Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive78

User:76.117.128.12 reported by User:GauthamNarayan (Result: Article protected )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 71.232.6.182 (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:18, 7 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 04:23, 7 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 04:16, 7 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 03:54, 7 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 03:50, 7 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 71.232.6.182 (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Result - I have protected the article for 2 weeks. Scarian  Call me Pat!  13:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Itaqallah reported by (Result:24 hours for IP; no block for user)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 06:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:58, 6 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 22:12, 5 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 00:29, 6 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 02:12, 6 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 17:58, 6 August 2008


 * '''Reporting IP address blocked 24 hours for edit warring and personal attacks. Reported user not blocked for good-faith edits. Kafziel Complaint Department 07:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Offerpoint reported by User:UKPhoenix79 (Result: 24 and 48 hour blocks )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 09:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:18, 2 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 18:11, 6 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 21:14, 6 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 07:20, 7 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 08:45, 7 August 2008


 * Result - I have blocked Offerpoint for 24 hours for violating 3RR. And Phoenix for 48 for edit warring. Scarian  Call me Pat!  13:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

User:87.198.252.179 reported by User:BigDunc (Result: Article protected )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 12:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:49, 4 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 14:57, 6 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 20:35, 6 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 11:34, 7 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 11:49, 7 August 2008


 * Edit has previously been blocked for edit warring on this edit on this article, see for example, which was one of the IPs being used in this series of edits.

Using dynamic IPs this editors has been making the same disputed edits for months and months now, including disgusting personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with him. The IPs listed above are not all the same, but are clearly the same editor. Also seems to still be carrying on with an edit war. BigDunc Talk 12:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Result - I have protected the article for 2 months. Scarian  Call me Pat!  12:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Txbad1 reported by User:Karanacs (Result:24 h)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 17:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:37, 6 August 2008.


 * 1st revert: 15:31, 7 August 2008 (note, user apparently had difficulty figuring out how to undo as there were edits made after the one he wanted reverted and it took him 5 times to revert it all. This diff covers all 5 of those).
 * 2nd revert: 10:47, 8 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 12:22, 8 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 12:32, 8 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 10:54, 8 August 2008

I tried to discuss the changes on the user's talk page and on the article talk page. User's only response. I've been attempting a wholesale cleanup/expansion, of the article but have stopped for now as user is unwilling to allow changes to certain sections. Karanacs (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

and now a legal threat from this user. Karanacs (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked 24 hours. However, Karanacs, please keep in mind that being stubborn and argumentative is not considered vandalism and therefore you were not exempt from 3RR when reverting his edits. If need be, seek dispute resolution in cases like these instead of contributing to the edit war. Kafziel Complaint Department 18:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I (finally) realized that, which is why I stepped away from the article. Thank you for the reminder. Karanacs (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Adoniscik reported by User:Vitilsky (Result: Reporting user blocked for 24 hours, reported user warned)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 22:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:41, 8 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 17:23, 8 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 22:31, 8 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 22:34, 8 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:41, 8 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

User:Adoniscik does not provide valid sources for the article adding revisionist information and reverting my edits, without any explanation of them. He made that reverts and at same time changed all the article without any verifiable source, just non-sense links. --Vitilsky (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Both parties have edited warred but Vitilsky issued a warning on his own talk page, and then promptly reverted again himself. Adoniscik has not reverted since the warning and, because it was on Vitilsky's talk page, there is no proof that he has seen it. I have posted a warning at Adoniscik's talk page instead. TigerShark (talk) 05:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Frank Pais reported by User:Thivierr (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 23:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:45, August 7, 2008


 * 1st revert: 19:22, August 7, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 04:28, August 8, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:11, August 8, 2008
 * 4th revert: 17:46, August 8, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:05, August 6, 2008

Edit warring over several days. TigerShark (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

User:The Thunderer reported by User:BigDunc (Result: Declined)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 13:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:46, 7 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 18:04, 7 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 22:01, 7 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 22:03, 7 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 13:11, 8 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:21, 1 August 2008

He will revert almost any changes from his version, reverting any attempt to bring the article in line with policy. BigDunc Talk 13:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In spite of the turmoil, the article seems to be moving forward. It is hard to identify specific edits as reverts since so much development is happening. I hope that more neutral editors will become interested in working on the article, though I do see good faith effort by both of the partisans who are involved in this 3RR report. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

User:88.109.195.218reported by User:Garycompugeek (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 03:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:

Slightly malformed request but was warned before latest reverts. TigerShark (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Sorry, first time I have reported someone and was a bit tipsy to boot. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog reported by User:Alexander Widefield (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 10:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:44, 9 August 2008

Note: User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog permanently reverts a box in the right of article.


 * 1st revert: 08:48, 9 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 09:22, 9 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 09:29, 9 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 09:33, 9 August 2008
 * 5th revert: 09:42, 9 August 2008
 * 6th revert: 09:56, 9 August 2008
 * 7th revert: 10:02, 9 August 2008
 * 8th revert: 10:46, 9 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 09:56, 9 August 2008, another time at his talk page


 * Comment Even after being advise of WP:3RR, this user is continuing. Additionally, they have warnings on their talk page in regards to being uncivil. As this diff shows, they have not heeded the warning on their talk page in regards to WP:CIVIL and seems to be intent on being uncivil to other editors. --Россавиа Диалог 10:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Result - Blocked for 24 hours. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Baku87 reported by User:Pocopocopocopoco (Result: 12 hours )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 15:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:34, 8 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 21:17, 8 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 21:53, 8 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 22:04, 8 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:09, 8 August 2008
 * 5th revert: 22:34, 8 August 2008
 * 6th revert: 00:39, 9 August 2008
 * 7th revert: 00:42, 9 August 2008
 * 8th revert: 11:58, 9 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 04:57, 9 August 2008

You also might want to consider whether these reverts fall under the restrictions of WP:ARBAA2. --Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Result - Blocked for 12 hours. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Pietervhuis reported by User:Miyokan (Result: 1 week)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 15:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:35, 9 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 00:41, 9 August 2008 reverting this 00:36, 9 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 01:15, 9 August 2008 self explanatory
 * 3rd revert: 01:23, 9 August 2008 reverting this 01:17, 9 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 01:28, 9 August 2008 partial revert of 01:20, 9 August 2008
 * 5th revert: 13:05, 9 August 2008 reverting this 12:21, 9 August 2008
 * 6th revert: 14:55, 9 August 2008 reverting this 14:39, 9 August 2008
 * 7th revert: 15:04, 9 August 2008 reverting this 15:00, 9 August 2008

Check block log - just came off a 10 day block for breaking the 3RR rule for the fifth time.--Miyokan (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Result - Blocked for 1 week. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

75.82.59.206 reported by 72.225.227.83 (Result:Reporting user blocked 48 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . Time reported: 17:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: 15:56, 9 august 2008
 * 2nd revert: 16:21, 9 august 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:28, 9 august 2008

Page also semi-protected due to edit war involving multiple IPs. Okiefromokla questions? 17:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Icealien33 reported by User:RobJ1981 (Result: User warned)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:59, 9 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 00:45, 9 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 01:51, 9 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 04:17, 9 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 17:10, 9 August 2008

Many people have told him the character list isn't notable, but he refuses to listen and doesn't want to discuss the issue very much either. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Result - User warned. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

user:Shevashalosh reported by user:ceedjee (Result: Pages move-protected)

 * *Three-revert rule violation on.
 * 1st revert : 22:42 8 August
 * 2nd revert : 08:32 9 August
 * Warned : 09:12 9 August
 * 3rd revert :09:30 9 August
 * 4th revert : 20:50 9 August

This editor had disrupted article Deir Yassin massacre he wanted to rename Deir Yassin Battle and he has also created an article that could be considered a pov fork : Blood Libel at Deir Yassin (but that is about a book). Ceedjee (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * from moves — there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Presumptive reported by User:VegitaU (Result: 12 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 06:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:14, 9 August 2008

This is a bad faith report because I simply was doing housekeeping to use the version that was a result of a 13 day talk page discussion. The accusing user and his friend keeps reverting it to a non-consensus version that has opposition, WP:LEAD violations, and bad prose problems. I have ceased editing it and let them have their own way but I have asked an administrator to help resolve this. I am for discussion and compromise but the accuser unfortunately is not. Maybe this admin will help us (but he is going to sleep now).

Also note that there was no warning. The warning reported is just a generic one that is old. Presumptive (talk) 06:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You have been warned in the past. You know about 3RR violations. Your "adopter" even warned you about it. Instead, you decided to muscle your revisions through no matter the group of editors that disagreed with you. While I have tried to engage in discussion about your changes, you continue to trumpet your one-man consensus revisions in the face of everyone else. --  Veggy  ( talk ) 06:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You reverted without discussion so if you are calling for punishment, you should receive it, VegitaU. What are you complaining about because I have let you win and let you have your way even though the 13-14 day discussion of the 7 lead sentence versions have few comments from you.  If you and IceColdBeer are complaining, you should have discussed it.  Even now, you fail to discuss and compromise, just nag until others let you have your way.  Please join me in discussion and compromise.  I have already let you have your way and let the matter go for now. Presumptive (talk) 07:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My adopter has said that I am right. I even let you have your way even though your reverts have no consensus. Presumptive (talk) 07:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, I have tried to engage in discussion. Please, Presumptive, click on the links of my reply above. You can't claim that I am failing to engage in discussion when there is undeniable evidence that I have been. --  Veggy  ( talk ) 07:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Edit summaries like this really invite discussion. --  Veggy  ( talk ) 07:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 12:01, 9 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 21:50, 9 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 02:01, 10 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 02:13, 10 August 2008
 * 5th revert: 10 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 23 July 2008


 * Comment While there was edit-warring by this user, this is blatant forum shopping.  Enigma  message 07:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: Be aware, I withdrew my complaint at WP:AIV as I saw this page as the proper place to report. Enigma, you are commenting on the man, not the facts. --  Veggy  ( talk ) 07:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. It doesn't matter to me who the users in question are. I'm commenting because I was about to remove an AIV report before but someone else beat me to it.  Enigma  message 07:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this helps, but another user posted the same 3RR complaint but removed it because it was a duplicate of this one. Also, I edit-conflicted with Veggy's report while trying to post my own report. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, Aude. --  Veggy  ( talk ) 07:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. After I withdrew it, thanks. --  Veggy  ( talk ) 07:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

12 hours. El_C 07:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

User:InuYoshi reported by User:Bignole (Result: 12 hour block/quickly unblocked as user has reverted edits.)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Original version


 * 1st revert Revision as of 16:49, August 10, 2008
 * 2nd revert Revision as of 16:55, August 10, 2008
 * 3rd revert Revision as of 17:03, August 10, 2008
 * Official warning Revision as of 17:07, August 10, 2008
 * 4th revert Revision as of 17:18, August 10, 2008
 * 5th revert Current revision (17:25, August 10, 2008)

User has participated in discussions on the talk page, but continues to revert whenever another editor disagrees and changes the page back, ignoring consensus debates.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Ctjf83 reported by User:Vandalismdestroyer33 (Result: not granted)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 03:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)11:16pm August 9 2008


 * Previous version reverted to: VERSIONTIME


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


 * Ya, I was reverting vandalism and unsourced edits...the page has been protected to prevent the sock puppet user that reported me from editing this page  C t j f 8 3 Talk 07:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Please follow the format as outlined in the Example section below: you're missing a link to the 3rr warning as well as the time & date reverts). El_C 07:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The reporter has been blocked as an evident SPA sockpuppet. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's that, then. El_C 07:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Elliskev reported by User:Jim Furtado (Result: warned)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 01:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 1st Previous version reverted to: 17:32, 9 August 2008


 * 2nd Previous version reverted to: 17:31, 9 August 2008


 * 3rd and 4th are clear reverts he just pressed the undo button


 * 1st revert: 17:37, 9 August 2008 The first revert is the revert of this edit He reverted the edit of 17:33, 9 August 2008


 * 2nd revert: 17:43, 9 August 2008 The Second Revert is of this edit HERE


 * 3rd revert: 18:00, 9 August 2008


 * 4th revert: 18:14, 9 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 18:18, 9 August 2008

This is a complex matter since there are some edits in between his reverts, he has continued after the 24 H period to revert back to his version as can be seen HERE Jim Furtado (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please stick to the format outlined at Example page. Report not acted on due to lack of 3rr warning. Feel free to add a diff to it at any time. El_C 07:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks; but 3rr warning needs to be issued to the user prior to 3rr being breached. El_C 07:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * User was clearly aware of 3RR, but none of the reverts are massively obnoxious. I'll let him off with a warning, as it's all rather complicated and he may not have been aware he was near 3RR. Moreschi (talk) (debate)

This is a bad report. The talk page consensus was to keep a table in the article. My edits were restorations of continued removal by User:Jim Furtado after the discussion. I'll probably have more after going through the diffs provided. This user is not acting in good faith. He is being dishonest with the facts. He has accused me of vandalism, sock-puppetry, and racism. --Elliskev 12:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Repsonse


 * The "consensus" were mostly of newly created acounts and an ip adress and they all just happen to agree with him and they all just happen to post imediately after he had posted on the discussion page, so most likely they are sock puppets of someone, and the graph in it self is by deafult racist. And I never for one second called him a racist, only the graph it is User:Elliskev that is dishonest as always with the facts Jim Furtado (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I interpreted your claim that the graph is "racist" as an implication that I was supporting a "racist" graph, and by extension, that you were implying that I am a racist. I will accept you at your word that it wasn't your intent. --Elliskev 00:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Follow-up after reviewing diffs
 * This is an article with lots and lots of changes happening very quickly.
 * The first pair of diffs... I don't know what those are. They aren't my edits.
 * In the second grouping of diffs provided:


 * The first diff was a removal of text supported by this discussion.
 * The second diff provided was restoring the table referenced above (the first time).
 * The third diff provided is not presented correctly. That wasn't my edit. it is two consecutive edits, one by me and another by another editor. – this edit and my edit which is clearly undoing vandalism.
 * Finally, the fourth diff was my second restoring of the table. This was immediately followed-up with my taking the issue to the talk page (the discussion referenced above) in which I specifically said I would not restore it again. Someone else restored it after there was adequate discussion.


 * Since then User:Jim Furtado has continued to try to remove if with dishonest edit summaries claiming that the discussion supported removal or that restoration was "sneaky vandalism". I left him a message on his talk, which he deleted. I have since brought the discussion back to the article talk page. I think I have done everything to act in good faith. I have been patient with Jim Furtado in his unfounded accusations, but this is just going to far. --Elliskev 13:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Elliskev was aware that he had broken the 3rr rule, and was warned but continues to ignore the fact and has now has made an illegally edit, trying to change the the outcome of the response. Obviously he has no respect for wikipedia rules, since he most likely created several sock puppet accounts that just happen to agree with him and were created as soon as he had posted on the discussion page. And I never for one second claimed it was supported on the discussion page all I wrote was look on the discussion page. And I have been EXTREMLY patient with Jim Furtado (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Krzyzowiec reported by User:M0RD00R (Result: 1 week )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 09:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 10:11, 11 August 2008 (hist) (diff) 2008 South Ossetia war‎ (Undid revision 231181629 by Kelstonian (talk)
 * 2nd revert: 10:21, 11 August 2008 (hist) (diff) 2008 South Ossetia war‎ (Undid revision 231183154 by Kelstonian (talk)
 * 3rd revert: 11:06, 11 August 2008 (hist) (diff) 2008 South Ossetia war‎ (Undid revision 231187385 by Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog
 * 4th revert: 11:18, 11 August 2008 (hist) (diff) 2008 South Ossetia war‎ (Undid revision 231188166 by Mavigogun (talk)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: block log speaks for itself

M0RD00R (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked for a week. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that the report directly above pertains to the same article. El_C 09:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. I've posted at AN requesting more admin eyes over there to keep temperatures down. We can't fully protect this one, it's too high-profile at the moment. We'll just have to block the edit-warriors. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it has seen massive activity since I've last looked at it yesterday. El_C 09:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Y2kcrazyjoker4 reported by User:Scarian (Result: 12 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 10:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Has been block for edit warring in the past, albeit, back in 2006, but still. He knows what's wrong and what's right.
 * Stifle (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Deathmagnetic08 reported by User:Undead_warrior (Result:Declined)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 13:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

We have warned him on his talk page, the talk page of the article, and the talk page of Horna. Undeath (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No 3RR warning; diff warns about WP:OWN but does not explain edit warring or 3RR policy. Please provide corrected diff or warn properly and return if edit warring continues. Kafziel Complaint Department 15:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

User:3rdAlcove reported by User:Larno Man (Result: Page protected)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 01:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: at 21:32, 30 July 2008


 * 1st revert: at 04:39, 10 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: at 13:04, 10 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: at 13:28, 10 August 2008
 * 4th revert: at 13:50, 10 August 2008

Different users are participating in a discussion on a proposed draft and trying to get consensus. However, this user reverts the current version, keep deleting disputed contents. This is the second time that 3rdAlcove violates 3rr on Cyrus Cylinder. Last time she/he was blocked for violation of 3rr on this article, edit warring in various places and posting incivil edit summaries Larno Man


 * No, my reverts were 3 (ie 2, 3 and 4), the first series of edits introduced a completely NEW version. As for the POV-pushing and stalling going on in that article...I guess it's quite off-topic here. Nice how you managed to dress this up, though. 3rdAlcove (talk) 10:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No you reverted the same paragraph (the quote from Britannica) 4 times:


 * 1st revert: at 04:29, 10 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: at 13:04, 10 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: at 13:28, 10 August 2008
 * 4th revert: at 13:50, 10 August 2008

At the first revert, you removed the Britannica quote first then you restored the older version. You had also reverted this quote and the rest of the section several times previously.[][][]--Larno Man (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Warned the user, page protected. The edit warring took place nearly a day ago; at this point, the block would only be punitive, not preventative. I've decided to fully protect the page. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Gun Powder Ma reported by User:Anpersonalaccount (Result: both blocked)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 15:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Would someone help me out? Gun Powder Ma had made an executive revert over the article, which he failed to discuss with others. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, he had also removed huge matarial from Rudder recently  ! Anpersonalaccount (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no breach of the 3RR rule. The only one who are breaching the rule in spirit are you, your anonymous socket puppet friend and the main contributor to the article who have changed for days now every single sourced addition I made to the article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes there are, all 4th of them, you're removing PI under the article, just like what you did to Rudder! I did not changed anything to the article at all, I had only reformatted the citations! Anpersonalaccount (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not necessary for 3 reverts to breach 3RR rule. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Help, there is an edit war going-on over the article, please help! Anpersonalaccount (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Gun Powder Ma blocked 48 hours, Anpersonalaccount blocked 24 hours. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Thunderbird2 reported by User:Fnagaton (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 16:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:57, 10 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 17:01, 10 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 19:12, 10 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 22:22, 10 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 07:42, 11 August 2008
 * 5th revert: 15:25, 11 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: The user is aware of 3RR.


 * Two other editors (including myself) have reverted Thunderbird2's attempts to change the article.Fnagaton 16:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Constitution of Ireland (Result: warned)
Please see this. Two editors User:Pureditor and User:Mooretwin, have blantantly engaged in edit warings. Please don't tell me to fill out a special form or submit a complaint in a specific format when its so obvious. Djegan (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * – they haven't edited since the warning, hence the reason why it's generally easier for us when we have a normal 3RR report to reference. For future reference, this tool should help. -- slakr  \ talk / 00:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:On.Elpeleg reported by User:George (Result: 31 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 00:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:45, August 11, 2008


 * 1st revert: 18:39, August 11, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 19:34, August 11, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 20:06, August 11, 2008
 * 4th revert: 21:01, August 11, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:23, August 11, 2008


 * -- slakr \ talk / 00:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Offerpoint reported by Phoenix (talk) (Result: Already blocked)
. : Time reported: 03:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

This user is continuing edit war from former ip address listed below.

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


 * 1) 18:11,  6 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 229930888 by UKPhoenix79 (talk)Removing French POV")
 * 2) 21:14,  6 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 230250903 by The Ogre (talk)")
 * 3) 07:20,  7 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 230278184 by UKPhoenix79 (talk)Edits are not acceptable until all French POV has been removed.")
 * 4) 08:45,  7 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 230362996 by UKPhoenix79 (talk)See talk as no one seems to be talking on there")
 * 5) 16:24,  8 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 230497010 by Oferpoint (talk)")
 * 6) 00:55,  9 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 230669779 by Oferpoint (talk)")
 * 7) 15:49,  9 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 230819712 by Oferpoint (talk)")
 * 8) 22:36,  9 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 230890680 by Oferpoint (talk)")
 * 9) 01:09, 10 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 230901148 by Oferpoint (talk)")
 * 10) 18:33, 10 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 231009469 by Oferpoint (talk)")
 * 11) 04:59, 11 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 231106681 by Oferpoint (talk)")
 * 12) 12:09, 11 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 231205271 by Oferpoint (talk)")
 * 13) 13:31, 11 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 231216298 by Oferpoint (talk)")
 * 14) 15:53, 11 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 231248953 by Oferpoint (talk)")
 * 15) 00:48, 12 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 231343036 by Oferpoint (talk)")
 * 16) 01:46, 12 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 231348170 by Oferpoint (talk)")

—Phoenix (talk) 03:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oferpoint and Offerpoint are two different editors. Both have just been indef blocked as socks by User:Avraham. I imagine that it will be safe now to undo the full protection on Historical powers. EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like User:Avraham blocked him/her at 04:11. Considering that this edit war been continuous for the past 10 days I am unsure if this user will respect the unblock and let the page be. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Oferpoint reported by Phoenix (talk) (Result: Already blocked)
. : Time reported: 03:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

This user is continuing edit war from former ip address listed below

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


 * 1) 22:29,  7 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 230367470 by Offerpoint (talk)")
 * 2) 19:15,  8 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 230638295 by Offerpoint (talk)")
 * 3) 15:05,  9 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 230724613 by Offerpoint (talk)")
 * 4) 21:58,  9 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 230826595 by Offerpoint (talk)")
 * 5) 23:04,  9 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 230896545 by Offerpoint (talk)")
 * 6) 12:48, 10 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 230920597 by Offerpoint (talk)")
 * 7) 22:30, 10 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 231064819 by Offerpoint (talk)")
 * 8) 10:58, 11 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 231167180 by Offerpoint (talk)")
 * 9) 12:28, 11 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 231213701 by Offerpoint (talk)")
 * 10) 15:42, 11 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 231225679 by Offerpoint (talk)")
 * 11) 00:19, 12 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 231250824 by Offerpoint (talk)")
 * 12) 00:52, 12 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 231347471 by Offerpoint (talk)")
 * 13) 01:59, 12 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 231356950 by Offerpoint (talk)")
 * 14) 02:04, 12 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 231356950 by Offerpoint (talk)")

—Phoenix (talk) 03:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See explanation in the report above. None of the IPs mentioned here seem to be currently active, so no point in blocking them. EdJohnston (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yea User:Avraham Blocked him/her at 04:13. I was really only showing the ip's to display the persistent edit war that has been going on between these two editors. I am unsure if they will halt their attack or not... but here's hoping :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 05:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog reported by User:92.8.254.213 (Result: 1 week)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 00:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:49, 11 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 23:49, 11 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 22:27, 11 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 22:00, 11 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 19:21, 11 August 2008
 * 6th revert: 15:34, 11 August 2008
 * 7th revert: 15:34, 11 August 2008
 * 8th revert: 11:03, 11 August 2008
 * 9th revert: 10:24, 11 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Previous 3RR block 16:21, 9 August 2008 and a further warning 18:10, 11 August 2008

Also,
 * Abusing other editors - "retarded", "can't you read" , "WHERE THE FUCK do you see"... , "are you biased or uninformed?"
 * Brute force editing - see all edits on 2008 South_Ossetia war
 * Lack of edit summary on a majority of major edits


 * seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  01:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A technical question. When I am looking at contributions by User:92.9.72.131, I see precisely nothing. There is no even his contributions at this noticeboard. What does it mean? Did any administrator deleted all his edit history? Why? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I had one IP address (92.9.72.131) while I wrote the report and that's the IP I used to fill in the "-- Your NAME --" bit of the report template. While I was writing the report, (which took about half an hour) my partner used the phone, which dropped the ADSL connection and gave me a new IP (DHCP) so by the time I saved the page I had a different IP address to the one I'd filled out. 92.11.162.47 (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good catch! The edit history shows that the actual submitter of this report was . I have changed the user id in the report header accordingly. Past experience suggests this might be one of the other editors of the article who just wants to be discreet.  This is unorthodox but I don't think it breaks any rules. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The only other contributions I've made are a request for a citation on the article, a request to this editor to use edit summaries , a request on wikimedia commons for some information to help with the citation mentioned above and a request for a discussion rather than an edit war on the talk page  , as well as informing this editor that I'd placed this edit war report . There's another contribution by a 92.something IP  on Battle of Tskhinvali but it's not me. 92.11.162.47 (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * True, and it's on my watchlist for possible protection if this crap continues. COAHCFD has been on my radar for a while, and his prior blocks for this and his personal attacks was just the icing on the cake. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  02:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But this is a loophole. Imagine that someone conducted edit-warring with COAHCFD and also violated the 3RR rule, but he does not want to be blocked too - as a result of his reporting here. Then he makes a report as an IP and avoids the responsibility.Biophys (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I get your point. The reporter of any 3RR gets extra scrutiny, and this reporter is dodging that, since we don't know who he is. If you have someone in mind who you think might have broken 3RR lately on the same article, you can bring a new report here on your own initiative. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't get the point. If there's an accusation of impropriety, spell it out for me? OK, I do get it now. You're accusing me of dodging having my IP address logged in the report. See further above for the explanation of the wrong IP. 92.11.162.47 (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * O'K. I just reported one of them below. There are others.Biophys (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If there are others please include them as well. Making a report that you back up with evidence and then make a further accusation without backing that up with evidence is a misuse of the well defined process on this page. 92.11.162.47 (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you User:Top Gun?. Please respond.Biophys (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Congratulations on finally being able to come out and say it though, rather than just surreptitiously implying it. As I said here, I suggest you do the check user so you can get over whatever concerns you have. 92.9.79.191 (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Top Gun reported by User:Biophys (Result: 3 days by Viridae independent of this report)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 03:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:17:31, 11 August 2008
 * 2nd revert:17:56, 11 August 2008
 * 3rd revert:17:49, 11 August 2008
 * 4th revert:21:13, 11 August 2008
 * 5th revert:22:29, 11 August 2008

This user is a regular. He knows about 3RR rule. Two last reverts concern a different subject than three first reverts. Note that User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog was blocked for a week (see case above), as a result of edit warring with that user. It remains unknown who was the user reporting the "Captain".Biophys (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The IP that reported Captain Obvious was me and I'm not Top Gun‎. See Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR or this diff for more details. 92.11.162.47 (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that User:Top Gun has been previously indefinitely blocked for copyright violations but released in a hope that he can reform. Apparently, he could not reform.Biophys (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've let aware of the threads. Top Gun is currently blocked for 72h, but I would like to see the user blocked indefinitely in light of the cases.  seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  04:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It is quite possible that "Captain" caught him with a new copyright violation (the link above)Biophys (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See where I have taken it to ANI for help and some other opinions. Viridae Talk  08:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:65.216.70.60 reported by User:RGTraynor (Result: unrelated block )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 16:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 08:18, 12 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 10:29, 12 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 12:02, 12 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 12:03, 12 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:16, 12 August 2008


 * Comment: User:65.216.70.60 has already been tempblocked for user page vandalism connected with this 3RR incident.    RGTraynor  19:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If he's already blocked for 24 hours (even for something unrelated), then there's no need to do anything further. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:99.141.31.224 reported by User:Wildhartlivie (Result: 12 hours )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 23:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:49, 12 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 03:02, 12 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:02, 12 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 18:26, 12 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:52, 12 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 18:50, 12 August 2008
 * for 12 hours. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Wehrmacht007 reported by User:StarScream1007 (Result: page protected)
Time reported: 23:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 3RR violation on


 * Previous version reverted to - 12:21, August 12, 2008
 * 1st Rv-17:30, August 12, 2008
 * 2nd RV-17:34, August 12, 2008
 * 3rd Rv-17:45, August 12, 2008
 * 4th Rv-18:12, August 12, 2008
 * Diff of 3RR warning 17:47 August 12, 2008


 * He isn't the only one edit warring, though he appears to be the only one who has broken 3RR. Nobody seems to be trying to use the talk page, so maybe this will help get you guys to discuss disputes rather than edit war. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:68.188.33.37 reported by User:The Rogue Penguin (Result: Page protected)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 07:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:05, August 12, 2008


 * 1st revert: 22:17, August 12, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 22:58, August 12, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 23:24, August 12, 2008
 * 4th revert: 23:42, August 12, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 23:28, August 12, 2008


 * Comment Repeated readdition of line about character being missing. I accidentally went past three when cleaning after my third revert, so I have self-reverted. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikiarrangementeditor reported by User:Roguegeek (Result: 1 week)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 08:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:56, August 12, 2008


 * 1st revert: 20:47, August 11, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 15:44, August 12, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:41, August 12, 2008
 * 4th revert: 19:19, August 12, 2008


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


 * Additional notes: Wikiarrangementeditor has been blocked on 4 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 48 hours. With comments to his edits such as this, this, and this, he seems emotionally invested and hell bent on making sure his edits stick. I'm sure this wont be the last time he violates 3RR.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 08:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 08:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Tripping Nambiar reported by User:Anwar saadat (Result: both blocked 96 h )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 14:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Notes - User:Tripping Nambiar removed the 3RR Warning that was placed on his talk page. He has not contributed any link or information to this article in the past one year. His only interest seems to be the section on racial identity. He removed links and asks for links. For instace, Sonagar are Tamil-speaking Muslims of race separate from Dravidian race. He refuses to acknowledge this multi-ethnic reality despite so many links provided in that article. He believes Chulia, Mamak, Kayalar, Lebbai, Marakayar, Rowther et al all belong to the same race. Looking at his log, I believe his edits to be disruptive and based on cocooned stereotypes. He managed to stick to 2RR daily for some time. His misleading edit summaries are confrontational. For instance, he calls Anwar Ibrahim was not of Tamil origin though links are provided in that article. Anwar (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems as though both violated 3RR, and both have certainly been indulging in extensive edit-warring. 96 hours for both. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Both blocks reviewed and both endorsed. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Fasach Nua reported by User:Aaron_carass (Result: Inactionable)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 15:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:01, 11 August 2008

The user has recieved warnings User talk:Fasach Nua. Diff of the warnings 1, 2, 3.
 * 1st revert: 19:55, 11 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 20:03, 11 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 20:13, 11 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 20:49, 11 August 2008
 * 5th revert: 08:10, 12 August 2008
 * 6th revert: 07:57, 13 August 2008
 * 7th revert: 14:03, 13 August 2008

The user has also repeated this edit style on several other pages about 'National Football Teams'. See User talk:Fasach Nua and User talk:Fasach Nua for failed attempts at discussion and some examples of this behavior:
 * Spain national football team
 * 19:31, 11 August 2008
 * 20:09, 11 August 2008
 * Latvia national football team
 * 19:27, 11 August 2008
 * 20:09, 11 August 2008
 * Germany national football team
 * 08:05, 11 August 2008
 * 18:16, 11 August 2008
 * 18:28, 11 August 2008
 * 08:16, 12 August 2008
 * 13:41, 13 August 2008
 * 15:44, 13 August 2008

See also the histories of the following pages for more examples:

Finland national football team, Sweden national football team, Lithuania national football team, France national football team, Club América, Northern Ireland national football team, Serbia national football team, Czech Republic national football team, Russia national football team, Netherlands national football team, Republic of Ireland national football team


 * This might be better suited at WP:ANI, because there isn't technically an actionable violation here, but it is disruptive behaviour. Sceptre (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks. Aaron carass (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, actually he violated 3RR twice on but I agree with Sceptre that this is the wrong place to post it. I do not think a 3RR-block, even if warranted, would do any good.  So  Why  review me! 17:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

User:The Thunderer reported by User:Domer48 (Result: Editor final-warned)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 18:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:24, 12 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 15:15, 13 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 15:22, 13 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:41, 13 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 16:49, 13 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 1 August 2008

Involved in an edit war and reverting four different editors. Domer48 'fenian'  18:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RR warning is not that at all. Editor has not been warned that I can see.  I will do so now.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, wrong diff. I've changed it to the right one. Domer48 'fenian'  18:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You're still pointing to a warning that's weeks old now. There has been no current warning. Furthermore, I notice that yourself and User:BigDunc and a 'new' editor are now tag-teaming this editor - A l is o n  ❤ 18:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No current warning is needed, only for the editor to be aware of the rule. I have not even edited the article since the 24 July, how am I "teaming" anyone? Domer48 'fenian'  18:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Editor has been final-warned. The next revert will result in a block - A l is o n  ❤ 18:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's patently obvious what's going on here but I will extend good faith and not accuse anyone of pre-planning this tag teaming effort. May I suggest again that editors opposed to the UDR just don't edit the page.  If you have something constructive to add then add it but this removing of information because it doesn't fit in with an individuials own views on the Irish troubles is not what Wikipedia is about in my view. The Thunderer (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy reported by User:Arcayne (Result:Both blocked 48 hours )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 15:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:05, August 10, 2008


 * 1st revert: 11:33-39 August 11 (successive edits)
 * 2nd revert: 18:24, August 11
 * 3rd revert: 08:25 August 12
 * 4th revert: 10:43, August 12, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: editor is a long-time editor with an equally long history of edit-warring and 3RR. His last block was for 96 hours - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Both blocked 48 hours. DreamGuy's 96 hour block was for incivility, not edit warring, and the current count at one locus of the article is DreamGuy 5, Arcayne 4.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Arcayne had 5 if you include the meatpuppet he called in to game the system. More importantly, however, Arthur claims he blocked both of us 48 hours but he almost immediately after went in and unblocked Arcayne afterwards and then proceeded to go onto the talk page of the article in question and pretend to set up a "consensus" while I was blocked. Arthur Rubin in the past has been cautioned by other admins to not take action against me because of his longstanding personal conflict and his habit of engaging in edit wars himself and using blocking to win edit wars. For a while there he was also looking at my edit history to go to new articles and blind revert purely for harassment purposes. Arcayne went and did that himself in this latest incident, following me to articles he's never been on to revert while including a reference to me personally. Obviously the block is over at this point, but I thought I'd post a response pointing out Arthur Rubin's abusive and deceptive actions just for the sake of having it here. DreamGuy (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I rather object to to the suggestion that I used any meat-puppets, or have "gamed the system". Out of the three participants in this matter, only DreamGuy has been blocked for such behavior. I presume I was unblocked because I wanted to defend accusations that I had been edit-warring or baiting. As I had not twisted your arm into breaking 3RR and had tried to reach a compromise with you, I wasn't re-blocked. As you had in fact violated 3RR, you remained blocked, and instead chose to attack those blocking you, you remained blocked. I hope that clarifies matters for you. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not cautioned against taking action against DG, I was cautioned against attempting to communicate with him. Let's get the facts straight.  The ANI thread in which I brought the matter up suggested extending the blocks, but I still see no reason why a parole not to edit the article in question isn't adequate.  It's not a "special enforcement area", so I couldn't just impose an article ban.
 * And, in this instance, I followed the 3RR. I agree with your edits and commentary on SRA, so I don't see why I thought (and still think) your actions on photoshopping and related articles many months ago were vandalism should be considered as my being in a conflict with you, although you apparently see it that way.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

User:86.14.252.195 (Talk) reported by User:Ereunetes (Result: Malformed report)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: --Ereunetes (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME
 * Please include a link to the warning that the user was given before violating the 3RR, and include a previous version and not a diff to indicate what version the page was reverted to. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This IP has since been blocked 48 hours by User:PhilKnight for vandalism, independent of this report. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Caribbean H.Q. reported by User:HiDrNick (Result: Stale, No Violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 11:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:09, 13 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 09:09, 13 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 21:49, 13 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 22:51, 13 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:56, 13 August 2008
 * 5th revert: 04:57, 14 August 2008

Brazen edit warring on Chupacabra. This user is aware of the three-revert rule, although they don't seem to understand it properly. Hi DrNick ! 11:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

, last edit to this article was more than 24 hours ago and the user is active doing other things. Not likely a violation at any rate. --Selket Talk 01:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Not likely a violation?" Did you bother to read the report, or do you have trouble understanding the three-revert rule as well?  The stale I can understand; believe me, this isn't the first time an administrator gets reported for edit warring while the other admins look the other way and wait for the report to "go stale".  But to say that there was no violation shows just a surprising amount of ignorance.   Hi DrNick ! 04:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

User:The Thunderer reported by User:BigDunc (Result: page protected )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 18:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:24, 12 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 15:15, 13 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 15:22, 13 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:41, 13 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 16:49, 13 August 2008
 * 5th revert: 20:03, 13 August 2008
 * 6th revert: 20:34, 13 August 2008
 * 7th revert: 11:05, 14 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 18:46, 13 August 2008

Despite Alison saying in the report above one more revert from this editor would result in a block, he has reverted three more times since then making a total of seven in less than 24 hours. BigDunc Talk 12:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have objected elsewhere to this warning and submit that I have been the subject of a certain amount of gaming.  In an attempt to resolve the issue with other editors I have started a work page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Thunderer/Ulster_Defence_Regiment and also posted a set of objectives on the talk page.   I've invited BigDunc and others to participate in an editing and discussion session to see if we can agree something which might resolve the issues which seem to exist.  I would very much appreciate anyone examining the objectives and perhaps commenting or correcting anything which they think is inappropriate.  If this solution is successful it will hopefully prevent any such further reports on this page concerning the article.   I thank the involved admins thus far for their guidance, judgement and advice.The Thunderer (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

User:69.140.12.112 reported by User:Wildhartlivie (Result: Incomplete)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 18:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:52, 14 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 13:27, 13 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:28, 13 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 01:46, 14 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 13:32, 14 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 02:55, 14 August 2008


 * Comment: This IP has been acting in concert with User:76.172.164.214, beginning here at 11:22, 13 August 2008. User:76.172.164.214, who may also be an IP sock of banned user Nyannrunning, was blocked for his/her part. In combination, the two IPs have made 10 reverts to remove a block of material, which has resulted in efforts by seven different editors to monitor this vandalism. Neither IP will address the removal. Waiting 5 minutes past 24 hours after the first revert to avoid four reversions is gaming the system and is still a violation of WP:3RR.
 * The "previous version reverted to" must be from before all the reverting took place. This helps us establish that the first edit, in particular, is a revert to a previous version. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Gene Poole reported by User:Bidgee (Result: Resolved)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 02:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:34, 15 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 00:55, 15 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 01:11, 15 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 01:12, 15 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 01:19, 15 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (No warning was given but User has been banned for past edit warring on Wikipedia)


 * Comment: Gene Poole added a sock puppet template without evidence and the issue with the template was raised at AN Gene Poole is adding "sock warnings" to my user page and the talk page of 3RR User page 3RR. Bidgee (talk) 02:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The "previous version reverted to" must be from before all the reverting took place. This helps us establish that the first edit, in particular, is a revert to a previous version. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand 3RR reporting here. If you're talking about previous version then there was none since the page didn't exist. Bidgee (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. As the edit war has stopped now I won't take any further action. Blocks are preventative not punitive. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Koalorka reported by User:216.104.47.98 (Result: No violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 07:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: |23:56, 30 July 2008


 * 1st revert: |04:40, 9 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: |04:44, 9 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: |03:11, 13 August 2008
 * 4th revert: |03:54, 14 August 2008
 * 5th revert: |03:54, 14 August 2008
 * 6th revert: |02:26, 15 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Comment: This user always pushes his POV in the European cuisine and in the List of European countries by population. It seems he is unstoppable and he won't give up edit warring. He also uploaded some racist videos in YouTube but they were banned... 216.104.47.98 (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: He doesn't seem to have violated the 3RR limit at any time in a 24 hour period. What this IP user is calling "POV" is a content dispute over whether a particular picture is baklava or a pierogi. The "racist video" accusation needs some kind of diff to prove it, nothing jumps out on the user's contribs page. Dayewalker (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Tmtoulouse reported by User:Gacuster (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 14:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:22, 15 August 2008


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 01:22, 15 August 2008


 * Comment: User Tmtoulouse is in violation of 3RR policy and constantly reverts to non biographical information and libelous comments about the living persons biography. Violation Wikpedia policy WP:LIVEWP:BLP Also reverts against editors consensus of the article - no discussion of revision needed on talk page per Wiki policy. --Gacuster (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Some charges of WP:BLP violations are floating around, but Tmtoulouse has been the defender of a much longer version of the article that includes statements about Esther Hicks channeling the dead. Some of the other participants argue this longer version is a BLP violation, though it is hard to pin down specifics. I don't see any BLP defence for Tmtoulouse's reverts, but I hope anyone who thinks that Tmtoulouse has made reverts that are immune under BLP will speak up here. Since Tmtoulouse was blocked for edit-warring in June they shouldn't need to be warned again about 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Shevashalosh reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: page protected)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 23:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:01


 * 1st revert: 18:36
 * 2nd revert: 18:47
 * 3rd revert: 18:57
 * 4th revert: 19:30

Please, take note of this former 3RR violation
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 18:53
 * dvdrw 02:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Tedickey reported by User:InternetHero (Result: no vio)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 11:00, 15 August 2008


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Comment: Basically, I got my info from 2 books that were labeled in the talk-page here. I tried to reason with him, but it didn't work. Next step: you guys. The info I gave is as accurate as possible. Thanks for your time. InternetHero (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No violation; the report is also malformed (for example, the indicated version reverted to is after all the claimed reverts). The only edit warring going on is with regards to tags, and the complaint there is not without merit. east718 //  talk  //  email  // 22:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you check again? I fixed the links. How is the claim of POV viable? I don't understand: I used the info from the text. InternetHero (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

East718: I won't dispute your conclusion at all, but I'd point out that your comment, "The only edit warring going on is with regards to tags,..." is correct only with regard to user Tedickey. Otherwise, there is a great deal of edit warring going on in that article. (No response to this comment is required/expected.) --Hordaland (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Tmtoulouse reported by User:Ahnalira OUtcome: page protected
3RR violation by Tmtoulouse on Esther HicksBiography of a Live Person--Ahnalira (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC) (UTC)
 * (cur) (last) 18:04, 16 August 2008 Tmtoulouse (Talk | contribs) m (2,680 bytes) (to) (undo)
 * (cur) (last) 18:03, 16 August 2008 Tmtoulouse (Talk | contribs) m (2,677 bytes) (→The Secret) (undo)
 * (cur) (last) 18:01, 16 August 2008 Tmtoulouse (Talk | contribs) (2,676 bytes) (rewrote secret section) (undo)
 * (:cur) (last) 17:58, 16 August 2008 Tmtoulouse (Talk | contribs) (2,149 bytes) (fixing broken references tag..again....) (undo)
 * (cur) (last) 17:55, 16 August 2008 Tmtoulouse (Talk | contribs) (2,206 bytes) (rewrote lede) (undo)
 * (cur) (last) 17:53, 16 August 2008 Ahnalira (Talk | contribs) (1,936 bytes) (undo)
 * (cur) (last) 17:50, 16 August 2008 Tmtoulouse (Talk | contribs) (3,337 bytes) (→The Secret) (undo)
 * (cur) (last) 17:50, 16 August 2008 Tmtoulouse (Talk | contribs) (3,355 bytes) (seems well sourced and Hick's major claim to fame is her work with the secret) (undo)
 * (cur) (last) 17:47, 16 August 2008 Gacuster (Talk | contribs) (1,902 bytes) (No discussion needed - Bio of a living person) (undo)
 * (cur) (last) 17:28, 16 August 2008 Tmtoulouse (Talk | contribs) (3,116 bytes) (if you are going to gut a page you could learn how wikipedia works) (undo)
 * (cur) (last) 17:28, 16 August 2008 Tmtoulouse (Talk | contribs) (3,140 bytes) (undo)
 * (cur) (last) 17:27, 16 August 2008 Tmtoulouse (Talk | contribs) (3,116 bytes) (no reason this materila is not in there) (undo)
 * (cur) (last) 17:15, 16 August 2008 Tmtoulouse (Talk | contribs) (1,900 bytes) (undo)
 * (cur) (last) 17:11, 16 August 2008 Ahnalira (Talk | contribs) (1,892 bytes) (Pure biography for a biography page is the best way to maintain WP:LIVE per discussions) (undo)
 * (cur) (last) 17:10, 16 August 2008 Tmtoulouse (Talk | contribs) (6,616 bytes) (undo)

Tmtoulouse insists upon introducing contentious and potentially libelous information to this biography, irrespective of editor input on discussion page WP:LIVE and 'coatracks'. He was just came off a ban for violation of the 3rr policy, and started doing it again.

I tried to make links per Wiki request, but TmToulouse is much more clever than I am in the use of the history/edit page, and I can't make sense of how he worked the system... so I just copied and pasted the pattern. Hope this will be good enough.--Ahnalira (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To me this translates to you can't find a violation of 3RR and just don't like my contributions and are seeking to have me blocked. There is an army of single purpose newly registered accounts all making the same edits and refusing to discuss it on the talk page except to say they are exempt from having to discuss it. They have appear to have a major conflict of interest. My edits today have focused on trying to find a compromise wording/structure but each proposal gets reverted with the comment "no discussion needed." Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A group of newly registered editors and some anonymous IP editors have been consistently reverting the page back to Esther's official biography. When asked to justify themselves, there's a lot of WP:BLP and WP:BOLD comments. They are apparently of the belief that these policies absolve them of the need to ever explain themselves. Removing contentions information is fine, but removing non-contentions information with zero discussion is a ridiculous abuse of policy. I think that User:Tmtoulouse has been very patient and tried to engage in constructive discussions. The COI editors involved simply want Esther's WP bio to be written by her.
 * I will also remind you that | Ahnalira's first edit to the article had an edit summary of:
 * "Added the first name where only Hicks was written and clarified definition of what she does slightly. As webmaster of Abraham-Hicks Publications, these changes were requested of me by Esther Hicks"
 * About three days ago, four newbie editors who all share the same opinions started getting involved. Something is not right here. I would really like to see some non-COI editors come in and join this. Bhimaji (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, this is a request for Admin to assess if 3RR is violated, not a place to further debate. I'm relatively new in this system, but I think there is a place to request Admin to check for sockpuppets and other other issues of policy.  I'm not sure that following me here to make personal accusations has anything to do with the 3RR policy.--Ahnalira (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Context is often useful when someone is being made aware of the situation for the first time. No one has accused you personally of anything. For what it is worth I have started pursuing the questions of single purpose accounts/sockpuppets elsewhere. But as to this particularly page and issue, I merely ask that you show me the 4 reverts or withdraw the complaint. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: This article page is a contested BLP, and both sides seemed to have taken it to the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * page protected. Please submit future reports using the correct format. Spartaz Humbug! 21:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Be Black Hole Sun reported by User:Fair Deal (Result: three days)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 16:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:02, 14 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 08:11, 16 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 09:48, 16 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 11:59, 16 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 12:42, 16 August 2008

Comment User:Be Black Hole Sun has an ongoing edit war over content with several editors and appears to have used an IP (195.92.X) to try and avoid a 3RR warning. User has several previous blocks for edit warring and disruptive behavior so he understands what WP:3RR is. Fair Deal (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Stale; the revert war ended over seven hours ago. I'll watch the article for a while to see if anything pops up. east718 //  talk  //  email  // 23:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The edit warring didn't cease; Be Black Hole Sun has been blocked for three days. east718 //  talk  //  email  // 13:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Fadiga09 reported by User:KSA13 (Result: 1 week for edit warring)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 17:31, 17 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
 * 17:06, 11 August 2008
 * 17:02, 13 August 2008
 * 17:02, 15 August 2008
 * 17:21, 16 August 2008
 * 17:04, 17 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 3RR warning
 * Note: This is not a conventional 3RR, but the whole pattern shows edit warring. Every one of the 13 edits listed above, over a period greater than two weeks, restores Fadiga09's preferred version of the article. (He wants to include two previous cup competitions in the table of games, but none of the other editors agree with this). Fadiga09 has never discussed this issue on the article Talk page. Blocked 1 week for edit warring. (The unusual length is due to the large number of previous blocks). EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Ashley kennedy3 reported by User:Ave Caesar (Result: 4 days)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 17:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:16, 17 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 09:48, 17 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 15:12, 17 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:21, 17 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 16:52, 17 August 2008


 * User has been blocked for disruptive editing before. Diff of 3RR warning: 16:45, 17 August 2008
 * due to a 3RR violation on Hezbollah. The four-day duration reflects the previous blocks for disruptive editing under the Arbcom sanction. This editor vigorously defends his own idea of balance in the article, but he should slow down and try harder to reach consensus. He should be aware that old-fashioned edit warring on an article subject to Arbcom discretionary sanctions is not going to accomplish much. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Digiterata reported by User:Narson (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 00:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:45, 16 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 23:09, 17 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 23:30, 17 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 23:44, 17 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 00:09, 18 August 2008


 * User has been warned several times for 3RRs and was blcked for it previously (relating to annother page):
 * User made a good faith edit which has been removed arbitrarily without sufficient cause. User's contributions was initially reverted by User:Narson without any explanation. User:Narson then continued to delete the contribution arbitrarily and without sufficient explanation. I will not edit the referenced article again today, but I protest this 3RR as unwarranted and excessive use of force in lieu of constructive discussion of a good faith edit. --Digiterata (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering your history of 3RR warnings and a block for it, I am sure tha you know saying Good Faith over and over does not absolve. You have also pretty blatantly threatened to edit war, indicating any block would indeed be preventative. Narson (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User:61.229.246.213 reported by User:Certified.Gangsta (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: --Certified.Gangsta (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * This IP address is a single-purpose account who only edits the aforementioned article. His insistence to include a paragraph of "original research" despite being reverted by 3 different editors is highly vandalistic. He "violated" 3RR despite being warned. A lengthier block is appropriate.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the block should be "lengthier" than as this IP doesn't appear to have a block history. 24 hours should be enough for now. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Balkantropolis reported by User:Rjecina (Result = 55 hours and the Balkan notice)

 * Three-revert rule violation on article

Time reported: 23:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 1 20:00, 18 August
 * 2 20:48, 18 August
 * My editorial and 3 RR warning on his talk page 21:08, 18 August 2008
 * 3 21:10, 18 August 2008
 * 4 21:36, 18 August 2008

Blocked by Toddst1 (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User:68.10.150.174 reported by JBsupreme (result: malformed report)
3RR violation with Christian Bale article. Vandalous edits anyhow.

JBsupreme (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That IP has now been blocked 55 hours for vandalism anyway, and the Christian Bale article has been semi-protected. (Death rumors being inserted by IPs). EdJohnston (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Shevashalosh reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: AN discussion led to block)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 15:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:44


 * 1st revert: 11:19
 * 2nd revert: 11:48
 * 3rd revert: 15:10
 * 4th revert: 15:44


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 15:17


 * Please note that this is the third article on which Shevashalosh has violated 3RR (See here and here). Protecting the article isn't the solution. She doesn't "get it".


 * 5th revert: 15:52

User:JasonDeanBrock reported by User:Commodore Sloat (Result: JasonDeanBrock blocked for 55 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 21:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:26, 18 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 23:45, 18 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 01:06, 19 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 01:28, 19 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 09:41, 19 August 2008
 * 5th revert: 10:02, 19 August 2008
 * 6th revert: 14:35, 19 August 2008 (partial revert)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 09:45, 19 August 2008
 * Warning on talk page of article: 09:46, 19 August 2008
 * Third warning: 10:07, 19 August 2008
 * Yet another warning: 10:09, 19 August 2008

Please note when determining the length of the block that this user continued to revert after several warnings. Please also note that his reverts included several grave BLP violations (discussed in the warnings above) and that his edit summaries and comments in talk are peppered with personal attacks, some of which were refactored by myself. Also, this user may be using an anon ip as a sockpuppet; another personal attack had to be refactored, and the anon ip is the one who originally inserted the disputed material. csloat (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked Toddst1 (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User:BGC reported by User:MFNickster (Result: Both blocked )

 * Three-revert rule violation on . User has also persisted on Wind & Wuthering

Time reported: 02:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * The user User:MarkRae has been identified as a sockpuppet who repeatedly erased my work (which I reported). I reinstated my work with appropriate citations. In light of the sockpuppet's behavior, I don't see how reverting the work back to the correct version can be construed as edit warring, especially as the user was already blocked for his unruly behavior. If so, I expect a thorough explanation.


 * The first two "incidences" of reverting occurred before the last 24 hours, and are therefore inadmissible. BGC (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * User:BGC reverted more than 3 times within a 24-hour period; also, the source given was under contention and he declined to discuss it on the talk page to reach a consensus, preferring to revert instead. MFNickster (talk) 05:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Both editors have been blocked. Tiptoety  talk 05:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Accountforwp reported by User:Jamesbeat (Result: 24 hour block)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 12:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the original version that user Accountforwp is constantly reverting.
 * Previous version reverted to: 12:19, 20 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 21:45, 19 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 08:40, 20 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 11:43, 20 August 2008
 * 4th evert: 11:45, 20 August 2008

On August, 17 User:Accountforwp added information to the article that is violating WP:OR and WP:RS. After reverting his edits the user has repeatedly been asked by myself and User:3vil-Lyn not to add the data (see his talk page here.) He also added that data on the article's talk page!

This user may also be a sockpuppet of a user recently banned indefinitely from Wikipedia as his actions and wording ressemble very much the actions and wording of that user, who since his ban has created multiple sockpuppet accounts, which got also deleted and banned. Jamesbeat (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

User:Gamaliel reported by User:CENSEI (Result: Declined)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 16:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:51, 19 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 18:51, 19 August 2008 While this may have been a very POV edit, that in itself is not considered vandalism
 * 2nd revert: 20:34, 19 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 03:25, 20 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 15:09, 20 August 2008 removed a source and wording added in the prior edit to the article

After noticing this 3RR from Gamaliel, I notified him of it and politely asked him to revert himself. He refused. After reviewing another article she was recently involved in, I noticed another 3RR violation in that one, although its over 2 months old:see the June 10th and 11th edits. This violation is made more troubling because Gamaliel is an admin, who routinely blocks people for violation of this policy. She should be held to it as stringently as she holds it to others. CENSEI (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The first "revert" is clear vandalism. I removed the introduction of a deliberate factual error (the same error that has been introduced repeatedly by IPs on this article) accompanied by a slur on her parentage. The last "revert" was a new edit which incorporated new material along with changing some of the old. If any administrator agrees with Censei's assessment that this is a 3RR violation, I will revert myself. If not, please ask this editor (who has a history of contentious and uncivil behavior which I've warned him about before) to stop wasting my time. Gamaliel (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In regards to the June 10th edits on a different, unrelated article mentioned by Censei, some of those "reverts" involved removing plagiarism and copyrighted material. Gamaliel (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If it was “clearly vandalism” I would not have included it. As I stated, a blatantly POV edit, is not vandalism. In regard to the June 10th edits on Judicial Watch, there is nothing on talk or in the edit summaries about plagiarism or Copyvio, only an argument about wording and NPOV, Gamaliel must be thinking about a different article. I only bring it up to establish that she has a history of this kind of behavior. CENSEI (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Two incidents taken out of context do not add up to a history of anything. On the talk page there is a record of me discussing in detail our policies on plagiarism and copyright to a new user on the dates in question. Gamaliel (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Editors are given some latitude with reverts of material that can be questioned on WP:BLP grounds. Gamaliel did raise the topic of BLP in Talk:Helen Thomas. His first revert does look like a revert of vandalism, since an IP had added text referring to Thomas's "illiterate parents." His last edit accepts the 'tirade' critique of Helen Thomas that he was reverting before, but rewrites it with new sources. That fourth edit doesn't seem to be a pure revert, so there are only two reverts altogether. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sure with some digging in these archives, I could find lots more. Would you like me to, or can you drop it? The record on the Judicial Watch article is there for everyone to see, to I will leave it at that.


 * But back to this question, you should undo yourself before anyone concurs with this. The allegation has been made, evidence presented and a good faith showing would clear this up. CENSEI (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, snide insinuation followed by a request for me to act in good faith. What chutzpah. You are welcome to keep digging through my edit history. I stand by my work. I am willing to revert myself at the request of an independent administrator, but not at the request of a user with a history of civility problems towards people who disagree with him. Gamaliel (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * WOW, where to begin with that attack ... but on second thought, you can have the last word here, I wouldnt want you to say anything you might regret later. CENSEI (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So you think that insinuating that I have an edit history full of policy violations based on no evidence is appropriate behavior? Gamaliel (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Johnny0929 reported by User:Justinfr (Result:12 hour block )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 16:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:09, 19 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 12:04, 20 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 12:06, 20 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 12:12, 20 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 12:19, 20 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:17, 20 August 2008


 * Comment. I believe User:96.249.147.90 and User:Johnny0929 are the same editor reverting me. I repeatedly asked them to explain their edits (see here) and on their talk pages to no avail. justinfr (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked Johnny 12 hours, warned Justin Toddst1 (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * His revert of my edit (i.e., the ones that violated 3RR) is still the current version of the page. Am I allowed to return the page to my original version? justinfr (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't. The fact that one user violated 3RR doesn't exempt anyone else from the rule. I haven't counted enough to be sure if your reverting would break 3RR, but at any rate, the point is not to edit war at all, and as you were recently warned, reverting would be a bad idea. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood, thanks. justinfr (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

User:McJeff reported by User:Theserialcomma (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 02:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:23, 20 August 2008

if you read the 4th revert, you will see that my attempt at a compromise was quite reasonable and still ignored.
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 01:41, 21 August 2008


 * this user has a pattern of incivility, disruptive editing, and edit warring. see [] where he calls other editors "tards and faggots" in his edit summary. [] edit warring over the inclusion of a blog. edit warring over the inclusion of an anonymous blog [] []Theserialcomma (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 3RR violation on the article Talk, plus an apparent violation of Talk page guidelines by removing relevant comments by other editors. A Talk discussion about changing the article's picture is obviously relevant to the article. McJeff is an experienced editor and is familiar with the 3RR policy, although the 3RR warning in this case was after his fourth revert. After being informed of the 3RR, McJeff still did not restore the Talk comments he had removed. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Aks818guy reported by Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions (Result: 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 05:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 03:05, 21 August 2008  (edit summary: "/* Objections to the fact of evolution */")
 * 2) 04:25, 21 August 2008  (edit summary: "/* Objections to the fact of evolution */")
 * 3) 04:31, 21 August 2008  (edit summary: "/* Objections to Darwinian evolution */")
 * 4) 04:32, 21 August 2008  (edit summary: "/* Objections to the fact of evolution */")
 * 5) 04:34, 21 August 2008  (edit summary: "/* Objections to the fact of evolution */")
 * 6) 04:41, 21 August 2008  (edit summary: "/* Objections to the fact of evolution */")
 * 7) 04:58, 21 August 2008  (edit summary: "/* Evolution as fact not theory */")
 * 8) 05:01, 21 August 2008  (edit summary: "/* Evolution as fact not theory */")


 * Diff of warning: here

— Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 05:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24 hours for edit warring. east718 //  talk  //  email  // 05:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

User:61.68.170.170 reported by User:Rootology (Result: Blocked for 24 hours )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 03:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 14:18, August 20, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 14:21, August 20, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 19:50, August 20, 2008
 * 4th revert: 19:55, August 20, 2008
 * 5th revert: 20:00, August 20, 2008
 * 6th revert: 20:05, August 20, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:04, August 20, 2008
 * Okay, I have blocked the IP for 24 hours. Tiptoety  talk 03:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have just read that a user who has not been warned about the three revert rule is unlikely to be blocked. I was never warned and in fact admit in the talk page for the article under question that I'd never heard of edit-wars while at the same time agreeing to not revert until the dispute was resolved. Why was I blocked then? 61.68.140.34 (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've blocked this IP for 24 hours for block evasion. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

User:69.14.195.13 reported by User:Protonk (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 03:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:46, 11 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 22:33, 21 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 22:35, 21 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 22:37, 21 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:38, 21 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:39, 21 August 2008
 * Diff of 3RR warningX2: 22:48, 21 August 2008


 * for 1 day. CIreland (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Accountforwp reported by User:Jamesbeat (result: 1 week block)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: Jamesbeat (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:16, 22 August 2008   This is the original version that user Accountforwp is constantly reverting.


 * 1st revert: 23:29, 21 August 2008]
 * 2nd revert: 08:11, 22 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 09:57, 22 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 10:36, 22 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This user was blocked for 24 hours two days ago. Shortly after his unblocking he reverted the page again without comment and inserted the information that is violating WP:RS and WP:OS. Again I have asked him on his talk page to stop reverting the page and add this information. The user has just reverted again. Please revert the page to the previous agreed upon version mentioned above. Thank you. (Jamesbeat (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC))

User:CreazySuit reported by User:Jclemens (result: no violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.


 * 1st revert: 14:21, 21 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 14:50, 21 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 15:00, 21 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 16:46, 22 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I first became involved in this page as a 3O provider. User:CreazySuit has repeatedly replaced article tags without explaining why he thinks they should be placed. Prior to this most recent edit warring, this was his only contribution to the article talk page since April. Editor has declined numerous requests to engage in constructive discussion, and has continued to revert the tag removal without explanation. Jclemens (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This doesn't appear to be a 3RRvio. Am I missing something? Khoikhoi 00:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:3RR "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks." This editor had been refusing repeated requests to discuss the specific issues that would prompt the tagging he was insisting upon.  4 reverts in 26 hours and change, of the exact same edit, without any attempt to discuss the reason for the reversion, is clearly violating the spirit of 3RR, and the policy itself states that the technical edit count is less important than the behaviour. Jclemens (talk) 03:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Revert wars about tags are confusing and hard to rule on in a crisp manner. There seems to be a bit of stubbornness on both sides. One side thinks an explanation for the tags is needed, and the other side that it has already been given. If after a longer discussion there is no movement, you might raise this again on this board. If one side won't explain, try giving your own summary of what you think their position is, and ask them if it's right. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Apr1fool reported by User:Simon Bar Sinister (Result: No violation )
In the article Disney's Wide World of Sports this user keeps changing the physical location from Kissimmee, Florida to Walt Disney World, Florida, There was discussion in the article's talkpage providing a link to the official Disney's Wide World of Sports website contact page showing the address in Kissimmee and not in Lake Buena Vista where Walt Disney World is located.

Their reverts are as follows:
 * Revert #1 - 11:20, 20 August 2008
 * Revert #2 - 11:24, 20 August 2008
 * Revert #3 - 19:43, 22 August 2008
 * Revert #4 - 19:49, 22 August 2008
 * Though my personal opinion is that you are correct about the address, there is no 3RR violation here. A group of consecutive edits by one editor counts as at most one revert, so Apr1fool only made two reverts altogether. If Apr1fool continues to revert, come back to this noticeboard. (He has not participated on the Talk page). EdJohnston (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (Reposted from User talk:EdJohnston) The edits that I have made to the WWoS article, and those made to other WDW articles, are based on lengthy discussion that took place on Talk:Walt Disney World Resort regarding the location of the resort and its various properties, some of which I participated in.  The final concensus was that Walt Disney World Resort would be used as the location for all of the WDW properties.  I explained this to Simon Bar Sinister, but he feels that his opinion is the correct opinion since he lives in Kissimmee.  WWoS is not in Kissimmee, even though the mailing address is Kissimmee.  A history of the WWoS article will show that previous edits to the location have been changed back to Walt Disney World Resort by numerous users.  Simon Bar Sinister has only been making edits to this article for a few days, so I feel he has no reason to accuse me of vandalism.  I believe that research will show that I have been making proper edits, that I have been polite towards Simon Bar Sinister, and that maybe Simon is the one who deserves a warning.  Please let me know if there is going to be any further action in this matter, and what the final outcome is.  I will not make any further edits to this article until I hear back from you.  Thank you.  Apr1fool (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel that I should also point out that my reverts were not all made in the same 24 hour period (as the revert history above clearly points out). These reverts were actually more than 2 full days apart. I feel it's important for users to thoroughly understand the appropriate policies before they accuse someone of violating those policies. Please refer to [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR] before reporting any further alleged violations. Thank you. Apr1fool (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Ashley kennedy3 reported by User:Luna Santin (Result:1 month block )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 20:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Inserting "Hasabara" as a see also link
 * Original: 13:49, 22 August 2008
 * Revert: 15:37, 22 August 2008
 * Revert: 09:36, 23 August 2008
 * Revert: 17:07, 23 August 2008
 * Revert: 20:17, 23 August 2008


 * Removing some links from the lead, or tagging them uncited
 * Original: 09:58, 23 August 2008
 * Diff: 13:24, 23 August 2008
 * Revert: 15:56, 23 August 2008
 * Revert: 16:18, 23 August 2008
 * Revert: 17:06, 23 August 2008


 * Mentioning a freeze on Appletree's facebook account
 * Original: 10:18, 23 August 2008
 * Revert: 13:28, 23 August 2008


 * Labeling Andre as a computer science expert
 * Original: 16:03, August 23, 2008
 * Revert: 17:05, 23 August 2008

This is a complex case, obviously, but it's clear that Ashley has sunk a large number of reverts into the page recently (I count 8 revert links, but encourage others to check my math). I might not report this, but I notice they have a history of blocks for edit warring, most recently including a 4-day block which just expired this week. As the three-revert rule applies per page (not per-issue), and they are obviously edit warring shortly after a recent block for the same expired, I see little choice but to request admin intervention. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

blocked for 1 month since this is a common occurrence with this user. Toddst1 (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Accountforwp reported by User:Jamesbeat (Result: 24 hours for the IP)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 10:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:38, 24 August 2008

Initial reverts, which resulted in being blocked for 24 hours on 20 August 2008 and for 1 week on 22 August 2008.

23:29, 21 August 2008

08:11, 22 August 2008

09:57, 22 August 2008

10:36, 22 August 2008

Now the same user is using the IP address 84.81.151.103 to delete major parts of the article. There is not much doubt that it is still the same person as can be seen in the discussion on the article's talk page. He insists that his version, which is very much lacking WP:NPOV has to be kept or the page will be "blanked". For violating NPOV see also comment by user Themfromspace here.

Revert #01 20:50, 23 August 2008

Revert #02 20:51, 23 August 2008

Revert #17 20:59, 23 August 2008

Revert #18 22:39, 23 August 2008

Revert #19 22:40, 23 August 2008

Revert #29 22:48, 23 August 2008

Revert #30 06:53, 24 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Blocked the IP editor . I hope that this article doesn't come back here in a new 3RR report until all the associated WP:BLP issues are properly discussed on the article Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope so, too. This editor or his apparent sockpuppet just told me on my talk page that he will continue to delete this material unless he is allowed to insert his controversial BLP information. So I told him again that he first has to discuss the issue on the article's talk page and try to reach a consensus. Fingers crossed that he will act accordingly this time. At least he does not add the controversial material at the moment. (Jamesbeat (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC))

User:Holla213 reported by User:Kww (Result:Blocked for 24 hours )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 16:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:12, 23 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 13:16, 24 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 13:26, 24 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 13:34, 24 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 13:41, 24 August 2008

And, as icing on the cake,
 * 5th revert: 15:41, 24 August 2008

Anyone that doubts that the IP is a sock should look at the edit histories of the two accounts, especially the fascination with the Harvard Extension School.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 13:36, 24 August 2008

This isn't a widespread edit war, it's limited to one editor that doesn't seem to understand what goes in a lead. Based on the sockpuppeting, I think both the named account and need a block.


 * I've blocked both the user and the IP for 24 hours, Metros (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

User:216.211.57.63 reported by Delicious carbuncle (Result: 72 hours)
. :
 * Three-revert rule violation on

Time reported: 19:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:29, 24 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 18:12, 24 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:49, 24 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 18:55, 24 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:57, 24 August 2008


 * Diff of warning: here

Also, 3RR on Shit Towne, The Beauty of Gray, Mirror Song, and Operation Spirit (The Tyranny of Tradition). This is likely a sockpuppet of User:Swamilive. —Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To match the duration of the block most recently given to User:Swamilive. If sockpuppetry could be conclusively shown then a longer block of the IP might be justified. The only purpose in life of this IP account seems to be to undo redirects created by Delicious carbuncle and others. EdJohnston (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

User:70.45.160.140 reported by User:Vary (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 19:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:55, August 24, 2008


 * 1st revert: 16:58, August 24, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:02, August 24, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 17:13, August 24, 2008
 * 4th revert: 19:50, August 24, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:10, August 24, 2008
 * Please note that it was actually 5 reverts today since this version previously existed at 04:07, 3 December 2007. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Toddst1 (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Noble12345 reported by User:Queerbubbles (Result: No vio)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 23:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: None yet


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * The fourth revert never occurred. CIreland (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Opinoso reported by User:Crazyaboutlost (Result: No vio)

 * Three-revert rule violation on

I'm not sure if I'm doing it right, nor if this is the right place to do so (should it be on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection??), but this user has a seriously issue on pt:wiki and he's trying to make some noise here.

See.

Sorry if I made any mistake.

Crazyaboutlost (talk) 03:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Are you sure you're asking for the right thing? This editor only has one edit to this article in the past week. Dayewalker (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * . Three-revert-rule not violated. CIreland (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Dontworry reported by User:EvaK (Result: No violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.


 * The three-revert-rule prohibits making 4 or more edits in a 24 hour period. That has not occurred. CIreland (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

User:78.149.202.191 reported by User:JdeJ (Result: 48 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 13:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: August 26 16.04


 * 1st revert: 16.08 August 25
 * 2nd revert: 16.11 August 25
 * 3rd revert: 16.20 August 25
 * 4th revert: 16.26 August 25
 * 5th revert: 16.33 August 25
 * 6th revert: 16.37 August 25


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 14.10 August 25 As the user is a sock-puppet of banned troll MagdelenaDiArco, he is very well aware of the rules.


 * Firstly, can you pleast stop using personal attackos. Secondly, no, all of those were not "reverts", since if you actually checked the diffs, you would see I was not simply restoring the same version, but trying to add more sources each time. Therefore, it is not a break of the rule. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (Note, the article has been successfully stabilized now) 213.185.116.11 (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems to be more edit-warring at Maltese language. I am a neutral observer and can't really comment on the issues, but something seems to be going wrong with the editing process here.  &mdash; Alan✉ 15:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Alan is right, the same user is also edit warring extensively on Maltese language, with over 10 edits today. Yes, the user makes cosmetic changes when reverting, but the main message is still there, being reverted all the time. Please note that the reported user most likely is the same as the IP who posted the lie above about "the article now being stabilized". Both IPs have performed exactly the same reversions, and using another to post false comments to help the account being reported is an old trick used by MagdelenaDiArco, making me even more convinced that we are dealing with multiple sock-puppets. JdeJ (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure why I bothered, but I did post a block warning after 15 reverts on Maltese language. I will block the IP myself if this continues. kwami (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * : Ridiculous amount of reverts. Black Kite</b> 20:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

User:70.133.65.158 reported by User:Mikemill (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 15:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: First edit that kicked off the entire thing


 * 1st revert: 10:11, 24 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 12:26, 24 August 2008 - Revert of a revert of mine.
 * 3rd revert: 20:36, 24 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 23:21, 24 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:29, 24 August 2008
 * EdJohnston (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

User:TechBear reported by User:Cumulus Clouds (Result: 72h)

 * Three-revert rule violation on and.

Time reported: 15:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:29 24 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 16:29 24 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 21:05 24 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:10 24 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 05:09 25 August 2008
 * 5th revert: 08:09 25 August 2008
 * 6th revert: 08:48 25 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 08:42 25 August 2008 and 08:47 25 August 2008.


 * User has also violated 3RR (after warning) to Dino Rossi, making 6 reverts in under 24 hours. Diff times will be similar to those listed here. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 72 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

User:A Link to the Past reported by User:Megata Sanshiro (Result: no action)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 16:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: (Complex reverts) the actual part that is being reverted to is:

|image = |caption = Yoshi as he appears in Yoshi's Island DS (2006), carrying Mario (...)

which is reverted to:

|image = |caption = Yoshi as he appears in Super Smash Bros. Brawl (2008) (...)


 * 1st revert: 03:14, 20 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 08:07, 20 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 19:22, 20 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 17:48, 21 August 2008
 * 5th revert: 08:44, 23 August 2008
 * 6th revert: 00:59, 24 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 12:39, 23 August 2008


 * This is not a violation of 4 reverts within a single day, but the reverts have been happening for multiple days now and there is a clear intent to continue reverting again and again. User has previously been blocked dozens of times for 3RR violations.


 * No 3RR violation, no reverts in over two days. No action taken. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Anatoly.bourov reported by User:Hobartimus (Result: 24h)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 18:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:33


 * 1st revert: 14:49
 * 2nd revert: 15:10
 * 3rd revert: 15:21
 * 4th revert: 18:24


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:52

All dates are August 25. He since even replied to the 3RR warning given to him and continued to revert regardless. Only 4 reverts were listed in the report although he did a lot more by the definition "undoing the actions of another editor" on the same article within 24 hours. Hobartimus (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, he made five reverts. I recommended this user to revert himself back, which would help him to avoid sanctions (he seems to be a newcomer). Unfortunately, he interpreted my recommendation as a "threat" and apparently made 5th revert to prove his point.Biophys (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also note that the text repeatedly inserted by Anatoly.bourov was a copyright violation - please compare with the original reference. So, whoever reverted him was not a "vandal" but enforced WP policies.Biophys (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. I have left Elysander alone since his four reverts fit under the exception of reverting "poorly sourced" material in my opinion. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

User:12.202.220.193 reported by User:Commodore Sloat (Result: 24h)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 23:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:08, 24 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 17:03, 24 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:38, 24 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 17:55, 24 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:59, 24 August 2008
 * 5th revert: 06:01, 25 August 2008
 * 6th revert: 11:28, 25 August 2008
 * 7th revert: 12:09, 25 August 2008
 * 8th revert: 14:21, 25 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 13:18, 25 August 2008

Please note that the user was also warned three times by the Bot concerning inappropriate links that he keeps adding into the article as well. He has also been warned about disruptive editing and other Wikipedia policies; a longer block than usual may be indicated here. csloat (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Fftest12 reported by User:Ctjf83 (Result: 18 hours )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 23:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * As this user is reverting 5 other users, the problem is clear. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Delicious_carbuncle reported by User:Swamilive (Result: No action)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 21:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:56, 25 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 15:35, 24 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:33, 24 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 18:54, 24 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 19:33, 25 August 2008
 * 5th revert: 20:53, 25 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 20:54, 25 August 2008

User is reverting just outside a 24-hour timeframe to avoid 3RR on a technicality. Also, 3RR on Shit Towne, Pain Lies on the Riverside, Mirror Song, Horse, and Operation Spirit (The Tyranny of Tradition).


 * Comment This appears to be a disruptive, bad-faith report. This is largely a cut and paste of Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR, which I filed yesterday in relation to these same articles. I've left pointers to the WP:MUSIC guideline all over the place, but the IPs reverting are not using edit summaries or discussing their reverts of valid redirects. It would great if someone could step in here and bring an end to this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See also Suspected_sock_puppets/Swamilive, in which Swamilive admits to being the IP blocked for 3RR yesterday, plus the IP reverting the redirects in this particular case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Report is frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the process. Stifle (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Postscript: User:Swamilive has been blocked indef as a result of the WP:SSP report on his activities. EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

User:AzureFury reported by User:Protonk (Result: Page protected)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 03:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:28, 23 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 19:57, 24 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 20:21, 24 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 21:17, 25 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:10, 25 August 2008
 * 5th revert: 22:22, 25 August 2008
 * 6th revert: 22:48,, 25 August 2008 (added after this report was first filed)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 22:30, 25 August 2008
 * This isn't strictly 4 reverts in 24 hours but the spirit is what matters. This is the same content and 5 reverts of it, despite discussion on the talk page.  Subject is clearly aware of the 3RR and seems to be intending to skirt it deliberately.  His response to my 3RR warning above wasn't really civil but also gave me the distinct impression he was intending to push the content reversion rules to the limit. Protonk (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I came here to report this user as well. Note that this user has been previously blocked for a 3RR violation on this page before. He knows better than to strictly break 3RR but he has reverted three different editors against significant consensus. Oren0 (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've redacted the lengthy discussion here (see oldid 234364547 if you care about it) and am protecting the page for a week due to edit warring. Stifle (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This user edit warred to get his version, and then you protect the page and don't subject the user to anything? What the hell kind of logic is that, it certainly doesn't send the right message to anyone that wishes to edit war.  Arzel (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See The Wrong Version. If AzureFury won't discuss, then the page will be unprotected and an edit war will most likely start up again. To avoid this recurring situation, let's just stick with resolving the dispute on the talk page. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:70.240.209.9 reported by User:SpyMagician (Result: Both users blocked)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 04:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:47, 26 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 04:02, 26 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 04:05, 26 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 04:08, 26 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 04:12, 26 August 2008

--SpyMagician (talk) 04:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME
 * Stifle (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Soupforone reported by User:RemoTheDog (Result: no violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 05:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME


 * No 3RR violation, no revert warring in four days. No action taken. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

User:G2bambino reported by User:dlatimer (Result: 31 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 10:06, 26 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:

Note: Editwar started with one user, then continued with myself.
 * Stifle (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

User:AlexLevyOne reported by User:JohnInDC (Result: 55h)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 16:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Editor repeatedly inserted poorly-sourced assertion re G.W. Bush and this company (making similar repeated edits to GW Bush and earning a 3RR warning there too). Warnings placed on user Talk page were blanked shortly thereafter. The relevant Talk exchanges are visible on the diff above showing the 3RR warning.


 * I have blocked the user for 55 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

User:SkyBon reported by User:Kober (Result: blocked 48 hours )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 19:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:25, 26 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 17:14, 26 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 18:11, 26 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 18:29, 26 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:36, 26 August 2008
 * 5th revert: 26 August 2008
 * 6th revert: 19:07, 26 August 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 19:02, 26 August 2008

User:SkyBon repeatedly removes the sourced passage from the article, claiming that the source - Human Rights Watch - "simply hates Russia". He describes his edits as "reversal of vandalism".--KoberTalk 19:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 3RR:
 * Toddst1 (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

User:TimWhiskas reported by LotLE × talk (Result: 31h)
. : Time reported: 19:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 17:30, 26 August 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 17:31, 26 August 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 17:36, 26 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 234392301 by UtherSRG (talk)")
 * 4) 17:43, 26 August 2008  (edit summary: "rv per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human/Archive_26#Real_naked_human")
 * 5) 17:45, 26 August 2008  (edit summary: "rv per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human/Archive_26#Real_naked_human")
 * 6) 17:49, 26 August 2008  (edit summary: "rv per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human/Archive_26#Real_naked_human")
 * 7) 18:55, 26 August 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 234402227 by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk)")
 * 8) 19:10, 26 August 2008  (edit summary: "rv. you are likely to get it first.")
 * 9) 19:20, 26 August 2008  (edit summary: "so here we go. rv per per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human/Archive_26#Real_naked_human")

— LotLE × talk 19:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

User first edited as IP address in same dynamic range to repeatedly insert non-consensus change. After reversions by various editors, user created an account, TimWhiskas, to try to evade the 3RR violation, and continued to edit war. Moreover, edit comments contain taunts about trying to get other users to 3RR first (presumably because we wouldn't notice the user is the IP address).


 * I have blocked the user for 31 hours per WP:3RR. I also recommended that the user change his username, as its clearly a parody of user:TimVickers. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

User:76.101.72.59 reported by User:Nukes4Tots (Result: 2 weeks)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 00:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 1800
 * 2nd revert: 1837
 * 3rd revert: 1858
 * 4th revert: 1932


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 1923
 * 3RR violation plus nasty personal attacks. Escalating from the previous block in July. EdJohnston (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Dscotese reported by User:VegitaU (Result:Decline - not all edits are reversions. Toddst1 (talk) )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 01:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:52, 26 August 2008 00:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 21:09, 26 August 2008 (01:09 27 August 2008 (UTC))
 * 2nd revert: 21:18, 26 August 2008 (01:18 27 August 2008 (UTC))
 * 3rd revert: 21:21, 26 August 2008 (01:21 27 August 2008 (UTC); previous version reverted to: 01:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 4th revert: 21:28, 26 August 2008 (01:28 27 August 2008 (UTC))

--  Veggy  ( talk ) 01:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 21:22, 26 August 2008


 * Comment: I added information in italics to the above report. The first, 2nd and 4th revert remove the word "account" and resplace it with "theory". The 3rd revert is arguably a revert because it removes the phrase "led to the collapse of the Twin Towers", although it replaces it with the similar phrase "the collapse of both Twin Towers was caused by" earlier in the sentence.  VegitaU did 3 reverts during the same time period. Coppertwig (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:190.41.114.139 reported by Storm Rider (talk) (Result: page protected)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 02:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 06:52, 26 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 08:54, 26 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 14:12, 26 August 2008

I suspect that a fourth revert was by the same ANON given the language used in the explanation found here, but I cannot be absolutely positive; the area from where the edit generates is the same, but not an identical computer. The ANON as been warned on their discussion page and in the reverts of their edits in the article. If the language were not so obviously POV, I would not have reported it. --Storm Rider (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Since we're dealing with dynamic IPs here, I've decided to semi-protect the page for one week. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Criminologist1963 reported by User:WLU (Result: Stale)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 23:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:53, August 13, 2008


 * 1st revert: 07:44, August 23, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 08:46, August 23, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 13:00, August 23, 2008
 * 4th revert: 13:22, August 23, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 18:54, August 23, 2008; this is after the fourth revert, but Criminologist 1963 is aware of the 3RR based on a previous warning 16:16, August 13, 2008.

Also note AN discussion which has yet to garner outside attention. WLU (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but this report has become stale waiting for a resolution at WP:AN. Re-report if the issue occurs again, referencing this report as further evidence. CIreland (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To date there has been no response on AN, but also no further reversions to the pages involved or discussions on the talk pages. If things remain this way then no intervention is required, if 3rr happens againI will file a new report.  WLU (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Mod objective reported by User:Movingboxes (Result: 31h)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 11:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Plus one more revert (earlier) that Movingboxes missed:
 * -- Jheald (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 31 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Melonbarmonster2 reported by User:Sennen goroshi (Result: 4 days)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 13:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:59, 26 August 2008


 * 1st revert: 20:38, 26 August 2008
 * 2nd revert: 21:39, 26 August 2008
 * 3rd revert: 22:58, 26 August 2008
 * 4th revert: 00:13, 27 August 2008

6 important details.

1. This user was blocked from editing for 48 hours for edit warring 5 days ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMelonbarmonster2

2. The reverts are not exactly the same, one is changing text, one is removal of a section - but all 4 edits are reverts.

3. The first edit is a revert, it is the removal of a section that has been discussed in the past and the editor in question was involved in the discussion, while using his previous ID.

quote "In the context of the English Wikipedia three revert rule, a revert is defined more broadly as the undoing of another editor's work by returning any part of a page to an older version." The first edit was reverting the article to the version that had been in existence due to consensus for a long time, the editor was well aware of the consensus, was involved in the discussion, and just because the revert is months after consensus was achieved does not make it anything other than a revert.

4. Although this is a new(ish) account (that has 1 edit warring block already) the user was previously using another account which was blocked on more than one occasion, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMelonbarmonster so the editor is well aware of 3RR

5. even if the editor had made only 3 reverts, and not 4, the fact that they were blocked for edit warring 5 days ago, should be enough to show that the actions on the Kimchi article are more than deserving of another block.

6. In the middle of the reverts on the article in question, the above editor took time to send a message to the talk page of the editor he was edit warring with, stating among other things "Please stop revert warring. If you continue to revert I will take formal courses of action." after leaving this message he went back to the article and continued with his reverts. This is borderline gaming, and shows a total disregard for the wikipedia rules that relate to reverts.


 * Diff of 3RR warning: the previous blocks show that the user is more than aware of 3RR http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMelonbarmonster2 plus his previous account http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMelonbarmonster

Response
User:Sennen goroshi is a Japanese editor who is famous for trolling Korea related articles and injecting anti-Korean, pro-Japanese POV edits.[][][][[] [][], etc.. In any case this is not violation of 3RR. There are only 2 reverts spaced out between other edits. User:Sennen goroshi has been tagteaming with User:Badagnani[] in Korea related articles.

First edit was deletion of a trivia section in disguise and I incorporated most of the trivia into text of the article as instructed in WP:TRIV and WP:HTRIV which suggests "If an item is too unimportant, be bold and remove it." The edit itself was also not a revert but a novel edit. Furthermore to avoid revert warring, I created a talk section at the same time I made the first edit in the series of edits I made.[]

Second edit was a revert. User:Sennen goroshi had shadowed my edits and began to revert my edits.

Third edit was removal of text that I myself had written "ubiquitous in Korean cuisine" because I had also added it in the next sentence "kimchi is so ubiquitous to Korea cuisine" along with removal of "along with other banchan dishes" for readability of the sentence. Does reverting my own edit count as a revert under the 3rr rule?

Fourth edit was a revert. After my explanation User:Badagnani was ignoring my requests for discussion and reverting.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Sennen goroshi's further comments
Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you are saying that I am Japanese, I don't really see how that is relevant to this 3RR report. (on a side note, I am not Japanese, but whatever) Neither do I see my edit history being relevant, nor any other petty accusations you wish to make. This report is about your 3RR violation, nothing more, nothing less.


 * The edit that you claim is a removal of a trivia section, is a section that has been discussed (you contributed towards the discussion while using your original ID) and consensus was gained - you were well aware of the consensus, so ignoring whether the section is good or not, your removal of it, was most certainly a revert. When looking at the article edit history, it seems quite obvious that these were reverts, you were removing the edits of another editor in order to revert the article back to a previous state. They were reverts not only according to wikipedia guidelines, but also according to the spirit of the guidelines. Your block history makes it clear that you have no respect for 3RR, you were blocked 5 days ago for edit warring -that 48 hour block seems to have had no effect, therefore I would suggest that a one month block from editing might be suitable, hopefully after 1 month without editing, they might think twice about edit warring again.Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh and to the claim that I shadowed the user and reverted them, I edited the article today - after I had made this 3RR report. Prior to that I last edited the article over 2 weeks ago and the edit I made was to change one simple word, not a revert and nothing to do with any edit the above user has made. This report is regarding edits made yesterday and today, what I edited over 2 weeks ago and what I edited after filing this report, is obviously nothing to do with this report. Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * since there was a 2-day block less than a week ago. EdJohnston (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)