Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive81

User:Dead-or-Red reported by User:IronDuke (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 17:08, 19 September 2008
 * 2nd revert: 12:00, 20 September 2008
 * 3rd revert: 12:22, 20 September 2008
 * 4th revert: 13:11, 20 September 2008
 * 5th revert: 13:15, 20 September 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:  18:13, 20 September 2008 

User:Dead-or-Red has been unilaterally removing all material that refers to Lauren Booth's appeareance in a maket in Gaza. Every edit removes a link to the incident or a description of it. IronDuke 22:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The user has not made any further reverts since the warning, lets wait it out and see. Tiptoety  talk 23:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I added the time of the warning, above. Dead-or-Red has been previously blocked for 3RR, so the warning seems clear enough. Coppertwig (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3RR violation, following an earlier block in June for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

903M reported by ThuranX (Result: 31 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:
 * 12th revert:
 * 13th revert:
 * 14th revert:
 * 15th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning: Note that others also warned him today with templates, I gave him a distinctly direct, non-templated notice, per 'don't template the regulars'.
 * 

Please examine the page hsitory to observe other instances of 3RR on the same page. ThuranX (talk) 03:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Response http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions specifically notes that 3RR exempts reverting copyrighted material. Currently there is a report of the copyright violation. 3 users have noted the inappropriate use of non-free use. To resolve the matter, I have been extremely polite and have submitted the copyright violation report in hopes of resolving this matter once and for all. Several people have noted that ThuranX is hostile and he has violated 3RR, if not by the letter, in spirit. He has also removed the copyright violation tag in spite of CLEAR instructions not to remove it until it is resolved. So if anyone is blocked, it must be ThuranX.

My edits are exempt from 3RR because it clearly states that reverts are to remove copyright violations. Rather than just revert, I've also submitted a copyrright violation report so this matter can be resolved (either way) instead of angry ThuranX just adding the image back. Administrators should note that I have been extremely polite. My concern is that Wikipedia not violate copyright. This issue will probably be resolved soon but 3RR against me is against policy (3RR exemption to copyright violations, tag prohibits removal as has been done by ThuranX) 903M (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Although I don't think the Copyviocore template is supposed to be used in this way, User:903M is correct that s/he did not violate 3RR in removing a copyright violation repeatedly. S/he has explained on Talk:Henry Ford how the image in question does not meet WP:FU criteria, so until these criteria are adequately addressed, the image should not be re-added to the article. The Copyviocore template should not be added to a page that has already had the copyright violation removed, however. It is supposed to be placed on pages where a large portion of the content is suspected to be a copyright violation, but has not yet been removed. -kotra (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I made the user aware of that, but the user persisted in behaving in a POINTy manner. ThuranX (talk) 04:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I added diffs to all the reverts done by this user. Just in the last 4 or 5 he started adding a copyvio template along with removing the image. -Nard 03:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Can someone provide a link to the ANI discussion please? Tiptoety  talk 04:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Indications are that the photo is not a copyright violation. On Talk:Henry Ford, a user posted a link to a site that keeps track of that info. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Above, 903M suggests i broke 3RR in spirit, if not in letter. IN fact, When I realized I was upon a 3RR, I stopped, and since 903M was already there, notified her, so as to let her step back, because I was aware that I was atthe limit myself, and saw it as unfair to play gotcha unfairly. I did NOT report her at that time for the earlier vio, despite her unwillingness to self-revert. I left it alone, in the spirit of deescalation, and this has been mentioned before, so the accusation being repeated here is cheap. ThuranX (talk) 05:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 05:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 903M was fighting against several editors (me included) who were convinced that the picture was not a violation. The question now is whether to add the photo back... or is there still a question about its copyright? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This page is for discussions about 3RR violations, so let's leave that question to be discussed at Talk:Henry Ford. -kotra (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Part of the point was that he might argue he was being "ganged up on". It's important to note that he was blocked for edit-warring, not necessarily for being factually wrong. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User:YMB29 reported by User:Biophys (Result: 48 h )

 * Three-revert rule violation on Human rights in the Soviet Union.

Time reported: 21:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 16:53, 19 September 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:23, 19 September 2008
 * 3rd revert: 19:25, 19 September 2008
 * 4th revert: 20:21, 19 September 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * this is another warning he deleted

This user fights against a consensus of several users who can agree with each other and gradually improve this article. YMB29 does nothing but reverts during the entire month (see his edit history)
 * What consensus are you talking about. There was no consensus. You think if one or two of your friends or socks agree with you, you have reached consensus? I am doing nothing but reverts? Well look at your edits in that article. -YMB29 (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A possible sockpuppet. Some investigation is needed because he was awarded a barnstar and was aided in his warier efforts by User:Kostan1 who was blocked as a puppet of notorious banned User:M.V.E.i.. Perhaps he is M.V.E.i. himself - I do not know. This IP might be also him.
 * That is very low of you to report me as a sock when you have no evidence. You just want to get me banned because you know you have no arguments against my edits and just want to get rid of me. -YMB29 (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Incivility. He was warned for incivility ; also see here
 * Who are you to give me warnings? You think you are an admin here. What incivility are you even talking about? Me saying something to someone (calling a user who was making pro nazi edits a nazi sympathizer after he called me a commie sympathizer) months or years ago in totally different articles? -YMB29 (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 48h. Will investigate the possible socking. Moreschi (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey why don't you investigate Biophys and Bobanni instead.
 * Was not 3RR for reverting edits of one user more than 3 times?
 * Why did you block me from the whole Wikipedia for that for 48 hours? What happened to "users violating the rule may warrant a block from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance"? Just because Biophys accuses me of incivility, being a sock, and making reverts against consnsus? Don't you have to investigate first before you do anything? Simply going by accusations is not what admins are supposed to do. You blocked me and I did not have a chance to reply.
 * Biophys refuses to discuss the issues after I was willing to do so many times. He simply ignores discussions and reverts everything, including sourced information and tags. Why don't you look at the talk page for that article? It is obvious what is going on there to anyone who actually looks. -YMB29 (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User:CadenS reported by §hep  •   ¡Talk to me!  (Result: Stale - No Action)
. : Time reported: 02:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 21:22, 20 September 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 239860927 by SpartanSWAT10 (talk)")
 * 2) 21:31, 20 September 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 239863013 by SpartanSWAT10 (talk)")
 * 3) 22:07, 20 September 2008  (edit summary: "Reverted. Don't be a goof and don't piss me off!")
 * 4) 22:39, 20 September 2008  (edit summary: "Reverted. I don't give a rat's ass what you think. Quit pissing me off!")
 * 5) 22:47, 20 September 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 239877517 by PeeJay2K3 (talk)")
 * 6) 23:19, 20 September 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 239880870 by Beve (talk)")

— §hep  •   ¡Talk to me!  02:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Are you sure that there were reverts after the warning? Even if so, I don't think a ban serves any purpose here. The edit war has stopped and he has apologised on his talk page. Also, edit #1 above is not the same as the others. Beve (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply A revert is a revert, how does #1 not apply? It is a reversion, yes?  §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  02:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: as Beve mentions above, the user stopped reverting after being warned about the 3-revert rule. last revert: 23:19, 20 September 2008, warning: 23:23, 20 September 2008. -kotra (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: This report made by Stepshep is bogus. I didn't do any reverts after receiving my warning. Furthermore, Edit #1 is a completely different edit and has nothing to do with the others. Caden S  ( talk ) 06:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Editor stopped and apologized post-warning. A block wouldn't be preventative here.-- Koji Dude  (C) 23:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Dicting reported by Caspian blue (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page: ,
 * User:


 * Gaogouli County
 * Previous version reverted to: 2008-09-20T22:44:04


 * 1st revert: 2008-09-21T02:45:02
 * 2nd revert: 2008-09-21T06:02:15
 * 3rd revert: 2008-09-21T08:15:19
 * 4th revert: 2008-09-21T10:34:50


 * Goguryeo
 * Previous version reverted to: 07:34, 22 September 2007
 * 1st revert: 2008-09-18T17:30:52
 * 2nd revert: 2008-09-18T18:12:28
 * 3rd revert: 2008-09-18T20:06:31
 * 4th revert: 2008-09-19T02:47:01


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 02:51, 19 September 2008


 * Disruptive POV pushing in disregard with consensus and result of WP:3O that the user in question requested. He created the duplicated articles with Goguryeo here and at Chinese Wikipedia, zh:高句丽县 to assure the redirect article not to be deleted. The Chinese pronunciation has been a repeated target for POV pushing without academic usages, and consensus for years. He has been doing this over multiple articles, so well, block is quite in order.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Dicting requested a third opinion, to which I responded here. Shortly thereafter, Dicting added more comments, indicating that he did not agree with my opinion. It is apparent that this user is overly involved in this topic and I suggested a wiki-break here. A short-term block to force that break may be appropriate. Truthanado (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: On Gaogouli County, Dicting has done 4 reverts within a 24-hour period and violated 3RR in my opinion. Each revert changes a redirect into an article. Reverting in the other direction, Cydevil38 has done 3 reverts and Caspian blue has done 2 reverts, each in a 24-hour period. On Goguryeo, I can't verify whether they're reverts, because the given "previous version reverted to" is after all the reverts. I added some information in italics to this report. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 17:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Pieterbotha reported by Maedin (Result: 31 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This user keeps adding a gratuitous link to a YouTube video which I believe is in violation of the external links guidelines and especially inappropriate for the biographical article of a controversial sporting figure. In amongst this, he has also reverted my removal of libellous content from Ian Paisley and vandalised my user page:. Maedin \talk 20:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 20:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User:91.121.102.38 reported by Blacklist (Result: 24 hours for edit warring)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:91.121.102.38&oldid=238757644

User continues adding non-notable links to the article after being warned in both the edit comments and his talk page. Blacklist (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit warring, though less than four reverts in 24 hours. Over the past week this IP editor repeatedly inserts his choice of external links to the M.U.G.E.N. article. This is practically all he does. No discussion on Talk, and no awareness of the WP:EL policy. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Kgardner1123 reported by User:Seal Clubber (Result: Blocked 8 hours )

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 00:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:13 20 September 2008


 * 1st revert: 22:13, 21 September 2008
 * 2nd revert: 22:23, 21 September 2008
 * 3rd revert: 22:26, 21 September 2008
 * 4th revert: 22:39, 21 September 2008
 * 5th revert: 00:06, 22 September 2008
 * 6th revert: 04:17, 22 September 2008
 * 7th revert: diff # 7

Comment User:Kgardner1123 has already been warned for edit warring and has ignored the warning. The edit history of the Death Magnetic page shows that Kgardner1123 has ignored all talk page consensus and reverted the page at least 25 times in the past 6 days. Seal Clubber (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note This user did a 6th revert to this page. I have added the diff link. 203.201.149.214 (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The account named User:Kgardner1123 is also over 3RR on the articles for Cyanide (song) and The Day That Never Comes. 217.40.236.169 (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as well you added those extra reverts. #2 and #3 don't count because they're edits in a series of consecutive edits by the same user. Stifle (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:64.131.245.107 (Result: Malformed)
User is well past 3RR violation, in inserting some original research about the number "3" and its alleged connection to the final game at Yankee Stadium. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hostin reported by Clubjuggle (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=240179436&oldid=240179296


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=240225807&oldid=240179627
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=240237023&oldid=240232134
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=240238458&oldid=240237938
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=240242510&oldid=240242103


 * Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hostin&diff=prev&oldid=240240279

--Clubjuggle T/ C 16:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 20:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Alleichem reported by User:SkyWriter (Result: Both blocked for 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

This is ocurring across multiple pages:

On the Yahweh page:
 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=240208642&oldid=240016633
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=240230035&oldid=240223416
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=240245299&oldid=240231256
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahweh&diff=240255680&oldid=240246001

Several of us have tried to discuss WP:UNDUE issues with this user on his talk page:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlleichem&diff=240256304&oldid=240016789

He's also doing this kind of thing on other pages:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Names_of_God_in_Judaism&diff=240215272&oldid=240014980
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_%28god%29&diff=240213008&oldid=239588082
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zeus&diff=240216358&oldid=240013865
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Names_of_God&diff=240260136&oldid=239064950

He's exhausted the resources of multiple editors and we need enforcement of the 3RR rule, please.

I have warned the user on his talk page, also:
 * Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlleichem&diff=240260008&oldid=240258780

Thanks. SkyWriter (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 20:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User: A Sniper reported by User:Hi540 (Result: Both blocked for 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Smith,_Jr.&oldid=240070265


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Smith,_Jr.&oldid=240139437
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Smith,_Jr.&oldid=240240434
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Smith,_Jr.&oldid=240243248
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Smith,_Jr.&oldid=240263267


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

The discussion page, particularly the "zzzzz" comment, adequately demonstrates that this user has violated the 3 revert rule.Hi540 (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC) He now seems to have reverted five times in 24 hours.Hi540 (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this user's characterization of the reverts. I have given adequate explanation of all my edits, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. I would note that this user merely reverted my work, with no explanation, after tag-teaming on reverts with John Foxe, a user warned for article ownership. In any event, there is no edit war as other regular users have started working on the article. I have also suggested mediation with John Foxe, and perhaps Hi540 would like to be a part of that. Despite my sockpuppet hunch about these two users, I am certainly willing to have an independent party go through our edits and find a way forward that isn't based on bullying, teaming up to out-revert, and intimidation. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Tiptoety talk 20:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Prophaniti reported by User:Landon1980 (Result: 48 hours )

 * Page: Adrenaline (album)
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User was blocked for violating 3RR on the 20th of this month as can be seen here Landon1980 (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not realise I had reverted more than 3 times within a 24 hour period, and apologise for this, and have undone the last revert as a result, for now. However, reverts were due to a directly sourced quote from a book being removed, with the reasoning being that "it doesn't count if it's not online". This is clearly utterly ridiculous. Prophaniti (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3RR does not cover your reasoning. Undoing your last edit may and probably will save you from being blocked. You are literally just off a block for 3RR, you should not be reverting anyones edits more than once this soon afterward. Let alone, 3 and even 4 reverts. You still have a problem of edit warring that needs to be addressed. If you want to discuss this further let's use our talk pages, here isn't the place. Landon1980 (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I also want to point out the edit summary "Undone because I have inadvertently broken the 3RR. But I will simply redo it again when appropriate, because this is just idiotic." from this diff]. This isn't the place but after being warned repeatedly he is still attacking me personally which I can supply diffs for. Landon1980 (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I have not attacked you, Landon. I have attacked your edit, which -is- idiotic, because it goes against everything wikipedia stands for. And, as you say, this isn't the place for it. Please, drop this personal vendetta you seem to have against me. It really isn't refreshing to see editors jumping on things like that with glee. Prophaniti (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, having reviewed things more carefully, I haven't broken the 3RR at all: my first of those 4 reverts counts as undoing vandalism. See Vandalism, specifically types of vandalism - blanking. Validly sourced material was removed without explanation in the first edit by Callmarcus, and hence comes under that heading as vandalism. Prophaniti (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 21:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Laomei reported by LedRush (talk) (Result: No Violation)
. : Time reported: 23:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 10:45, 20 September 2008  (edit summary: "desperation to include epoch times? it's not a legitimate source - removed")
 * 2) 00:16, 22 September 2008  (edit summary: "/* Religion */  been over this, not disruptive, epoch times is not a legitimate source.  willing to play this game")
 * 3) 06:27, 22 September 2008  (edit summary: "lies told 1000 times do not become truths. keep it up.  we've been over this and there was consensus on this issue, which you are now violating.")
 * 4) 20:44, 22 September 2008  (edit summary: "Falun Gong is not a religion, see talk page.  Not my opinion, it is on record with the founder and the followers.")

—LedRush (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: User has been blocked in the past for 3RR

Laomei continually and unilaterally assaults the information concerning falun gong on this board despite talk page consensus and discussions.LedRush (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems like the reported editor has taken this to the talkpage anyway.-- Koji Dude  (C) 00:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

LedRush and his band of cohorts are determined to force FLG agenda on this page. They have a history of "playing coy" whenever it serves this agenda, over reporting anyone who does not go along with their agenda and generally abusing the system. LedRush in particular likes to claim "consensus", despite there being none and making accusations that I "have been banned". It is completely against the spirit of this project as a whole to allow a small band of cohorts to hijack a page and edit it to promote their agenda. Every edit is explained in the talk page, and infallible sources are ignored in favor of "debate" over the topic. If you take time to look through Asdfg12345's and LedRush's history on user pages and talk pages, this is a very common theme where they play "ignorant" while continuing edit wars without consensus or debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laomei (talk • contribs) 03:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Mtngoat63 reported by User:Wikidemon (Result:Blocked already outside of 3RR board )

 * Note - this editor has already been blocked at more or less the time I filed this report - not sure if I should remove, report it as resolved, or do something else. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Page:
 * User:


 * 1) 23:56, 22 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 240323432 by Wikidemon (talk) Reverted. WikiDemon deleted as retribution and in bad faith in Obama Nation thread")
 * 2) 00:38, 23 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 240328086 by Wikidemon (talk) rv:  Citations were good. WikiDemon is acting in bad faith and edit warring.")
 * 3) * 00:39, 23 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 240327840 by Wikidemon (talk) rv WikiDemon is engaging in edit warring and vandalism")
 * 4) * 01:13, 23 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Clarify who did the hiring and prominence of Gerald Feldman in Alinksky school community organizing in South Chicago")
 * 5) * 01:00, 23 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Add reference to prominence of the Alinsky school community organizer Gerald/Jerry Kellman who was greatly influenced by Alinksky")
 * 6) 01:35, 23 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 240339870 by Wikidemon (talk) RV: WikiDemon has dragged his bias and edit war here from Obama Nation page")
 * 7) 01:53, 23 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 240344091 by GoodDamon (talk) RV: Gross deletions. GoodDamon is WikiDemon's buddy from the Obama Nation page")
 * 8) * 02:03, 23 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Fix name spelling")
 * 9) 02:08, 23 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 240346653 by GoodDamon (talk) RV whole chunks of article deleted by GoodDamon. It is he who is vandalizing.")


 * Diff of 3RR warning: (and many others)


 * Toddst1 (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael Friedrich reported by Novidmarana (Result: No action )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:

edit summary is "Do not call this edit a revert. I just removed the parts which bring about edit wars"
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User keeps reverting several changes by other editors, most obvious are the reverts of the word [sic] to the quote of one professor, but there are also some other changes which this user reverts over and over again (instead of discussing changes on the talk page)

User has edit warred before, see Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR, result was editor agrees to not edit the article for 24 hours, that is until 15:25 (UTC), 20 September. Novidmarana (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * They are all different edits. Especially, the 4th edit is not a revert at all.  I removed the parts which brought about the edit war.  I did not revert anything.  Besides, I self reverted the edit right after it.  The 4th one cannot be called a revert.  Besides, it had been more than 24 hours since the 1st one was done.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not true, you removed at least the [sic] from the quote, although I explained to you in detail why it should be there (when there is a misspelling in the source, and there is one as it is an English language source the MOS allows the addition of a sic to clarify that the spelling error is in the source). So regardless of whether you agree or not, you should not remove the sic four times. And what you call a self-revert did not restore the original version, so it is not a self-revert as it only restored your preferred version without the [sic] additions to the quote. Novidmarana (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please look closely at this edit. I corrected the misspelling.  The misspelling was made not by the professor but me when I quoted it.  So, I corrected my own mistake and removed [sic] because no [sic] is needed anymore.  The 3rd revert and the 4th revert should not be counted here.  Please do not talk as if I had removed the [sic] without reason.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't matter for 3RR anyway, whether you thought that you had a good reason or not is largely irrelevant, except when it comes to dealing with obvious vandalism etc. I think that I have good reasons, too - if the quote is misspelled it is, and it is not our job as Wikipedians to correct misspellings in our sources. Novidmarana (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I said it was me who misspelled the words. There is no misspelling in the source.  I corrected my own mistake.  Why is it bad?--Michael Friedrich (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You claim that it was you who misspelled the words is not very believable given that the source is in English and given that you kept removing the [sic] from the quote but did not bother to correct the obvious spelling mistakes until your last edit. Novidmarana (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize the spelling was wrong until my last edit. I thought you were adding [sic] without reason because your other edit seemed to me meaningless, like changing Chinese characters into Hanja.  At the first time, you even added [sic] to "the" although there was no misspelling in "the." The source is not in English but in Japanese. I quoted from this book.  The books is never translated into English.  I translated it myself and quoted it.  I made a mistake then.  You can see it was me who quoted it.  I only corrected my own mistake.  You cannot blame me for correcting my own mistake although you can blame me for having not realized the misspellings.  My last edit should not be counted as a revert because all I did was correct my own mistake.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So basically what you tell us is that suddenly you realized that the source is not in English but in Japanese. And that you just reverted, but did not even bother to look at what you reverted, because even a blind man would have seen this spelling mistakes. And that you kept reverting even after it had been explained to you why there should be a [sic]. And all that because you thought that my edits were meaningless. Just a question, are you able to learn? Because apparently you did not learn from the first incident a few hours ago. You cannot just revert any edits by other editor. There is a talk page and you should use this talk page to discuss controversial changes. But all your contributions on the talk page indicate only that you feel that you are only who is entitled to make changes to the article. Novidmarana (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Please stop discussing on this page. This page is not for discussion. Please discuss at Talk:South Korean cultural claims or on your user talk pages. We need to keep the number of edits to this page small, because it's on many peoples' watchlists. In my opinion, Michael Friedrich has done 4 reverts in just over 24 hours, so technically it's not a 3RR violation. Novidmarana has done 3 reverts in 24 hours. Apparently this was all caused by a misunderstanding which apparently has been cleared up. (non-admin opinion) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My 4th edit is not a revert anyway. I went to his talk page to solve the dispute, but it is true that he overused [sic] because he kept adding [sic] without the knowledge who made the mistake, the author or tue quoter. Adding [sic] without cheking the source puts the author under a false accusation and cannot be accepted.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Novidmarana He did the same act, too.   --Propastop (talk) 05:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Arguably, Michael Friedrich has violated 3RR with the last two edits listed above plus two more recent reverts, 07:03, 22 September 2008 and 07:23, 22 September 2008, one removing a "Dubious" tag which had just been added on the previous edit and one restoring "been working on this issue" which had just been deleted on the previous edit. Michael Friedrich argues that the 4th revert listed above (removing "sic" and fixing the spelling mistakes) shouldn't count as a revert; since fixing the spelling mistakes ended the edit war over "sic" it seems to me that there's some merit to that argument.  Michael Friedrich was uncivil. 07:29, 22 September after I had just asked him (19:25, 21 September 2008) to talk gently after he had made a very similar comment. (Trying to talk gently about talking gently) Coppertwig (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocking users or protecting the page would not be productive. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) The users are edit warring however, and should probably pursue dispute resolution. I recommend blocks over protection, article is up for deletion.--Tznkai (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Michael Freidrich not only still makes edit wars on the article in question regardless of his previous agreement, but also over other multiple articles. He was previously saved by the agreement not to make edit war just two days ago, but he broke it again.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The dispute over [sic] is not something like that. Novidmarana just doesn't know how to use [sic].  That's the reason.  Adding [sic] without the knowledge of the source cannot be accepted.
 * >>one removing a "Dubious" tag which had just been added on the previous edit and one restoring "been working on this issue" which had just been deleted on the previous edit.
 * This comment sounds as if it is OK for Novidmarana to edit the article but it is not OK for me. I added the original Japanese sentence but he added "dubious" without reason.  I don't get at all what he wants more.  He removed "been working on this issue" without reason.  I only restored the information which he removed without reason.  Is it OK for him to edit the article like that and is it not OK for me to edit the article?--Michael Friedrich (talk) 10:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Emerson7 reported by swanny18 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

<!—I have referred this editor to the talk page, and asked for an explanation but have not received anything meaningful; I received these and  on my talk page: I have left this , and over there Swanny18 (talk) 08:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC) here --> Also:-


 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

<!—as “El Cid” above. Swanny18 (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC) -->

User:Seicer reported by User:Allen32130 (Result: Malformed)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


 * 1st revert: [link]
 * 2nd revert: [link]
 * 3rd revert: [link]
 * 4th revert: [link]


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

--Tznkai (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Tremello22 reported by Jakew (Result: Warned )

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 17:53, September 23, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 17:41, September 23, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:54, September 23, 2008
 * 4th revert: 16:45, September 23, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Repeated reverts over section headings. Jakew (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 23:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Kao no Nai Tsuki reported by Michael Friedrich (Result: 24 hour block)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Note. has been reported to here for his 3RR violation more than third times just within 15 ~ 17 days (the two violations happened just within 4 days). See the above thread WP:AN3 along with this, and that But he was not blocked for the two recent case because of a wheel war between admins and his pledge not to make edit wars in the occasions. Besides he reverted 3 times (or more) on the article in question. The case in wheel warring is not resolved yet. It would be very unfair that that chronic 3RR violators are free from blocks, but disputers with him get blocked although I believe the accused one violated 3RR.--Caspian blue (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I used the talk page to avoid an edit war. I am not violating 3rr.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

- First Offence. The proper original version was actually 12:13, September 22, 2008 Novidmarana, not the 8:37 Michael Friedrich version, but there were 4 reverts by Kao no Nai Tsuki in 24 hours, with the last after the warning. -- Avi (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael Friedrich reported by Kao no Nai Tsuki (Result: No Violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Content dispute. It is possible that he avoid 3rr rules by IP. last revert is possibly same user for avoid trick of 3rr rule. It is still dispute in discussion, but He did not reach any consensus. My Last revert is revert of unconsensed Change.Kao no Nai Tsuki (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note Even if Michael Friedrich used a sock IP on the article, that does not make him break a 3RR rule at this time while Kao no Nai Tsuki clearly violated 3RR. However, Michael Friedrich recently broke 3RR twice but got no sanction due to a wheel warring between admins and his promise not to make edit wars. Thought the promise turns out to be vain.--Caspian blue (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The 2nd revert is not a revert at all. What I did was to add "dubious" and some information on the source.
 * The 3rd revert is not a revert either. I changed Korea into Goryeo because the word "高麗" means Goryeo.
 * The 5th revert is not mine. Even if it were mine (of cource it's not), it is only the 3rd revert because the 2nd revert and 3rd revert are not reverts at all.
 * Kao no Nai Tsuki states that it is still dispute in discussion, but I did not reach any consensus. But it is me who started the discussion on the talk page.  I was trying to reach a consensus.  He calls other editors' edit "unconsensed" but his edit is not either.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * so it is a content dispute. It is still "unconsensed". I revert it original version before your edit. Michael Friedrich, you are only one who make dispute in this article. You try to delete Wikisource. I don't know why. and ok. I will not violate 3rr further (I did not know 3rr rule) Kao no Nai Tsuki (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean you left this message even though you didn't know 3rr?! It's very strange...  Then if you admit I am not voilating 3rr, I would like you to withdraw this section.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I exactly did not know what is the 3rr. I copy and paste it, it existed in Your talk page. and you have recieved many many 3rr warning from other. You seems like a One of the disruptive editor of english wikipedia.Kao no Nai Tsuki (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't want you to say so although you have just violated 3rr...--Michael Friedrich (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Consecutive edits are not counted towards reversions. There is no 3RR violation. Using 3RR as a method to harass other editors is forbidden, by the by. -- Avi (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User:65.4.86.217,User:68.154.151.187,User:70.144.0.171 reported by User:propastop (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User: and


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


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:



All same ISP and same edit.--Propastop (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Objectionable Content
I am concerned about the page found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t-give-a-fuckism. It was apparently generated by user Seicer. I believe this is inappropriate content, since my children frequently use Wikipedia, and do not need to be exposed to this kind of language, nor do other children. I also noticed that this user is a Wikipedia administrator. As to not lower the standards of Wikipedia, I would suggest banning this user to prevent the posting of further objectionable content. Clearly this user does not possess the good judgement to post properly, and is therefore in my opinion not qualified to serve as an admnistrator, or user for that matter. Allen32130 (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Allen. Your post caught my interest, and I'll tell you why. Although I couldn't say if this is a case like a recent experience of mine, but we once discovered a user with similar content, an he turned out to be an online sexual preditor. I don't mean to alarm you, but I can relate to having children who use wikipedia, and wanting to keep this environment safe. This user eventually started sending sexually explicit content to my daughter, so I decided to look into it. Luckily, after some persuasion, law enforcement stepped in, subpoena'd his IP address, located the person and brought him to justice. The person was charged with a 1st degree misdemeanor, and he is now serving 1 year in jail for his online criminal acts. What's more, YouTube was fined pretty heavily for harboring the user (maintaining his webpage), even after they were warned about him. You may want to be careful with this. I would investigate the matter if you are concerned. And, if you would like any assistance, feel free to contact me. I understand how you feel. Dino90250 (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, this kind of content is unneeded, I'd tag it for speed deletion straight away, only as so many people have edited it this maybe unwise, hopfully an admin will deal with it shortly Theterribletwins1111 (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you object to the use of a word like "fuck", you will probably be surprised by vagina, sexual intercourse, list of sex positions and seven dirty words. Wikipedia is not censored, not even for the benefit of children or over-sensitive parents. Moreover, this is the wrong place to discuss this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll add this outside the archive: Allen32130 and Dino90250 are the same person...odd that, and thanks to someone else for catching that. Nice conversation with one's self though. BMW (drive)  23:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

User:79.129.164.105/User:79.130.200.26 reported by Dr.K. (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:
 * diff IP takes out whole chunk of Olympic Airlines Article.


 * Revert by Boccobrock


 * Revert 1 by IP Uses abusive language in edit summaries.


 * Revert by Boccobrock


 * Revert 2 by IP Including abusive edit summaries


 * My revert due to misleading edit summary and invalid citation


 * I took out edit altogether due to insufficient citation


 * IP puts it back in. Revert 3 by IP


 * I revert IP


 * I warn IP about WP:3RR and also explain about Wikipedia policies and content.


 * IP returns under slightly different address and reverts again. Revert 4 by IP


 * New address given new warning
 * Spoke too soon. Started again. Revert 5


 * Now IP left a personal attack on my talk page in which it calls me "Fictitious"


 * Revert 6


 * Refuses to engage in conversation despite a new section on the talk page.

Please also note (also explained on talk page): Citation provided is in Greek and it only mentions a specific customer's opinion (1 customer only). The newspaper does not take a stance supporting the customer's opinion one way or the other. The IP then generalises the customer's comments and presents it as if other customers have expressed similar opinions in violation of WP:UNDUE, WP:V and WP:RS.

Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is some logic on both sides of this argument. Protected two days. Please work it out on Talk. The submitter went over 3RR himself, and it's unclear if the IPs are all the same person. If the IPs won't join a Talk discussion and keep on reverting, semi-protection should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Thanks for the intervention but I did not go over the 3RR limit for the 23rd of September or the 21st when this started. I was exactly at 3 reverts for today. Please check article history. Also I opened up discussion on the talk page and the IP simply ignored it and instead attacked me personally. Dr.K. (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Clarification: I suspect you counted my revert of User:92.118.216.17 as number 4 revert. This revert is completely unrelated to the other three reverts and it involves a different user and a different edit. Dr.K. (talk) 05:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * All reverts in the same 24-hour period are counted for 3RR purposes, regardless of who you are reverting. See 'Definition of the three-revert rule,' at the top of this page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean I cannot revert even if someone puts in uncited speculation? This seems counter-intuitive to say the least. Dr.K. (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I just checked it. The rule states that the material could be different and still be counted toward 3RR. So technically you are right. But obviously this is a loophole given that the revert I did with User:92.118.216.17 was a routine non-controversial revert, with a different user, that reverted uncited speculation and "rumours", something that is very commonly done in Wikipedia on a daily basis. This loophole should be addressed. Dr.K. (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The noticeboard is not a good place for general policy discussion. See WP:3RR for the complete list of which reverts are exempt from 3RR enforcement. Pursue this issue at Wikipedia talk:3RR if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Thanos5150 and User:24.20.80.41 reported by User:Steven J. Anderson (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User:

According to his user page, the IP is the same editor as Thanos5150. Therefore, they should be regarded as one editor for 3RR purposes.


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the warning before I posted this. User has not edited since the warning. Still the fact that he was using both his registered account and his IP to game the 3RR and the fact that he's been here for two years shows that he knows the rule and broke it anyway. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just my two cents, I think WP:AGF would apply here. If he's ceased disruption since the warning we could just leave him be for now, but I'll wait for an admin to decide a result.-- Koji Dude  (C) 01:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As the edit war seems to have deescalated I'm going to leave this without any further action. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

YellowMonkey reported by Cripipper (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: and

The user, on a daily basis, has four-times reverted my fully referenced edits, and reverts to the previous version which does not even cite the origins of the numbers quoted in the article. YellowMonkey has ignored my repeated requests to take his objections to the talk section of the article, violating both the spirit of 3RR and seeming to claim ownership over the article. Cripipper (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There must be four reverts in a 24-hour period to violate 3RR. The above diffs do not establish a breach. I am also concerned that this report may be frivolous or vexatious. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing the unjustified suggestion of frivolity or vexatiousness. Stifle (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Proxy_User reported by User:tedder (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 17 Sep 2008
 * 2nd revert: 20 Sep 2008
 * 3rd revert: 22 Sep 2008
 * 4th revert: 23 Sep 2008
 * 5th revert: 23 Sep 2008
 * 6th revert: 24 Sep 2008

I have not warned the user this time- I warned him in July and he was blocked for 72 hours at that time. Here's the diff of that warning, and here's the results of that event from this noticeboard.

Yes, the time scale is greater than "3 in 24" or "4 in 24", but it's likely a conscious attempt to not invoke the 3rr rule by gaming the system.

Tedder (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Try squeezing him through dispute resolution, but damage isn't great enough to justify a block.--Tznkai (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

User:SUTHERLAND BROTHERS reported by User:Propastop (Result:Indef blocked as likely sock)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.




 * Time reported: 3:00 PM


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User:SUTHERLAND BROTHERS has clearly violated 3rr.--Propastop (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note Just for references Requests for checkuser/Case/Pabopa on . Also he filed this after canvassing by  intentionally inflates the reverts.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please dont obstruct.and PLEASE STOP STALKING ME.--Propastop (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not make personal attacks with the false accusation as always. This page has been on my watchlist due to Michael Freidrich and indef.blocked Pabopa's endless edit warring and 3RR violations.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please dont obstruct.and PLEASE STOP STALKING ME.Please Do not make PERSONAL ATTACKS with the false accusation--Propastop (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're responsible for your report, so I only correctly "cite" what you have done here ever since you joined in English Wikipedia. Your false accusations are all personal attacks that should be noted. You're rather stalking me as copying my report on you.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This Page is Administrators' noticeboard/3RR page.OK? Please dont obstruct.--Propastop (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL, you again copy my previous comment here (Michael Friedrich's 3RR above). Then do not make personal attacks against me. I'm tired of hearing such things from you.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically, it is not violate 3rr within 24 hrs. He and Michael Friedrich are tag team editor. intentionally make 3rr rule violation. 

And last edit is Consecutive edits. it add citaion. It is not violate 3rr. SUTHERLAND BROTHERS (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See my block notice, User is clearly familiar with wikipedia and we don't need any new edit warriers Spartaz Humbug! 16:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Propastop reported by SUTHERLAND BROTHERS (Result: blocked for 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 03:30, 23 September 2008
 * 2nd revert: 02:20, 24 September 2008
 * 3rd revert: 09:24, 24 September 2008
 * 4th revert: 09:54, 24 September 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: by JS-40LAC

He violated 3rr rule within 24 hrs. He deleted cited info. he did not seek consensus. SUTHERLAND BROTHERS (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * within 24 hrs? This is a false report.--Propastop (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you banned user? banned user must not edit Wikipedia. Tag team editing is not tolerable. SUTHERLAND BROTHERS (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 24 hours Spartaz Humbug! 16:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Bernz1973 reported by Dysepsion (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

"The previous reversion reverted to" that I linked above is from September 1. The reason why, is because there has been so much edit warring in the past month that it's difficult to determine which was the real version before all the reversions took place. The article List of fraternities and sororities in the Philippines is being continuously reverted by multiple editors and I'm surprised why this hasn't been brought up here before. I'm reporting Bernz1973 because I warned the editor but then he deleted the warning and proceeded to edit war again. However, this is not to say that he's the only one disrupting the article. Indeed, many other editors (newly registered) have also continuously reverted information. Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 17:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, there is a problem with this article. Even if the reverts do not occur within a 24 hour period, there is definite edit warring going on. The reverts are being spaced out over time and there is absolutely no consensus between editing parties. Constant reverts without explanation. Should this be allowed to continue? Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 21:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Xasha reported by Gutza (Result: 3 days)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This article has been under dispute for a couple of days, and it went from one version to another rather frequently. I tried to engage in a discussion with Xasha on the article's talk page, I notified the relevant communities on the topic (Noticeboard of the wikipedians from or interested in Moldova and Romanian Wikipedians' notice board), I've initiated a RfC, I have asked for help on Reliable sources/Noticeboard on matters related to the article -- of all the opinions voiced in relation to the matter at hand, Xasha is the only one holding a separate opinion against everybody else, and keeps reverting, denying, accusing, and so on -- it's exasperating, I don't know where to turn any more. (The matter is larger than the specific word being pushed in and out of the article, that's just the lowest limit of tolerance that can be accepted in this intermediary version of the article, based on actual sources and policies.)

For the record, I'm an administrator but cannot act because I have been involved in the revert war. Also, I have been recently reported by Xasha in turn for a loosely related matter -- I was technically guilty of breaking 3RR at the time, so I worked towards resolving the matter amicably (and succeeded).

The admin reading this should be aware that revert wars have taken place over that word and many others over the past couple of days, but things were settling down in a dubious but acceptable temporary form -- however, a new revert war was about to break out between these versions; I tried to come up with a neutral version (which had been proposed before) and that's where the current revert war has started. --Gutza T T+ 19:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 3 days, given his extensive history. Stifle (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have to add that this edit war looks like an excellent candidate for WP:LAME. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said above, the matter is larger than the specific word being pushed in and out of the article, that's just the lowest limit of tolerance that can be accepted in this intermediary version of the article, based on actual sources and policies. Actually, you are aware of one facet of the matter, you can investigate further and get involved in the larger matter if you wish. --Gutza T T+ 21:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: []


 * 1st revert: []
 * 2nd revert: []
 * 3rd revert: [] 169.232.100.46 is Svernon19)
 * 4th revert: [] (Svernon19 self-reverted his attacks and then provided a link to the diffs of his personal attack)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: []

Svernon19 is an obvious SPA []. He is currently engaged in an edit war to include blatant personal attacks on Talk: Tucker Max - personal attacks which are also completely unrelated to the article itself. This user has only done 3 reverts so far, but he is probably staying under the 4 limit to game the system, as he has done previously. He is also the subject of a current checkuser, as a potential sock of User:TheRegicider. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, theserialcomma has spun this one in his favor, and he is the one in violation, not me. If you'll note, theserialcomma claims all reverts to be mine, when two of them are his own. Here are all notable parts, not the abridged version of the history theserialcomma has shown.


 * Original comment by me (note: my IP address): []
 * Original comment by McJeff: []
 * First revert by theserialcomma, which removed both comments: []
 * First revert by me: []
 * Second revert by theserialcomma: []
 * Second revert by me (note again: my IP address): []

At this point, I recognized there was a dispute, and I did what I could to resolve it. Earlier in the discussion, McJeff said something that was noted as a personal attack. He voluntarily removed his comment from the talk page. Theserialcomma then added a note in the discussion that McJeff had removed his comment, and provided a link to the diff (seen here: []). Since a precedent was set by theserialcomma himself, I thought that seeing as this is an analogous situation, it had good application here. I then removed my comments, and provided a similar type of comment, with explanation (seen here: []). Theserialcomma edited the comments to not show the diffs, in effect not following the precedent he set. Although this could be seen as a third revert, I'm not going to nitpick and will let it slide.

I know this is a ridiculous situation, and I apologize for the length of these two comments on what was already a resolved dispute. I will wait for a second opinion, but if one is not reached, I will restore the links to the diffs. Svernon19 (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * anyone here can see the actual edits, and who edited what. and they will. the admins here will just go the history of the talk page, your editing history, my editing history, and see what the truth is. you are making claims that are not true, and they are going to find out shortly. thanks for calling the situation ridiculous though. that really helps. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither of you have really much to argue about. I'm not sure why you're calling Svernon's comments as attacks.  Grsz  talk  03:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No 3RR violation here. Use dispute resolution if you really think such a lame argument warrants it. Kafziel Complaint Department 04:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * so let me get this straight, edit warring to include [] onto the discussion page of an article, not even my talk page, is not an attack? 1. it had nothing to do with the article, and 2. his only point was that i, as a human, exist to compromise value that other people contribute. i fundamentally 'oppose value' and my 'flailing around is sad'. this attack had nothing to do with editing the the article, it was just a retribution attack for discovering his friend was a sockpuppet/employee of the subject of the article. He's clearly a SPA and in cahoots with the sock, any cursory view of his editing habits in relation to TheRegicider (the sock) would reveal this. he basically reverted his attack 3 times to keep the attacks included, and on the 4th time, he linked to the attacks instead of reverting, in order to avoid 3RR violation. you really can't see how that's both a personal attack and unwarranted on an article talk page? unbelievable. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That diff is your edit!  Grsz  talk  05:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * did you check the article history? if you check the article | history here, you'll see why i posted my diffs. his personal attack spanned multiple of his own edits to post, which was followed by another attack by McJeff. McJeff was warned for personal attacks, and both mcjeff and svernon19's posts were removed. then svernon19 reverted to include his own and mcjeff's removed edits and began edit warring to include both attacks. if you viewed the whole history, you'd see that. [] [] [] [] [] (these are svernon19's diffs - the IP is svernon19) Theserialcomma (talk) 05:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * First, it's a talk page, not an article. Second, they weren't attacks. Third, nobody violated 3RR. Now let it alone and find something better to do with your time.  Grsz  talk  05:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 159 is signing a comment. 160 I'll give you as a revert. 161 he is accepting the fact that you were offended by the edits. 163 is the same exact diff as 159. Get over it, you lost.  Grsz  talk  05:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I lost? I lost what? and it's a blatant personal attack and in no way constructive, and in every way a violation of the spirit of WP: NPA. i hope next time someone on an article talk page calls you a human who only exists to compromise people who contribute to the world, you'll reference this conversation. thanks for all your help and your lessons in civility. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I could've added the comments back in, but I left them in the edited form with the links to the diffs. Svernon19 (talk) 05:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Zzmang reported by Chrishomingtang (Result: Both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This user changed the height of the basketball player against previously established consensus. I reverted once and tried to discuss this matter with him, but he doesn't listen.— Chris!  c t 05:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * . And reporter's rollback has been withdrawn for using it to edit war. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Mtngoat63 reported by Wikidemon (Result: 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * 1) 19:38, 24 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Put back in paragraph about the influence of Alinsky ideology on community organizing and the early career of Barack Obama + early career working for Alinsky school projects in So. Chicago. Wash Post.")
 * 2) 20:51, 24 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 240735452 by Wikidemon (talk) RV. Influence is sourced and supported by Washington Post + Reuters news stories.")
 * 3) 17:11, 25 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Section is about Saul Alinsky's influence on organizing and prominent national leaders influence by him. Paragraph is appropriate and well sourced to Washington Post and NPR.")
 * 4) 17:37, 25 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 240938856 by Threeafterthree (talk)  Chg weakens influence. He was founder of Community Organizing")


 * User warned multiple times; recently blocked 31 hours for similar behavior going to 6RR


 * Mtngoat63 has made another reversion since this was filed so this is not stale, but due to passage of time this only puts the editor at 3RR again.
 * 1) 21:32, 25 September 2008 (edit summary:m (In his life and career his was first and foremost a community organizer, founder of a system of promoting an ideology of change, and then later a writer.)


 * This is a new user who has been treated roughly from the start (see the first edits on Mtngoat63's talk page). The newbie seems to have gotten angry at the rough treatment and has experienced editors who should know better than to bite newbies filing reports at Suspected sock puppets/Mtngoat63 and WP:ANI. I think cooler treatment is called for. It doesn't help that Mtngoat63 was seeing his edits reverted by POV pushers at Saul Alinsky who were questioning the veracity of information without checking it out. Mtngoat63 has been blocked for 3RR before, but maybe rather than bait this person to no good end, the goal of better behavior would be advanced more with a lighter, courteous approach. I have seen very little of that so far on the part of more experienced editors. -- Noroton (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please discount the foregoing - the above editor has been following me from place to place about the Wikipedia complaining about me. Not sure what got into him or why he's trying to take a stand in support of such obvious disruption.  Several editors have patiently pointed Mtngoat63 to Wikipedia policies but the editor remains one of the most tendentious WP:SPAs I've come across.Wikidemon (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's all about Wikidemo. I've left a note on Mtngoat63's talk page here User talk:Mtngoat63 (diff here ). Please watch, give it a chance and maybe it will have some positive results. Obviously, if disruption continues, it didn't work. -- Noroton (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Concerning this new user's "rough treatment," as Noroton puts it: Mtngoat63's first edit, on September 5th, was to introduce a copyright violation as a citation (though no one caught it as such at the time), one which didn't support the text being inserted:. This was removed with an appropriate and polite note:. Mtngoat63's next action was to add a citation for The Obama Nation, which even you must agree is not a reliable source:. Johnpseudo told Mtngoat63 as much in removing the ref:. Over a span of four days, Mtngoat63 is almost the sole editor at Saul Alinsky, introducing such tidbits as references to scanned pages of books and expansion on Alinsky's Lucifer dedication: (Note that by this point, the editor has successfully added back in the first link, having utterly ignored the concerns of the other editors). This behavior goes on for a while, with general focus on introducing blogs as sources, emphasizing Alinsky's sympathies with Lucifer and Machiavelli, and expanding the Barack Obama section of the article, which I still find hilarious as Obama never met the man:. Finally, on the 19th, Clubjuggle informed the editor about WP:COATRACK. Right around then, the personal attacks started. Up until people started specifically telling the editor which policies and guidelines the material s/he was removing violated, the editor simply undid the edits of other editors who removed the new material, either with no explanation, or with explanations like this: "Restore deleted material." Notably, the editor never seemed to wonder why the material was deleted. After being told of WP:COATRACK, the editor's summaries started looking like this: "Restore. Your reasons are pure opinion. Obama was influenced by Alinsky." Meanwhile, over on The Obama Nation, the editor began putting in text that was not supported by the reference:. Things began spiraling out of control from there, with other editors pleading with Mtngoat63 to hash things out on the talk pages of both articles instead of edit-warring, and asking the editor to start reading Wikipedia policies and guidelines. They even provided all kinds of helpful links to same.

Mtngoat63 did not participate on a single talk page until September 21st, and immediately started editing abusively again as soon as the old 3RR block expired. I have yet to see any evidence that the editor has read even a single policy or guideline. And at this point, I am thoroughly confused about Noroton's definition of what "rough treatment" is. I suppose I'm guilty, if that definition includes "literally begging the tendentious editor not to revert again, and pleading with the tendentious editor to read the policy and guideline links repeatedly provided." -- Good Damon 01:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3RR violation on Saul Alinsky. Follows a very recent 31-hour block for edit warring on the same article. Ideally the first block would have led to a pause for reflection. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Kung Fu Man reported by 74.242.121.166 (Result: page protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

74.242.121.166 (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by Kung Fu Man Reporting anon is hiding behind sock/meat puppet anons to push edits I see as vandalism: this was an issue that had come up prior with discussion on the article's talk page and was resolved on the video game project talk page, with a very similar IP'd fellow pushing for the other translation (the result of that discussion being the source used was from the horse's mouth). Reporter is using two forum sources that have no backing to them, and was informed through edit summaries and notes left on his talk page that stating that the sources were not verifiable. Instead of resolve the issue, it got pushed to an anon goon rush, and this report filed without notifying me (to point out, the warning tossed my way was a broken vandalism warning by the reporter and was little beyond the template). I apologize for the mess, but the article is effectively being goon rushed by vandals and a pending discussion for protection was put up.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Kung Fu Man has let himself be drawn into an edit war with a whole collection of IPs, all but one of which are single-purpose accounts. He has been reverting their effort to use forum postings as references, which is contrary to our policy. I'm semi-protecting the article. I urge all parties to take the dispute to the Talk page. Kung Fu Man is seriously advised to be more careful with 3RR in the future. It should be easy to get help at a noticeboard in this kind of situation. EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:72.81.208.215 reported by Tripping Nambiar (Result:24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Malicious vandal, who has reverted a trail of contributions for revenge motive. Trips (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * IP blocked for 24h. I will keep an eye on the article and s-protect if necessary. Kafziel Complaint Department 03:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Edokter reported by 128.252.254.31 (Result: stale, and WP:LAME to boot)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Heroes_episodes&oldid=240737671


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Heroes_episodes&oldid=240865757
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Heroes_episodes&oldid=241009771
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Heroes_episodes&oldid=241125211
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Heroes_episodes&oldid=241136760


 * Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Edokter#Heroes_Episode_Titles

User does not believe cite is significant enough and has reverted accordingly. Would like some page protection on this one.


 * Comment If a user contests a citation, it is up to you to prove the validity of that source. So far I am not convinced; I still believe it is unverifiable, but I'm not going to fight it anymore despite the bad source. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 21:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

User:64.233.160.136, User:91.121.102.38 and User:76.76.18.139 reported by Blacklist (Result: semi-protection, blacklisted spammed site)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User(s) have got to be a part of the website they keep adding to the article. The site is a Google-ad supported site, which is against Wikipedia standards, plus it is a non-notable website that adds nothing to the already full External Links section. One user I have reported before, the other two popped up after I reported the first one. Previous report is here. Blacklist (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I semi-protected for two weeks. I will investigate the link spamming now. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley reported by Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) (Result:no violation )
. : Time reported: 23:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 22:42, 20 September 2008  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Shwaya (talk) to last version by William M. Connolley")
 * 2) 22:08, 23 September 2008  (edit summary: "rv, please wait until the discussion is over, what's the rush")
 * 3) 07:38, 24 September 2008  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Mariordo (talk) to last version by William M. Connolley")
 * 4) 07:31, 26 September 2008  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Sturtone (talk) to last version by Raul654")
 * 5) 14:00, 26 September 2008  (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Mariordo (talk) to last version by William M. Connolley")
 * 6) 16:58, 26 September 2008  (edit summary: "rv: its only his opinion. You can have "self-described env" if you want")

—Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a six day coverage. No more than three in any one day, no violation. Vsmith (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

59.167.51.83, 59.167.56.223, and 59.167.37.230 reported by Wronkiew (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User:
 * User:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

In each case the article was tagged with the equivalent of. User is aware of 3RR, see, also I attempted to resolve issues on one of the talk pages. Technically 4 reverts in 24 hours and 52 minutes. 59.167.37.230 is not listed in the diffs but made similar edits to the same page in the past two days. Wronkiew (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Also requested semi-protection for the article at Requests for page protection. Wronkiew (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How about fixing the problems with the article? Guy (Help!) 21:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the guy just tags the article without identifying where in the article there is a problem. If he wants to be so proactive, he should sign in and participate in the discussion about the article.2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 02:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the inconvenience if this incident was not severe enough to be reported here. It looked like the people trying to improve the page were having trouble because of edit warring by anonymous users. I would appreciate feedback on how to better resolve problems like this should it come up again. Wronkiew (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Wassimsaade reported by McKhan (talk) (Result: Wassimsaade has virtually no history other than reverts, blocked indef)
. : Time reported: 19:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1) 20:57, 22 September 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 18:51, 23 September 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 240393838 by McKhan (talk)")
 * 3) 16:40, 26 September 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 240594454 by McKhan (talk) Al Ahbash praise al-salaf . They are pro-salafi and anti-Wahhabi.")
 * 4) 16:52, 26 September 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 241157248 by Wassimsaade (talk)")
 * 5) 21:00, 26 September 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 241160241 by McKhan (talk) Please read what al ahbash have to say about their respect for salaf on their web site.")
 * 6) 21:03, 26 September 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 241159895 by McKhan (talk) Check the aicp.org website.")
 * 7) 23:36, 26 September 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 241220445 by McKhan (talk)")
 * 8) 23:37, 26 September 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 241220445 by McKhan (talk)")
 * 9) 23:40, 26 September 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 241231967 by Straight Edge PXK (talk)")
 * 10) 23:43, 26 September 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 241232772 by Straight Edge PXK (talk)")
 * 11) 02:49, 27 September 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 241251418 by McKhan (talk)")
 * 12) 03:00, 27 September 2008  (edit summary: "I'm not changing . I'm adding content with references. It is only fair to give the readers access to all different opinions not only the Wahhabi's opinions.")
 * 13) 11:00, 27 September 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 241277970 by McKhan (talk) It is not out of context. Please stop deleting content.")
 * 14) 17:55, 27 September 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 241351610 by 203.99.175.92 (talk) Please stop this vandalism.")
 * 15) 18:29, 27 September 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 241363815 by 203.99.173.58 (talk) Please talk or stop this vandalism.")
 * 16) 18:47, 27 September 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 241370142 by 203.99.173.58 (talk) Vandalism revert to NPOV")
 * 17) 18:52, 27 September 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 241371066 by 203.99.173.58 (talk) revert vandalism")
 * 18) 19:06, 27 September 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 241373451 by 203.99.173.58 (talk)[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px]] This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.  McKhan (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC) (last warning for removing content)")
 * 19) 19:14, 27 September 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 241374320 by 203.99.173.58 (talk) revert vandalism from IP address 203.99.173.58")

McKhan (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Koki93 reported by Bonadea (talk) (Result: Not yet)
. : Time reported: 19:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 22:19, 26 September 2008
 * 2) 22:29, 26 September 2008
 * 3) 13:10, 27 September 2008
 * 4) 17:04, 27 September 2008


 * Diff of warning: here

The user has not responded to any of the messages on their talk page, and has not justified the re-adding of deleted content in edit summaries. This, to me, indicates that they don't understand why the content is inappropriate for Wikipedia and aren't intrested in engaging in any discussion about it.

—Bonadea (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of those look like self-reverts, please persist in trying to get through to this user, remember their first language may not be English. You have the opportunity here to help them learn and be guided by our principles, I encourage you to do that and help them avoid further problems. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Collounsbury reported by User:Koavf (talk) (Result: Both parties in the wrong, both blocked 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 20:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACollounsbury&diff=241383628&oldid=233541962

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


 * 1) 16:26, 27 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "RV POV and consensus breaking edits by KOAVF.")
 * 2) 17:11, 27 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "RV Koaf edit war, user's 5th Revert without addressing objections to his unilateral editing.")
 * 3) 17:21, 27 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "RV Koavf 7th RV against discussion on talk.")
 * 4) 19:34, 27 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "RV Koavf edit warring.")

Collounsbury and I have butted heads before and this time, he has been just as belligerent to me as before. Posting on Talk:Morocco today, he has written (emphasis in original):
 * Your POV is partisan and extreme, and your editing remains dishonest and fucking pig headed
 * Your faux politeness I have no fucking use for as I see nothing polite in your bloody sleath edit warring year after fucking, ignoring consensus blundering in. As for Golan, they expelled the fucking population you git.

These posted prior to his last two reverts. I informed him that his reverts were deleting an interwiki link and asked him to please stop doing it on the talk and in my edit summary, but he keeps on ignoring this and deleting it anyway. I also honestly don't understand his edit summaries and how I go immediately from fifth to seventh reverts (?) and why he insists that I am reverting "without addressing objections to [my] unilateral editing," when I am posting on talk and actually made a compromise version rather than revert to what I had originally intended.

Bearing all of this in mind, I believe that Collounsbury is editing in bad faith and being uncivil in addition to breaking 3RR. ——Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Kossack4Truth reported by User:Grsz11 (Result: 4 days)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * -- revert: Removed paragraph
 * 1st revert: Same
 * 2nd revert: Same
 * 3rd revert: Readded a deleted paragraph
 * 4th revert: Removed a cited and important, though in his opinion biased, fact.
 * 5th revert: Same


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Kossack4Truth has a history of tendentious editing, resulting in a topic ban from Barack Obama-related articles (see ). According to and  he is banned from all 2008 election-related articles as well. He edit warred to include things at Obama, and he's edit warring now to keep things out at Palin.  Grsz  talk  00:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3RR violation at Sarah Palin, plus a violation of his topic ban from all 2008 election-related articles. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Antiedman reported by User:Lova Falk (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I gave the warning before Antiedman made his fourth revert.--Lova Falk (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel sorry for Antiedman because  the rules that are most important are not  (clear cut) easily understood. so maybe those obviously  Important rules should be made in language that is more understandable to everybody not just for people who take the time to dissect them--65.35.113.170 (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yellow Evan reported by SandyGeorgia (Result: 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 23:27, September 27, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 23:30, September 27, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 13:43, September 28, 2008
 * 4th revert: removed the TfD at 16:32, September 28, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:
 * Also, another warning earlier this month:

Yellow Evan removed the bolding on the template three times, and then removed the TfD. In the interim, also removed the bolding twice, so there's good evidence here for extended edit warring and a checkuser. There is talk page consensus that the bolding breaches MoS, and only Yellow Evan and the IP have restored it. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that Yellow Evan was already blocked once for violating 3RR on a different page. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  20:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And, I want to point out the disruptive nature of his edit warring. We had talk page consensus to redirect the template, but had to go to TfD instead because of the disruption.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 72 hours, given previous 3RR breach and apparent use of IP edits to circumvent 3RR. MastCell Talk 21:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Xinunus reported by PatrickFlaherty (Result: 72h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

--Patrick (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked, three days. east718 //  talk  //  email  // 23:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Pakhtunking reported by User:Scythian77 (Result: indef)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The Scythian 22:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The request is made by a sockpuppet of another user, most likely User:Beh-nam. He is constantly vandalising Pashtun people article and I try to revert his vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakhtunking (talk • contribs) 22:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I only wish to add more photographs of Pashtun women to the article, which it currently lacks. I do not understand your aggressive behavior in this matter. I am more than willing to discuss this matter on either of our talk pages, or the articles discussion page. The Scythian 22:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Pakhtunking is a sockpuppet of NisarKand and has been blocked. east718 //  talk  //  email  // 23:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana888 and Deavenger reported by Goingoveredge (Result:No action taken, users warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: by Nirvana888, 13:41, 28 September 2008
 * 2nd revert: by Nirvana888, 22:12, 28 September 2008
 * 3rd revert: by Nirvana888, 22:51, 28 September 2008
 * 4th revert: by Canvassed meatpuppet Deavenger, 23:25. 28 September 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The edit-warring by the two users reported here has taken place in tandem, as I will now proceed to prove by a timeline of events.

Thus, it is established that Nirvana888 and Deavenger have been edit-warring in tandem and, for the purposes of this case, may be treated as one editor executing 4 reverts in violation of 3rr.Goingoveredge (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1st revert takes place here at 13:41, 28 September 2008 by Nirvana888
 * 2nd revert takes place here at 22:12, 28 September 2008 by Nirvana888
 * I warn Nirvana888 here that he is on route to violate 3rr at 22:31, 28 September 2008
 * 3rd revert takes place here at 22:51, 28 September 2008
 * Nirvana888, realizing that he can't revert anymore for the day, executes a "call to arms" to ideological meatpuppets Deavenger here at time 23:36 on this date and User:Hobie Hunter here at time 23:01, 28 September 2008.
 * They then proceed to intimidate me with incivil posts and combative rhetoric here.
 * The 4th revert is executed by deavenger at time 23:25, AFTER Nirvana888's transparent Canvassing here


 * You have no two legs to stand on Goingoveredge and you know it. Deavenger can absolutely attest to the fact that I did not canvass him. He had only read a message I posted on User:Hobie Hunter's Talk page asking him to keep an eye on further disruptive edits and was drawn to the article. It is I who should be reporting you for disruptive editing despite repeated attempts to get you to build consensus. You have a recent history of egregious edit warring/POV pushing and have been blocked 3 times by my count. Deavenger and I have not been blocked once before and have been asked you to build consensus before making unilateral changes. You have also broken 3RR by reverting parts of the section at least 4 times. Also, please get your facts straight, Deavenger reverted to consensus BEFORE I left a message on his Talk page asking that he keep an eye on you too. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Notice that the user, Norvana888, continues his combative and incivil posture, relying on ad-hominen attacks and mud-slinging to bolster his position. He believes that the admin studying this section will be impressed or intimidated by his aggressive and verbose pontificating and his usage of quaint idioms like "no two legs to stand on" or whatever, and proceed, in mortified awe, to side with him. The other tactic used by the meatpuppets is the logical fallacy of "Sins of our fathers", pointing to earlier cases that have no relation to this one. In addition, he believes that testimony from the accused, without backed by third party verification, can refute the case against him (also a logical fallacy). Despite that, the facts of this case stand on their own ground. The timeline clearly establishes that the two users have engaged in a rather transparent attempt at meatpuppetry. More cautious meatpuppets typically canvass off wiki through email or instant messaging, but the brazen impertinence and arrogance of these users is so strong that they believe that they have wikipedia admins wrapped around their finger and thus, can blithely violate every rule on wikipedia and get away with it scot-free. Let's hope, by the grace of God, that they are wrong, or else wikipedia is doomed.Their accusing me of violating wp rules is a bit like a criminal frantically crying "thief" in order to deflect attention away from his shenanigans. Goingoveredge (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny with your last reply. I will assuming that you are not making light of the situation in which case I think you should probably reread Canvassing before accusing others. Nirvana888 (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the relevant part:
 * Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion (in this case, edit-warring on Potential superpower). Under certain conditions (not these ones) it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion (which is what heppened here) compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive...Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, through the use of non-neutral tone, wording, or intent (clearly the case here, as Nirvana888's statements above indicate). While this may be appropriate as part of an individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages.Goingoveredge (talk) 02:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoo, this is going to be fun... first of all, Goingoveredge, you reverted well over 5 times on one day here. What's up, dude? Have those three blocks not done anything? Please, don't edit war. I'm not going to block you this time, but other admins aren't nearly as easy-going.
 * Now, Nirvana888: You shouldn't be canvassing, either. It would be acceptable if you were, say, telling editors to watch for a vandal, but this is a content dispute. It would be a much better option to seek a WP:3O or WP:RFC than go around asking people to revert an editor because you can't. And let's leave Goingoveredge's history alone here; focus on the now.
 * All in all, I have a suggestion; stop attacking how you present yourselves and instead focus on the issue. You have an impressive vocabulary, but writing an essay on how these two are only attacking you and not your argument is a bit hypocritical. Don't build your cases against each other, but build them against each others' arguments instead so that you can fix this issue.
 * Oh, and if you keep edit warring I'm locking the article. But you guys won't start that up again, right? Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  02:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice Master of Puppets. I must admit I could have been more cool towards Goingoveredge but he did not seem to heed any warning whatsoever to discuss first or build consensus. That said, I just want to clarify that I DID NOT convass anyone to revert edits by Goingoveredge. I asked them to keep an eye should further disruptive edits occur after which I would have asked for "intervention" as you wisely recommended through WP:3O or WP:RFC. Hope that clarifies. Nirvana888 (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your mediation, master of puppets. I agree with your stance and would request you mediate any disputes over this article that may arise.Goingoveredge (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You may have had good intentions, but people are very twitchy around here sometimes, so be a bit more mindful of that in the future. Anyway, I guess this is resolved; all we need is Goingoveredge's acceptance of these terms. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  03:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I was actually about to ban Goingoveredge for disruptive edit warring and abuse of process.--Tznkai (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As I would like to point out to the Admins, one I didn't break the 3RR rule, as I only reverted his edits twice. 2, me and Nirvana and Hobie work on the same project of Power in International relations. Recently, we've been having trouble with users on the Potential Superpowers and Superpowers page, who all tried to add in new sources that would not be considered reliable for Power in International Relations project articles. When Nirvana informed me and Hobie, we said that we shall be keeping an eye on Goingoveredge. In fact, I told Nirvana that me and Hobie would check the sources Goingoveredge was posting to see if they were reliable, as Nirvana had some concerns of that they were more about India being an economic superpower instead of a potential superpower. I told Nirvana that I would check the sources to see if they were reliable sources related to the article, as the author was a reliable person in Political science. We never said that we would work together to get Goingoveredge blocked or banned. We were worried that this could turn into an edit war when one user was going against the members of Power in International relations. However, we promised no action against goingoveredge except that we would keep an eye on him, to see if any action would need to be taken. As Nirvana said, the first time I reverted Going's edits was before he left a message on my talk page. As the majority of my edits fall under the Potential Superpower article and it's talk page, and I keep a watch on the majority of the pages that fall under the Power in International Relations, mostly the Great Power, Superpower, and Potential Superpower pages. Me and Nirvana or Hobie aren't friends, we aren't homies. We don't exchange our email addresses or IM to talk to each other. We're members of the same project, and work together to make the articles better, and hopefully get our articles to become Featured Articles. We work together to help improve the articles, and we contact each other when we feel that other users might start causing edit wars, or add POV or unreliable sources. Now, that's all I'm going to say on this subject. The admins have access to mine, Nirvana, and Going's contributions, and they can make the descision. Deavenger (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies to the Admins, I've been writing this for a while before I noticed that Master of Puppets had taken action. My apologies. Deavenger (talk) 03:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. If, in the future, you have an issue with another user, please don't hesitate to contact an administrator (as I said, WP:3O is a great place) with your concerns; as you can see, dealing with it this way makes things a bit more complex. Oh, and if anyone has any more questions or so, please don't hesitate to direct them to my talk page. Cheers, Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  03:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Though the case is already decided, I'd like to add a further note. A recent ANI discussion mentions Goingoveredge, though not this particular article. Since this editor has been blocked three times for edit warring in the past month, I recommend that he slow down on the reverts for a while. Somebody like Goingoveredge who has strong views about the content of Potential superpowers would do well to participate on its Talk page, something he has yet to do. EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The point here is that the two editors clearly think that they Own the articles and are willing to engage in Disrupting the addition of peer-reviewed sources in order to make a point. If they have issues with the sources cited, making this a content dispute, then they should raise it in the talk page instead of blanket-reverting to the version that puts undue weight on the self-published sources they cite. If they wish to discuss civilly each source and point then I am more than happy to participate in discussion.Goingoveredge (talk) 03:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! :) Thanks for being reasonable, everyone. Hopefully the talk page bears fruit for this issue. If any mediation is needed, I'd be glad to come by. Happy editing, Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  03:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

88.109.250.126 reported by The Rogue Penguin (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:47, September 28, 2008


 * 1st revert: 14:23, September 28, 2008
 * 2nd revert: 15:44, September 28, 2008
 * 3rd revert: 16:37, September 28, 2008
 * 4th revert: 18:08, September 28, 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 18:03, September 28, 2008

The user is continually inserting his original research into the article. I have warned him with the standard templates to level 2, explained why he cannot add original research, and asked him to stop repeatedly. As far as he's concerned, it's trolling and vandalism to revert him. Warnings are likewise blanked. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The IP has gone over 3RR, but there's not much point in blocking a single-purpose account that has existed for just one day. I'm semi-protecting the article for one week, hoping to reduce the edit war. It appears that many IPs who don't participate on Talk are adding unsourced material. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

75.168.221.28 reported by XF Law (Result:24-hour block)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Can you look at User:75.168.218.128 as well? Same 3RR on the exact same reversion. Similar IP as well. Thanks. XF Lawtalk at me 06:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * User:75.168.218.128 was blocked by another administrator; I gave User:75.168.221.28 a 24-hour block. Cheers, Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  22:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Littledoggy26 reported by DAJF (Result:48 hour block)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I can't determine whether the user genuinely believes his edits are justified - despite being advised otherwise - or whether this is just willful vandalism. I am therefore reluctant to make any more reverts myself and risk accusations of edit-warring. (DAJF (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC))


 * Sadly, he hasn't communicated with anyone so I'm hard-pressed to say he has good intentions. The spinning of in-page warnings is an issue, as well. I'll hand out a two day block and we'll see what happens. Thanks for reporting this, you did the right thing. And you get special praise for remaining calm through it! :D Cheers, Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  22:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

User:99.224.42.232 reported by Emarsee (Result: 24 hrs)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User keeps on adding links to the Canadian television system's that broadcasts that show's website for that show for Private Practice, Two and a Half Men,  and Mad Men and Fringe (TV series) Emarsee (Talk • Contribs) 23:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * User made 5th revert here Emarsee (Talk • Contribs) 23:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

JJJ999 reported by Girolamo Savonarola (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: link


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: link

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

130.127.230.139 reported by TonyTheTiger (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: link


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: link

3-RR warining in edit summary of diff above. Many requests for talk page debate in diffs ignored. Article is so newly promoted it is still at Good articles/recent.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 23:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Finalyzer reported by User:Biophys (Result: 24 hours)

 * Three-revert rule violation on 2008 South Ossetia war.

Time reported: 02:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:44, 29 September 2008


 * 1st revert: 01:42, 30 September 2008
 * 2nd revert: 02:38, 30 September 2008
 * 3rd revert: 03:01, 30 September 2008
 * 4th revert: 03:58, 30 September 2008
 * 5th revert 23:21, 30 September 2008


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 18:14, 30 September 2008


 * I believe this obvious SPA is a sockpuppet of . LokiiT previously tried to remove precisely the same information from the same article:

They also use similar language and abbreviations in edit summaries (e.g."WP:OR") - please compare edit histories

After receiving this editing restriction, LokiiT apparently decided to restore to sockpuppetry.Biophys (talk) 02:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours. No judgement on the sockpuppet issue, you may want to pursue through WP:SSP, WP:RCU, or an admin more familiar with the situation. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Duffbeerforme reported by Soundvisions1 (talk) (Result: No Action )
. : Time reported: 13:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 09:26, 24 September 2008  (edit summary: "remove some non notable")
 * 2) 09:41, 24 September 2008  (edit summary: "B")
 * 3) 11:19, 25 September 2008  (edit summary: "remove nn, fix links")
 * 4) 08:56, 29 September 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 241217003 by Soundvisions1 (talk)")
 * 5) 09:46, 30 September 2008  (edit summary: "remove readded")


 * Diff of warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Duffbeerforme#Please_discuss_before_delete.

This is borderline 3RR because of the time span, however based on the current 2 reverts in 24 hours combined with the first edits and reverts along with lack of full discussion before making changes I can foresee this becoming an issue. I started a talk page topic on September 1, 2008 named Bands on this list should be notable or canonical examples of an all- (RE: Garik11) to address some issues. User:Duffbeerforme did not join into the discussion prior to making deletions and I started a subsection on called "/RE: Duffbeerforme/" on September 26 to address their deletions. He did not reply until September 29, but he made the same deletions again without discussing. I again replied and reverted pending further discussion and awoke to find the same deletions made. After this mornings reverts I updated the subheaders on the talk page to better reflect the topic "This Lists Subject specific Notability Guidelines" with a subsection called "Changing the lead section (Male Member inclusion)". Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You should try some form of dispute resolution, or start an AN/I topic, but there isn't call for a 3RR block at this point.-- Koji Dude  (C) 22:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. If User:Duffbeerforme deletes the same items again I will for sure open a AN/I topic. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Follow up - all revisions were again reverted. I am going to open open a AN/I topic again.Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

67.79.157.50 reported by AdjustShift (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

IP 67.79.157.50 was warned not to revert edits without discussing with fellow editors, but the IP reverted without discussion. Please see User talk:67.79.157.50. AdjustShift (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

User:190.246.82.69 reported by User:Michellecrisp (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Concerns that this editor is a single purpose editor and potential sockpuppet WP:Suspected sock puppets/Spindoctor69 of banned user that was previously trying to influence deletion discussion of this article. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * First revert is a self-revert. Stifle (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Could this be considered a first revert ? Michellecrisp (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really, but the IPs edits seem to mostly consist of adding spam, so I've semi-protectected the page for 2 days. Stifle (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

User:VedicScience reported by User:Akhilleus (Result: Protected)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 03:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:51, 30 September 2008


 * 1st revert: 17:06, 30 September 2008
 * 2nd revert: 21:49, 30 September 2008
 * 3rd revert: 24:17, 30 September 2008 (This one is by VedicScience's "friend", User:69.250.46.133.)
 * 4th revert: 03:00, 1 October 2008
 * 5th revert: 03:35, 1 October 2008
 * Diff of 3RR warning: 04:09, 29 September 2008 03:07, 1 October 2008
 * Stifle (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

User:TechBear reported by User:124.182.52.116 (Result: Declined)
Flying Spagetti Monster page. He and another user have been instantaniously reverting despite warning on consensus reached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.52.116 (talk) 14:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact 124.182.52.116 has changed the consensus text at Flying Spagetti Monster three or four times today, and the change has been independently reverted by at least three different editors. It is 124.182.52.116 that requires the block! SNALWIBMA ( talk - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 14:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

— Satori Son 15:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

User:65.32.230.244 reported by User:Mr T (Based) (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Multiple reversions across the Syphon Filter series pages.


 * 65.32.230.244 just blocked 31 hours for trolling talk pages after final warning. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Geoffrey.landis reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: Final warning delivered)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 21:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 2008-09-30T21:06:50 (re-inserts "re-"; see )
 * 2nd revert: 2008-10-01T00:46:47
 * 3rd revert: 2008-10-01T12:58:59
 * 4th revert: 2008-10-01T20:14:17


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Note: the entirety of the dispute is over the apparently trivial addition of the term "re-" in front of "radiate"; see talk William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I call WP:LAME. Geoffrey's behavior was not useful. However, given that he cannot self-revert (he already has been reverted again), I issued a warning instead of a block. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll live William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

84.103.37.167 reported by Aunt Entropy (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:


 * Cr*p report but 24h anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

SkyBon reported by Kober (Result: Closed)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * The user has previously been blocked for 3RR and is aware of the 3RR rule:


 * Edit warring and removal of sourced text amid ongoing discussion. --KoberTalk 15:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree


 * 1st revert: 13:20, 1 October 2008
 * 2nd revert: 13:45, 1 October 2008
 * 3rd revert: 13:52, 1 October 2008, and this
 * 4th revert: 15:01, 1 October 2008
 * 5th revert: 15:09, 1 October 2008

Edit war with several users over a tag; then unilateral deletion of texts supported by reliable sources. Also incivility ("vandalism" accusations in first diff).

This user was recently blocked for edit warring on related subjects, and repeatedly warned by several users about RR waring, as clear from his talk page.Biophys (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this SkyBon should be listed here.Biophys (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Incivility by SkyBon continue. He deleted comments by another user from an article talk page .Biophys (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: User SkyBon placed on topic editing restrictions due to disruptive edits. I have not addressed this 3RR report. — Satori Son 15:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the last of User:SkyBon's edits in question. I'm pretty sure he's not going to edit war at that article any more as he'll see that there's a consensus against his version. So I think that blocking would be redundant here. Alæxis¿question? 16:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your revert does not change the fact that SkyBon is a relentless edit warrior with a strong POV.--KoberTalk 17:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 6th revert by SkyBon: . He is making RR war over tags. This makes things only worse. The revert by Alaexius does not matter at all. SkyBot did not make a self-revert even when he was asked. This is clear and blatant RR violation on the part of SkyBot. He continue reverts even after being reported here. Biophys (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * He's stopped editing for now and as such the edit war isn't active. I am going to let this be but bear in mind that you're all heading for a WP:LAME listing if this kicks off again :( Stifle (talk) 08:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

HairyHannah reported by Epicadam (Result: 1 month block)

 * Page:
 * User: and


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

User HairyHannah and IP 71.200.22.228 are the same person. The user has been in a persistent edit war with User:BaldPete. This user has attempted to contact this user directly on the article's talk page, on the user's personal talk page, and finally submitted a report at WP:EAR; I responded to that request for assistance. HairyHannah/71.200.22.228 apparently refuse to engage in any action other than reverting sourced edits. Thank you for your assistance. Best, epicAdam(talk) 13:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 14:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Langdell reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: 3 hour block of User:Langdell)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 10:21 AM


 * Previous version reverted to: {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gnosis&diff=242467381&oldid=242378385]


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


 * Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 15:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thumper10 reported by Ryan Postlethwaite (Result: 24 hour block)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 2 October 2008, 18:48
 * 2nd revert: 2 October 2008, 03:10
 * 3rd revert: 2 October 2008, 00:34
 * 4th revert: 2 October 2008, 00:39
 * 5th Revert: 1 October 2008, 23:33


 * Diff of 3RR warning: ,

This does look like an SPA working on the page, but he's been given two warnings now to stop edit warring yet he continues. These edits are all after the first warning and there's plenty more reversions by him in the last 24 hours - check the article history for more information.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 18:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Roadahead reported by Goingoveredge (Result: 72 hour block)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Edit-war has spilled over to khalistani troll magnet article Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity.Goingoveredge (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 18:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * These two editors have been bickering extensively. Probably time for dispute resolution.--Tznkai (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like they have been going at it, but this time it's pretty cut-and-dry. Roadahead reverted more than 3 times while Goingoveredge did not.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 18:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Glasscobra reported by User:Tmore3 (Result: no vio)

 * Page: Kristen Aldridge
 * User: User:GlassCobra


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kristen_Aldridge&oldid=241914653


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kristen_Aldridge&oldid=242547432
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kristen_Aldridge&oldid=242581522
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kristen_Aldridge&oldid=242591928
 * 4th revert: [link]

Article seems on verge of violation of 3RR edit war issues; user seems unwilling to provide some reasonable justification for his restores. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmore3 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Tmore insists on gutting this article completely, citing WP:SPS. However, this is not applicable here — the information within the article isn't violating BLP in any way. 3RR has not yet been technically broken by any parties, I have called for other, uninvolved opinions. Glass  Cobra  21:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody has violated 3RR yet - although both the reporter and the reportee are close. I've warned the reporter before seeing this report.  Recommend closure with both users warned; however, as I'm somewhat involved, I won't do this myself.   - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, Glasscobra states he's called for "uninvolved opinions" but can't see where this was done and then all of the sudden Rjd comes around and warns just myself about edit warring and then reverts not to where the article was before the edit dispute began but to GlassCobra's last edit. Again per WP:BURDEN the burden to provide verifiable references relies on the person adding information. As for the source of the dispute, my issue with this article is what it was created with a very obvious motive.  GlassCobra has maintained that the person's website and myspace page are reliable sources and Rjd seems to agree per the message he left on my talk page.  I will continue to contest this not only on grounds of WP:SPS but also WP:SELFPUB # 3.  As a side note if anyone clicks on her website you'll get an idea on how much research or verification apparently went in to including the content that has been posted. Tmore3 (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was going to block the reporter for extended edit-warring which constitutes basically their entire recent contribution history, but see that Rjd0060's warned them. No action taken for now. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap"><big style="color:#900">east718 //  talk  //  email  // 22:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice so let me get this straight east you were going to 1) Block one party without warning for edit warring and not the other and because they did not edit a certain # of additional articles and 2) Go against a long established policy consensus on Wikipedia Verifiability . Since you like to take some time to go through the history of the page you'll see my edit in the original removal of content was backed up by reasoning and citing of WP policy. GlassCobra's first edit did nothing to explain why he restored what he did.  My revert then followed with shortcut citing the reasoning behind my edit and GlassCobra responded merely with stating it was overzealous and reverted it back to his version.  Tmore3 (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a place for discussion — if you've a disagreement with east718's decision, take it to his talk page; if you've a disagreement with other editors of the article, take it to the article's talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

213.202.143.88 reported by Setanta747 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

This anon user has removed the warning from his talk page.

The user has also reverted similar articles with the same or similar text. See contribs. I also suspect the anon user of being a sockpuppet of an established user, considering they have knowledge of Wikipedia jargon and states specifically that they are "editing as an IP". Other articles affected include Northern Ireland and Flag of Ireland.

Similar non-registered edits have taken place recently here (by the same IP) and...


 * Flag of Ireland
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * 11:30, 2 September 2008
 * 09:08, 2 September 2008
 * 11:30, 2 September 2008
 * 09:08, 2 September 2008
 * 09:08, 2 September 2008
 * 09:08, 2 September 2008


 * Irish nationality law
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here

.. and many more, I'm sure. It should be noted that User:Watchlistac, User:Here4asec, User:Here42secs and User:ThatsGrand have all been banned as being sockpuppets of User:Wikipéire here (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wikipéire). This user is extremely disruptive and basically the only input they seem to have is changing articles in a similar manner, all with the same theme, as those reverts listed above. --Setanta747 (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you feel the same person is using IPs or multiple accounts to get around 3RR, place a category E listing at WP:RFCU. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Stifle - I will re-submit this report there. I feel I must point out though, the lack of consistency here (note that I am not suggesting that you, as an individual, are inconsistent) - people have been blocked for less than three or four reverts when reported, often because the intent to edit-war has been shown. --Setanta747 (talk) 09:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Lordvolton reported by User:Grsz11(Result: No violation)

 * Page: (on probation)
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Probation warning:
 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Insists on deleting a referenced statement from the article.  Grsz  X  16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The "1st revert" that you indicated does not appear to be a revert to me, just a normal edit. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The first edit was the removal of a well-cited fact despite the talk page. Perhaps not technically a revert (though I thought the rule was to punish 4 changes to the same segment regardless of whether it is technically a revert or not), you could block him for edit warring or disrupting posting, seeing as he has been actively engage in both.LedRush (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If he starts edit warring again, just report it and someone will take action. It looks like he's stopped for now, though.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

A removal of anything is a revert. I've seen blocks for less.  Grsz  X  20:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * One other thing we must take into consideration when we are dealing with problems in the Barack Obama pages, is the probation it is under. Remember the 3RR rule has been lowered and can be applied for less if it is seen as the person is either trying to be disruptive or is subverting rules to prove a point.  Brothejr (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Pharmdmsn reported by User:Torsodog(Result: 24 hour block)

 * Page:
 * User:


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

Insists adding long, bulky text about something that should obviously be included on the entry's Wiktionary page and not Wikipedia. --TorsodogTalk 17:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Gonbal2 reported by The Ogre (talk) (Result: No violation)

 * Three-revert rule violation on by : Time reported: 17:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:32, 28 September 2008

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 16:00, 28 September 2008  (edit summary: "/* Historical background */")
 * 2) 14:09, 29 September 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 23:26, 29 September 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 20:22, 30 September 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 07:10,  2 October 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 14:45,  2 October 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 7) 19:25,  2 October 2008  (edit summary: "")
 * 8) 14:23,  3 October 2008  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of 3RR warning: 17:52, 3 October 2008

Insists on an oudated racialist view of the Spanish People, that has been dismissed in talk. —The Ogre (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is clearly a case of disruptive editing! The user in question just lets some hours pass after the 24 hour period in order to revert and without any sort of discussion! What should one do? The Ogre (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you have blocked him for edit warring. OK. The Ogre (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, yeah I was just about to say that just because there wasn't a violation of 3RR doesn't mean that an edit warring block isn't appropriate. :-)  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Segregator236, reported by ThePointblank (Result:Discussing with user)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Engaged in a long term revert war on C-802 from July of 2008. Insists on using incorrect information in the infobox, and provides a unverifiable source as justification for his edits. Long term, complex edit war. Has also been engaged in edit wars in the past, according to the warns listed on his talk page, so there is evidence of consistent behaviour of using unverifiable sources for engaging in edit wars. ThePointblank (talk) 02:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * User warned; I hate blocking people, but if he keeps doing it I will. Thanks for reporting this. <span style="color:#">Master of Puppets <sub style="color:">Call me MoP! :)  08:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Orthopraxia reported by Koalorka (Result:No action taken, discussing with users)

 * Page: MISR
 * User: User:Orthopraxia


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

The user has not provided any supporting arguments, has accused others of vandalism repeatedly and continues to revert after receiving a warning from User:Nukes4Tots. Koalorka (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This needs to be discussed further; I'm not going to lock or block yet, but if you guys keep on comparing sizes I'll have to. For now, keep your cool; I'll leave comments on User talk:Koalorka. Cheers, <span style="color:#">Master of Puppets <sub style="color:">Call me MoP! :)  07:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User:ItsLassieTime reported by User:Collectonian (Result:no punitive measures, discussing with parties)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to: link


 * 1st revert: link
 * 2nd revert: link
 * 3rd revert: link
 * 4th revert: link
 * 5th revert after a second editor also removed image: link


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Refuses to allow discussion to continue before continuing to readd image, despite it being against WP:NONFREE and a 30 being filed. Exhibiting strong ownership claims over article, including declaring that edits must be approved (except hers of course) and that "it is NOT your place to make decisions as to what this article should and should not include"; also making personal attacks in attempted discussions including making a false claim that the 2nd editor is a sockpuppet. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully we can settle this by civil means; I laid out the ground rules on the talk page. <span style="color:#">Master of Puppets <sub style="color:">Call me MoP! :)  07:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Thulasi12345 reported by User:Bignole (Result:User warned)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spider-Man_4&diff=242964863&oldid=242964809 Original version[


 * 1) Revert: Revision as of 09:06, October 4, 2008
 * 2) Revert: Revision as of 09:29, October 4, 2008
 * 3) First warning: Revision as of 09:36, October 4, 2008
 * 4) Revert: Revision as of 09:39, October 4, 2008
 * 5) Second warning: Current revision as of 09:44, October 4, 2008
 * 6) Revert: Revision as of 09:45, October 4, 2008


 * about the three-revert-rule. This is a new user who may not be aware of our rules and practices. CIreland (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Verbal reported by Zzmang (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: [link]


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

Reply The first is an edit, not a revert, then I have made two reverts of one user. I am well within the 3RR and have asked for the page to be protected. Please see my reasoning there and the discussion at the AfD. I was not alerted to this case, and the 3RR warning was placed after the above edits (although I concede I am fully aware of the 3RR and that less than 4 reverts can still result in blocking). I do not believe I have acted against the spirit or letter of the 3RR, and my actions have been proper and in defence of wikipedia and the project. Verbal  chat  15:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * CIreland (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly the first change is the same as the two reversions which follow, absolutely obvious case. Zzmang (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Garda40 reported by CroatiaShoes (Result: Both blocked, 24h)

 * Page:
 * User:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of 3RR warning:

I added a reference, which this editor has reverted four times. After his second revert I left him a message on his talk page, asking what the problem was, however he just described me as a POV editor here and just ignored the issue at hand. I again asked the question and that if he could stick to the facts. He replied the same thing and continued to revert the reference I added.CroatiaShoes (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

ReplyThe user has spent all afternoon addind this message to various Ireland related boards ''The name of the state is officially "Ireland", in this case Republic of Ireland is being used for disambiguation purposes. (See Names of the Irish state). as a ref '' despite being told here why the wording was that particular way .If he had only done it once I would believe him to a mistaken editor but his actions suggest he is a sockpuppet of wikipere who caused trouble on the same articles about 3 weeks ago and who Alison had to clean up after .Garda40 (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You gave absolutely no reason for the removal. What you wrote was gibberish and didn't explain its removal. You had plenty of oppurtunity to explain on my talk page and still refuse to explain to me now. I still don't understand why you have such an objection to it. It's a reference after all! I did indeed input the reference in many places. It was my project for the day. You are the only editor who has rejected this reference, again without reason. You refused to WP:AGF and blindly reverted breaking 3RR, you had plenty of time to explain your actions but none came. Not only that you abused me on my talk page and accussed of me of breaking 3RR on another topic when I wasn't anywhere near doing so. This reference has nothing to do with trouble that occurred 4 weeks ago. It is you causing the trouble now. This is a clear case of you wrongly breaking 3RR.CroatiaShoes (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply::(after edit conflict) CroatiaShoes also admits to gaming the system I make sure to not brake 3RR. and this from a new account here


 * Since when is there something wrong with not breaking the rules? I made sure I didn't break the rules. Everyone knows about 3RR. I admit to not understanding what 'gaming the system' means. I know the 3rr rule and I made sure I didn't break it. I opened a discussion on the matter. Garda40 did no such thing he reverted away.CroatiaShoes (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Admittedly I did break 3RR and not realise so until editor pointed it out but I believed I was dealing with a POV pushing Single Purpose Account . Garda40 (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ignoring me trying to resolve the dispute and reverting instead is clearly you understanding you do not wish to do things correctly and wished to edit war.CroatiaShoes (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply::accussed of me of breaking 3RR on another topic. I accused him of globally breaking breaking 3RR not 3RR on each article .Garda40 (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure what globally breaking 3RR means but I have never once broken the 3RR rule on any article.CroatiaShoes (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * for 24 hours. CIreland (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== User:PeeJay2K3 reported by <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:red">Croatia <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Shoes  (Result: Page protected) ==

. : Time reported: 00:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 13:41,  4 October 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 242956373 by CroatiaShoes (talk) inappropriate")
 * 2) 14:01,  4 October 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 242963434 by CroatiaShoes (talk) how is it misleading?")
 * 3) 22:55,  4 October 2008  (edit summary: "Undid revision 243052022 by CroatiaShoes (talk) now you're just being WP:POINTy")
 * 4) 00:04,  5 October 2008  (edit summary: "all of the references used for this article refer to "the Republic of Ireland", not simply "Ireland"")


 * Diff of warning: here

I made different edits dealing with different things on the article and all were reverted by this user. I have only reverted once on this article for the record. —<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:red">Croatia <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Shoes  00:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The third "revert" listed here is not a revert. I was making a legitimate edit to the article, not reverting any material added by another editor. Furthermore, I had no 3RR warning posted to my talk page, so this report is irrelevant. In addition, the user making this report seems to revel in quoting rules and regs at people, so I am actually surprised that no notification was posted. Finally, I believe that the fourth revert listed above should be discounted as it was a legitimate attempt to revert vandalism (in this case, a WP:POINTy edit). – PeeJay 00:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You reverted my edits. I did not revert any of yours. You know the rules. I know the rules. I reverted once only and stopped. Youd didn't. You broke 3RR.<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:red">Croatia <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Shoes  00:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's very easy to hide behind the rulebook, isn't it? I would very much like to accuse you of "gaming the system". Furthermore, although ignorance is not a valid defence, neither can you assume that people know all the rules. A 3RR warning should have been posted to my talk page. If this were real life and you were a police officer, I would probably call this entrapment. – PeeJay 00:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is now protected for 3 days. Please try and find common ground during that time, and seek assistance from other editors via WP:3O pr WP:RFC if you need it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * CroatiaShoes is yet another sock pocket of the blocked user User:Wikipéire, why are admins listening to him? His sole intention is to create single purpose accounts, push his agenda and try to get other users blocked. Is this how wikipedia works now? Vandals, blocked users and sockpuppets are listened to while users who are palying by the rules are punished? remarkable! Snappy56 (talk) 03:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)