, 2008 July 31
 * 4th revert: 23:27, 2008 July 31
 * 5th revert: 01:25, 2008 August 1


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 03:56, 2008 July 31


 * – actual 3RR warning was made 21:04, 31 July 2008, after which user stopped. Re-report if user continues. -- slakr \ talk / 05:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This pattern continues to repeat itself. . This is a clear pattern. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  14:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Calperniaaddams reported by -MBK004 (Result: declined)
. : Time reported: 04:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Article was changed from: this revision.

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


 * 1) 02:52,  1 August 2008  (edit summary: "Removed irellevant personal information, focused on the one incident of national notability, the rest of the information belongs in the "Barry Winchell" article.")
 * 2) 04:00,  1 August 2008  (edit summary: "Pared down in accordance with "Presumption in favor of privacy" section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP")
 * 3) 04:13,  1 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 229165088 by Otto4711 (talk)")
 * 4) 04:49,  1 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 229167614 by MBK004 (talk) Sourced or not, see "Presumption in favor of privacy" section of http://en.wik")


 * Diff of warning: here

—-MBK004 04:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * – This looks like a biography of living persons policy content dispute, and may therefore be classified as an exception to the 3RR. I'm not personally aware of the argument at hand, the consensus on the page, the validity of the sources, or the COI of the subject involved.  However, if the user continuously reverts, I'd probably say this might be better to report to WP:ANI to gather better consensus.  As for here, I don't feel that this is a clear-cut 3RR violation due to the aforementioned (and the user and another editor citing) BLP concerns.  -- slakr  \ talk / 08:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User:The Thunderer reported by User:BigDunc (Result: no action )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 13:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:49, 1 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 12:05, 1 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 12:18, 1 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 12:26, 1 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 12:48, 1 August 2008
 * 5th revert: 13:15, 1 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: The Thunderer is an abusive sockpuppet of User:GDD1000 being used to avoid scrutiny on his constantly biased editing to this article, and has previously been blocked for edit warring on it as GDD1000, see Suspected sock puppets/GDD1000 for more information, therefore no 3RR warning is needed, but one was issued at 12:21, 1 August 2008

The first revert is clear cut, as is the second where he removes a source I had added. With the third revert he again removed the source I had added. The fourth revert is him removing tag I had just added. The firth revert is restoring information I removed in this edit, so another clear revert. BigDunc Talk 13:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please take this to dispute resolution. There are reverts on both sides, and in the hope that both of you can work this out, I'm not blocking. But if it continues post-protection, then sanctions will be issued. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  13:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User:HarryAlffa reported by User:Ashill (Result: stale )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 18:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:19, 1 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 16:49, 1 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:31, 1 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 17:42, 1 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:19, 1 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:44, 1 August 2008

Repeatedly reverting to include wording like "Dwarf Planets are unlike other categories of named celestial objects in that they populate more than one region of the solar system; the Asteroid Belt; the Kuiper Belt; and the Scattered Disc. There are four of them as of mid-2008, though the list is expected to grow."
 * I'd endorse some sort of action here; the editor in question is repeatedly changing text despite valid concerns voiced by several other editors. (I would take action myself, but cannot at this point as I am one of those who have challenged his work.) --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  19:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The last revert was about 5 hours ago, so any block would be punitive. I've left the user another note, and if they continue (one further revert), they will be blocked.  - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Ufuncecu reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: 31h)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 05:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:34, August 1, 2008
 * 1st revert: 21:20, August 1, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 22:19, August 1, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 23:26, August 1, 2008
 * 4th revert: 00:05, August 2, 2008
 * 5th revert: 01:00, August 2, 2008
 * 6th revert: 01:39, August 2, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 01:10, August 2, 2008


 * -- slakr \ talk / 06:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Keizuko reported by User:Signsolid (Result: dated)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 02:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User:Keizuko has repeatedly reverted my contributions to the Historical powers article. Their account, going by their history, seems only to exist to revert my edits. If it wasn't for this fact I would be much more sympathetic but I cannot be where it's a case of an account that purely exists to revert the many contributions I've made over time. They have not used to talk page nor given clear reason for their reverts. The user has a history full of breaking 3RR and edit warring. Signsolid (talk) 03:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't SignSolid have his account blocked for making false reports of 3RR? Also, contrary to SignSolid's false accusation here, I don't have a history of breaking 3RR (check my block log: ), whereas SignSolid has already been blocked once for breaking 3RR . It's really annoying to discover completely false accusations made in my back by a guy who has himself broken 3RR in the past. Keizuko (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A bit dated now (borderline); but report back here if (any) reverts continue, especially if no attempt to engage the talk page is undertaken. El_C 15:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

User:118.101.7.19 reported by User:Readro (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 14:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:03, 31 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 12:30, 2 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 13:20, 2 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 14:04, 2 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 14:19, 2 August 2008

User continually changing format of the page whilst going against consensus. Readro (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You've neglected to link to the 3rr warning; please do so. Thanks. El_C 14:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 24-hours, due to disruptive conduct elsewhere. El_C 15:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Cocoliras reported by Nirvana888 (talk) (Result: 33 hours)
. : Time reported: 16:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1st revert # 00:06, 1 August 2008  (edit summary: "Brazil is also a strong nation which may become a superpower in the near future.")
 * 2nd revert # 03:52, 1 August 2008  (edit summary: "Sources on the sections below.")
 * 3rd revert # 14:48, 1 August 2008  (edit summary: "Sourced.")
 * 4rd revert # 15:59, 1 August 2008  (edit summary: "It back my claims, at least it does on the other pages. Check the Potential Superpowers talk and check the links clearly.")
 * 5th revert # 18:31, 1 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 229246780 by Driftwoodzebulin (talk)")
 * 6th revert # 04:20, 2 August 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 7th revert # 16:26, 2 August 2008  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here

User with a history of past edit warring (blocked for 24h and 1 week) continues to engage in edit warring despite appeals to build consensus on Talk page. This user has also engaged in edit-warring and broken 3RR on Potential Superpowers article.

. : Time reported: 16:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1st revert # 15:19, 1 August 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 2nd revert # 15:59, 1 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 229243462 by Nirvana888 (talk)")
 * 3rd revert # 18:27, 1 August 2008  (edit summary: "They are three sources now, check talk page.")
 * 4th revert # 04:12, 2 August 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 5th revert # 16:31, 2 August 2008  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here —Nirvana888 (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You are miscounting continuous edits as reverts. Please re-submit accordingly, showing only reverts. El_C 16:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 33 hours. El_C 17:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Anonymous IP reported by User:WikiPorc (Result: )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 21:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

User who has a constantly changing IP was not warned in the user talk page but an attempt was made to discuss the situation on the discussion page, which was ignored.

User:Pcurrie reported by User:G2bambino (Result: )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 21:57, 2 August 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:

I believe this user has been harassing my son (pcurrie). I've requested that he stop contacting my son, yet he continues to do so. I'm sure there must be Wikipedia regulations that protect minors, please advise on how to move forward on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.155.55 (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As a Wikipedia user, your son (if he indeed is not yourself) is not immune to Wikipedia rules, regardless of his age, and despite whatever your commands to the contrary are. Regardless, he's (you've) been blocked indefinitely. --G2bambino (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Jwri7474 reported by User:zoticogrillo

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 06:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:40, 3 August 2008


 * The first time that this reversion was done was 06:17, 26 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 04:54, 3 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 05:04, 3 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 05:07, 3 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 05:10, 3 August 2008
 * 5th revert: 05:34, 3 August 2008

Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Not warned. Now warned. &mdash; Werdna &bull; talk 11:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Hisham800 reported by User:Lawrencema (Result: blocked sock; protected page)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 12:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:27 2nd August


 * 1st revert: 17:11 3rd August
 * 2nd revert: 17:46 3rd August
 * 3rd revert: 21:51 3rd August


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:48 2nd August

This user is quite obviously a sockpuppet of Hisham 5ZX, who had been banned as recently as yesterday. I'm not sure what we can do with someone who creates a new account every second day...but I'd like to request protection for the Al Anbar Governorate article (after his vandalism has been removed). Lawrencema (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Banned User:Hisham800. Semi-protected Al Anbar Governorate. A checkuser (or based on the IP addresses he has used publicly, any admin) could ban his ISP for a time, assuming little collateral damage. Otherwise, we can semi-protect the articles he is editing. —Centrx→talk &bull; 18:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * and by  -- slakr  \ talk / 21:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Kerr avon reported by User:Watchdogb (Result: protected)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 15:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 2 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 01:55, 3 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 03:04, 3 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 03:50, 3 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 08:36, 3 August 2008
 * 5th revert: 10:42, 3 August 2008
 * 6th revert: 10:54, 3 August 2008

The user has repeatedly added back the section on "support for the LTTE". Particularly the user has added ''The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, commonly known as the Tamil Tigers, is a militant Tamil terrorist organization that has waged a violent secessionist campaign against the Sri Lankan government since the 1970s. The LTTE is currently proscribed as a terrorist organization by 31 countries'' into the article. In addition the user has also added The Tiger which is the symbol of the LTTE is featured prominently in her music videos and posters  among other things. Watchdogb (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The user has been in wikipedia for over a year with more than 1000 contributions and knows the policies fairly well. Watchdogb (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * – it looks like there are multiple issues with unsourced/poorly-sourced stuff and/or editors edit warring. Another admin already semied it, so I just went ahead and upgraded it to a full.  -- slakr  \ talk / 21:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:MastCell reported by User:AdamKesher (Result: no vio)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Though these edits have not been made in a 24 hour period, User:MastCell refuses to provide a substantive explanation for deleting relevant WP:RS facts, and I argue is engaged in a pattern of behavior that may be fairly classified as edit warring. Would a neutral admin please have a look at this record and weigh in on User:MastCell's edits and refusal to justify his actions? See RfC at talk and WP:BLP/N for further details, and verify that no specific language from WP:BLP has been cited to justify what appears to be a blatant WP:CENSOR problem. AdamKesher (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Time reported: 03:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:42, 28 July 2008


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 18:49, 28 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 19:58, 1 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 21:26, 1 August 2008
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 01:55, 3 August 2008
 * 5th revert: Current revision (21:18, 3 August 2008)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User:MastCell is an admin (verify) who is aware of WP:EW. He suggested that my account could be blocked for editing in these verifiable facts: see here.

No violation; I agree that this is BLP material. More on the article talk page.--chaser - t 03:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your explanation involving self-published sources is incorrect, but perhaps excusable because of the ongoing censorship efforts. Author Jay McInerney's quote above appeared in a published interview with his subject Rielle Hunter in 2005:
 * McInerney's subject Rielle Hunter posted this published interview on her website, but that's certainly not a self-published source. This 2005 interview by author Jay McInerney has absolutely nothing to do with John Edwards or Hunter's baby born in 2008. I see no reason why WP:BLP can be used to delete or censor these facts. AdamKesher (talk) 05:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * McInerney's subject Rielle Hunter posted this published interview on her website, but that's certainly not a self-published source. This 2005 interview by author Jay McInerney has absolutely nothing to do with John Edwards or Hunter's baby born in 2008. I see no reason why WP:BLP can be used to delete or censor these facts. AdamKesher (talk) 05:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Carpaticus reported by User:Squash Racket (Result: 12 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 11:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:46, 1 August 2008

Note: I didn't list the fifth revert here as the text he changed here had been added a few days ago.
 * 1st revert: 09:30, 2 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 10:03, 2 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 10:21, 2 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 10:55, 2 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 05:45, 1 August 2008, his IP also received it earlier and another editor warned him in an edit summary.

User deleting/changing well-referenced material arbitrarily while adding unreferenced text himself (just like today). I tried to avoid edit warring and add new references instead, still I find the repeated deletion of text from an English language book published by a reliable university press unacceptable. Squash Racket (talk) 11:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 12 hours. El_C 15:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Cut and pasted from above as the situation is not resolved.
 * He decided to come back for a sixth revert immediately after the 12-hour block expired and that with a misleading edit summary. Squash Racket (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 24 hours block. Page (which was [RF]Protected due to this sixth revert) unprotected. El_C 11:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Manacpowers reported by User:Bentecbye (Result: page semiprotected)
Time reported:11:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on Kowtow‎
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 08:01, 3 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 09:02, 3 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 09:32, 3 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 09:42, 3 August 2008
 * 5th revert: 10:41, 3 August 2008

User:Manacpowers violated 3rr rule in Kowtow‎ beforeAdministrators' noticeboard/3RR 08:59, 26 July 2008.
 * Diff of 3RR warning:09:54, 3 August 2008

--Bentecbye (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Bentecbye is a possibly same user Pabopa who indefinite banned user.

after he banned, he using 218.218.132.9 and another sock of Bentecbye. He try to avoid 3rr rule by IP and accounts multiple using.

this "avoid method(ip and accounts same using)" already used by banned user Pabopa

one of the Adminstrator(3rr part) worried about this,
 * "I find it reasonable that User:Pabopa is a reincarnation of 210.231.12.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), an account which was edit warring on Taekwondo until he was blocked 48 hours for disruptive editing."

simlar edit with Pabopa once Pabopa indefinite banned. this IP appear.  Pabopa was a only one person try to change like this style. Manacpowers (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm no 218.218.132.9.You violated 3rr rule in Kowtow‎.--Bentecbye (talk) 11:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Pabopa is a indefinite banned user by disruptive edit and sock using. I just revert banned user's edit. Bentecbye are possibly another sock of Pabopa. even other user realized this. Pabopa banned wikipedia editing indefinitely. Bentecbye did exactly same edit like Pabopa. Pabopa was a only one person change kowtow article like that.Manacpowers (talk) 11:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Pabopa blocked date (01:43, 1 August 2008)
 * Bentecbye account creation date (03:40, 1 August 2008)
 * first edit date (07:37, 3 August 2008)

This page is Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.--Bentecbye (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It is possibly, Bentecbye is banned user Pabopa. after banned, he created new account. and he using IP and accounts same time for avoid 3r violation. Pabopa was a only one person who stick to injo kowtow. anyway, Bentecbye is a also user who engaged edit war. Manacpowers (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not think i violated wikipedia rule. According to Banning policy says,
 * Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning a user Manacpowers (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm no 218.218.132.9.Manacpowers violated 3rr rule in Kowtow‎.--Bentecbye (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Although 3rr was technically breached, it is too much of a borderline case in light of brand new user/s reverting to the banned user/s' version. Interested parties should use the talk page to reach a resolution; I'm semiprotecting, instead. El_C 11:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

User:LisaLiel reported by User:Alastair Haines (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 22:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:04, 3 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 23:41, 3 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 23:57, 3 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 00:39, 4 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 00:53, 4 August 2008
 * 5th revert: 01:05, 4 August 2008
 * 6th revert: 04:09, 4 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 00:53, 4 August 2008

Many additional warnings were given, by two separate editors, on the talk page of the article.

Material reverted included sources specifically provided to appease the 3rr violator, but to no avail.

24 hours; please make sure to close a report upon issuing a block. El_C 10:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Jewishnsbmfan reported by User:5theye (Result: no violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 23:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:47, 3 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 21:00, 13 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 00:19, 30 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 10:27, 30 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 14:44, 1 August 2008
 * 5th revert: 00:35, 3 August 2008
 * 5th revert: 17:47, 3 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:22, 3 August 2008

User insists others' edits are vandalism (though in fact, his own are) and has a history of sock puppetry, clearing warnings from his talk page, etc. = ∫tc 5th Eye 23:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 3RR is breached with four reverts being made within the span of 24 hours. El_C 10:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

User:JCDenton2052 reported by User:Alastair Haines (Result: no violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 04:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:31, 1 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 00:46, 4 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 01:28, 4 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 06:46, 4 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 08:15, 4 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 08:09, 4 August 2008

Talk page section was created to encourage discussion. Violator did comment in talk after invitation, but did not respond to proposal for modified text, instead insisting on reverting. Additional warnings were given in edit summaries, along with invitations to discuss improvements instead of using edits. A third party has since reverted violator's 4th revision.


 * Edit at 6:46 appears to be a new edit, which brings the total to three reverts. El_C 10:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a cute loophole, I'll remember that next time I'm trying to hold off multiple edit warrers single handed, gives an infinite chain of edits. Don't worry I won't share the secret. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why wasn't I informed of this? The top of WP:AN/3RR reads If you report a 3RR violation here it is good form to inform the person you are reporting of this on their talk page and provide a link to this page: WP:AN/3RR. Furthermore, I made two sets of two different reverts and I discussed my edits on the talk page. User:Alastair Haines alternated between not responding to my comments on the talk page and responding in bad faith. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Additionally, no third party has reverted my edits. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

User:82.47.52.49 reported by User:Kww (Result: 12 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 11:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:17, 2 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 07:57, 3 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:27, 3 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 20:12, 3 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 07:31, 4 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Editor is edit-warring in an image of Celine Dion with highly dubious copyright status.


 * 12 hours. El_C 11:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

User:88.255.188.188 reported by User:The Ogre (Result: )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 17:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:32, 27 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 05:26, 30 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:09, 2 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 10:02, 4 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 15:29, 4 August 2008
 * 5th revert: 18:14, 4 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:22, 4 August 2008

Editor is a POV pusher in several articles, never discussing in the talk pages and a confirmed sockpuppet of permanently banned User:Izmir lee.

User:The_Ogre reported by User:88.255.188.188 (Result: )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 17:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This user is always violates 3RR in the articles about Turkey. He pushes his POVs like "Turkey is Middle Eastern!"
 * This anon user (a suspected sockpuppet of permanently banned User:Izmir lee) is trying to accuse me of a 3RR violation in a revert war he staterd himself! I merely reverte back to the original version after having warned him of his 3RR violation and having reported him here (see section above). He now tries to attack me accusing me of the violations he pratices. The Ogre (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This user is now a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Izmir lee and has been banned for 24 hours. The Ogre (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Continuos fighting over Interstate 5 in California and U.S. Route 101 in California (Result: Malformed report)
continues to fight over I-5 and US 101 based on exit list, insists on including Santa Ana, Hollywood, Golden State, and Ventura Freeways on the eixt list. They already shows up on the exit list on their own article, so it should not stay. We should not have a continous exit list,becasue those articles would been too lengthy, neither should we duplicate exit list becasue this annoys me alot. I'm itching for a 100 hour blcok of Splat5572.-- Freewayguy Call? Fish 18:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * insists on removing information that I added into the infobox while he reverts my revisions. Also he is known to be disruptive, and his level of civility went onto a level of stupidity I hadn't known existed. --Splat5572 (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  21:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Too many on US 101,Too many on I-5,80_in_California&action=history Too many on I-80.-- Freewayguy Call? Fish 21:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not willing to assist until you can provide distinct violations. You were also recently blocked, FreewayGuy, for edit warring, and it seems that you have ceased to do that as well. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  21:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Interstate 5 in California

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

U.S. Route 101 in California

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

Interstate 80 in California

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

I'm not seeing a direct 3RR violation, but instances of edit warring on both sides. I am inclined to block both for this continued nonsense... <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  23:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

keeps following me around insisting on his way, by putting Santa Ana, Golden State, Hollywood, Ventura Freeways back to I-5 and US 101 exit list. Does anyone thinks duplicating is annoying. I never find duplicating useful.-- Freewayguy Call? Fish 00:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Fadiga09 reported by User:Saudi9999 (Result: )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 22:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:02, 30 July 2008


 * 1st revert: 17:02, 30 July 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:40, 31 July 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:51, 31 July 2008
 * 4th revert: 17:03, 1 August 2008
 * 5th revert: 17:14, 2 August 2008
 * 6th revert: 17:06, 3 August 2008
 * 7th revert: 17:02, 4 August 2008
 * 8th revert: 17:07, 5 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 01:14, 5 August 2008

User:Keyblade Mage reported by User:Ghostexorcist (Result: 24 hour block )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 22:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Result - I have blocked Mage for 24 hours. <font color="black" face="tahoma">Scarian Call me Pat!  00:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:89.168.248.33 and User:83.202.84.208 reported by Phoenix (talk) (Result: prot)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 05:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:51, 2 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 01:51, 2 August 2008 to 22:22, 2 August 2008

By 89.168.248.33
 * 1st revert: 02:18, 2 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 15:45, 2 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:47, 2 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:01, 2 August 2008
 * 5th revert: 19:36, 2 August 2008
 * 6th revert: 22:22, 2 August 2008

by 83.202.84.208
 * 1st revert: 13:46, 2 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:25, 2 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:27, 2 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 17:13, 2 August 2008
 * 5th revert: 21:54, 2 August 2008
 * 6th revert: 12:44, 3 August 2008


 * For the time being, I've semi-protected the page (all recent edit warring was between anons, looks like), and left notes on all relevant user talk pages about using talk pages (and potentially being blocked if things continue once the protection expires). – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Longchenpa reported by User:ZuluPapa5 (Result: No vio)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 00:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

See also:


 * Three-revert rule violation on.


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Reference dispute: Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not violated 3RR. Note that Zulu Papa 5 proactively announced her intention to bait me here. She has been moving Talk page topics all over the place and out of order. Also, those changes on the Jetsunma page were for two separate sections, and she put dubious tags on information from Random House that has already gone through a third opinion review -- so many dubious tags that I missed one. Longchenpa (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * None of these edits can be even remotely regarded as reverts. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This was my first time here, I would apprecaite feed back, on a productive resolution, must I do this again. I had no intention to bait, I was giving clear warnings as required, after experiencing my material edited 7 times in row.  I've had previous multiple revert experiences with this editor who  aims to evade the wiki standards WP:NPF. This action was aimed a being preventive.Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no 3RR violation on either the Talk page or the article. Two comments: (a) Per WP:REFACTOR, material should not be moved around on Talk pages if any editor objects. Leave it where it was originally typed unless you can get consent for the change. (b) The disputed sources for the article seem reliable, but the article itself could be written in a more neutral tone. If there is no agreement on a specific question, consider opening a WP:RFC to get more input. EdJohnston (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Edview reported by User:Caspian blue (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 13:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 008-07-20T01:06:10


 * 1st revert: 2008-08-05T00:13:49
 * 2nd revert: 2008-08-05T00:33:31
 * 3rd revert: 2008-08-05T00:58:20
 * 4th revert: 2008-08-05T01:06:55
 * 5th revert: 2008-08-05T01:48:48
 * 6th revert: 2008-08-05T11:29:16


 * Diff of 3RR warning:2008-08-05T01:02:11

Given the contribution history of the user, the reported user seems to be a single purpose account to make disruptive edit wars. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:86.156.215.77 (Result: Declined )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 15:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 07:20, 4 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 15:54, 4 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:10, 4 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 20:23, 4 August 2008
 * 5th revert: 20:42, 4 August 2008
 * 6th revert: 20:52, 4 August 2008

The user persisted in edit-warring on 2008 UEFA Champions League Final, encompassing some 15 reverts over the 3rd-4th August. The user was not warned as I had no knowledge of the rule at the time, but he has been reprimanded in the past for edit warring. 86.156.215.77 (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not believe these reverts apply in this situation as I was reverting improperly referenced edits, which could have resulted in a BLP violation. The edits I reverted used invalid references, and the editor in question also failed to agree to a compromise, further aggravating the situation. – PeeJay 15:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Opinion. The anon mistakenly deleted the above report, so I have an interest in the report and the anon reverted more than 10 times in a 24 hours as opposed to several people's opinion on the addition. --Caspian blue (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * PeeJay2K3 did not mention a BLP violation when the edit war was happening over 2 days. It was deleted as irrelevant, outlandish, vandalism or unsourced even though the user has since accepted that the video of the incident backs up my edit It did not warrant violation of 3RR and seems like a post facto justification of his actions. Despite a previous ban for violating the three revert rule he did not issue a 3RR warning or take the issue to the talk page.
 * I'm sorry for deleting the report above. I haven't used this facility before so I'll be more careful in future. 86.156.215.77 (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note I'd like to point out to sysops that 86.156.215.77 is clearly a sock of 86.162.68.15. PeeJay did not break 3RR as he was reverting vandalism. John Sloan (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that was obvious. I'm not trying to hide my identity here. John Sloan has still failed to explain why my edit was vandalism or apologise for calling me a troll. Even PeeJay2K3 has since said it is not the content of your addition to the article that is in dispute, but your modus operandi, a mode of operating that I did not know was against the rules because no one told me. 86.156.215.77 (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Another admin, User:Toddst1, has already blocked the IP 86.162.68.15 for violating 3RR on this article, and has put the contested article under semi-protection. There is a lengthy unblock discussion on that IP's Talk page. I will leave a note for Toddst1 that this IP's 3RR report, filed while 86.162.68.15 was blocked, constitutes block evasion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up on this. I have extended the block on for evading their block and editing as .  also blocked now. Toddst1 (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Egbertus reported by User:Jitse Niesen (Result:12 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 17:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Your signature with timestamp: 09:29, 5 August 2008
 * Previous version reverted tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png


 * 1st revert: 12:23, 5 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 13:17, 5 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 13:57, 5 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 15:34, 5 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 14:24, 5 August 2008


 * Blocked for 12 hours. I saw no other block for a similar violation, and there was not a specific warning in the user's talk page or in an edit summary, although the 3RR was mentioned and underscored in the article's talk page.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:C0l3kunzl3r reported by Scjessey (talk) (Result: 12 hours)
.
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Time reported: 21:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 20:57,  5 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 230046883 by Queerbubbles (talk)")
 * 2) 21:26,  5 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 230065866 by Baba's camel (talk)")
 * 3) 21:26,  5 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 230065487 by Baba's camel (talk)")
 * 4) 21:29,  5 August 2008  (edit summary: "No one cares. Just leave the pictures.")
 * 5) 21:30,  5 August 2008  (edit summary: "No one cares. Leave the pictures.")
 * 6) 21:39,  5 August 2008  (edit summary: "Quit it.")
 * 7) 21:41,  5 August 2008  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Scjessey (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Toddst1 (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:69.2.248.210 reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Blocked for three hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 22:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:52, 1 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 19:53, 5 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 20:00, 5 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:59, 5 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:20, 5 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:07, 5 August 2008

Toddst1 (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also see . Blocked - 3 hours. – xeno  ( talk ) 23:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Aoso0ck reported by User:TimVickers (Result:72 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 23:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:06, 5 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 17:24, 5 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:29, 5 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 22:21, 5 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:39, 30 July 2008

Kafziel Complaint Department 02:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Long-term edit warring. This is a continuation of an edit war from the 30 July when this editor made exactly the same deletions and was blocked for 24 hours. Came back and did it again on the 2nd of August and now again on the 5th. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:MKil reported by User:Reallmmablogger (Result: no violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: Time reported: 01:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:13, 3 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 20:13, 3 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 19:31, 3 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 10:47, 1 August 2008
 * 4rd revert: 11:57, 31 July 2008
 * 5th revert: 15:28, 30 July 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 30 July 2008


 * 3RR is breached with four reverts being made within the span of 24 hours. El_C 10:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If anyone should be warned about violating at least the spirit of 3RR, it's User:Reallmmablogger. I tried to clean up Charley Belanger and he continually reverts it with no reason given. I try to talk to him about this and all I get is an answer like this . In fact, I'm pretty sure he violated 3RR:


 * 1st revert: 16:10 August 3rd


 * 2nd revert: 19:57 August 3rd


 * 3rd revert: 20:14 August 3rd.

MKil (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)MKil


 * I agree; that's not acceptable. El_C 11:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Is he going to be warned or something? His behavior on this incident and others (,,,, for instance) seems overly aggressive and, to me, indicates an unwillingness to work well with others.MKil (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)MKil


 * I should not be the one to get any warning we have been going back and fourth on this issue. I have tried to come to an agreement. Mkil does not want to come to an agreement. The information I have provided for the article is important for the article. Obviously this user has friends on here trying to help him out in this dispute. What reason did he give to undo changes? The reason was he did not agree with the information. The information is fact and non of it can be disputed. I have opened this to get a non biased opinion from users that truly care about Wikipedia. Reallmmablogger (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason I undid your reversion of my work is that I took your list and wrote an article using the information. That's an improvement of the article and there was no longer any need to have those lists on it. You didn't like that I touched your article and reverted all my work. You did the same on Young Corbett II.MKil (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)MKil


 * As for the unwillingness to work well with others. I would love to work with a fellow editor who truly cares about what he is editing. The links he has provided proves my case showing that he has been following my edits and harassing me. The link that he put is not even from me. If you click on it it shows this message = My chess club (and its not mine anymore, never was) could easily destroy your mafia, tons of perverts with no feelings, robots, the undead! I am glad once in your pathetic life you feel sorry! And that's a lie in itself! But manners you will never learn! Contradiction is your name! And stop violation other rules. Oxymoronic perfect term for you! Just keep on playing mr ip user from IS X-Originating-IP: [162.84.41.179]

That message has nothing to do with me he is purposely trying to sabotage me for some reason. Can someone please realize this. The one below is also another disagreement where he thinks his article is better and I think mine is also. I also tried to come to an agreement but he did not want to. Reallmmablogger (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as this goes He keeps on stating that Mike Tyson should not have an information about the Wrestelmania he referred for I tried to explain that to him. in a nice manner. I also did not like the one he wrote to me. Which states below

As far as the Tyson Wrestlemania incident goes, I removed it because it is a very trivial event in Tyson's career and giving that much space to it in the Tyson article is ridiculous. Wiki is not here to be a comprehensive biography. It should not catalog every little event in someone's life.MKil (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)MKil Reallmmablogger (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My answer to him specifically states great reason why this needed to be in Mike Tyson's article Reallmmablogger (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As for Not only did he keep on editing my article he even edited the aricle by user:Amalthea on the issue. Even though user:Amalthea had resolved the issue between the aarticle. So what does he want things his way or no way there is no resolution with him. Reallmmablogger (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This page is not for discussion, please use WP:ANI or another board. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Ada Kataki reported by User:Johan Rachmaninov (Result: 24 + 48 hour blocks )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 20:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:13, 6 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 08:13, 6 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:17, 6 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 19:25, 6 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 19:32, 6 August 2008
 * 5th revert: 19:58, 6 August 2008
 * 6th revert:, 20:01, 6 August 2008
 * 7th revert: 20:03, 6 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ada_Kataki&diff=230262068&oldid=230261833 20:03, 6 August 2008]
 * Long-term edit warring. This is a continuation of an edit war spanning from the 10th to 11th of July. editor clearly disgregards major wikipedia policies Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Result - I have blocked Dude for 24 hours and Ada for 48 hours. <font color="black" face="tahoma">Scarian Call me Pat!  21:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous IP reported by User:Miyokan (Result: Page protected)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

--Miyokan (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:26, 6 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 06:45, 6 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 12:17, 6 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 14:06, 6 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 17:59, 6 August 2008
 * 5th revert: 18:51, 6 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 09:32, 25 July 2008 and 20:51, 28 July 2008 and 00:16, 30 July 2008 and repeated blocks for breaking the 3RR rule and block evasion by socking.

The same user editing from slightly different IP's. All IP's traced to the same location (RUSSIAN FEDERATION, MOSCOW, ISP: ST.PETERSBURG TELEPHONE NETWORK - check here).

User was blocked for 12 hours for breaking the 3RR rule here  then he was blocked for 24 hours  for block evading and also breaking the 3RR rule by reverting under yet more socks. Then user was blocked again for 3 days and article was semi-protected for block evasion by socking again and breaking the 3RR yet again, making an incredible 11 reverts in 24 hours.

User has been repeatedly blocked for violating the 3RR and block evading. Now he has made 5 reverts just after being released from his block yet again, clearly showing he doesn't care about policies. Can the article be indefinitely semi-protected this time as he will no doubt use socks to block avade again and the article is subject to heavy vandalism since coming off a 6 month semi-protection recently, and a longer block for smashing through the 3RR rule yet again right after coming off a block for this, and after repeated warnings and blocks within the last week.--Miyokan (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting support.svg Semi-protected for one week until I can sort out the socks. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  02:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually its not one user. There is just a lot of friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.2.64 (talk) 08:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)