Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive48

User:72.66.51.129 and User:207.114.16.210 reported by User:Upholder (Result:)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 72.66.51.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 17:38, May 20, 2007

There have now been a total of 9 reverts by this editor on these two IPs:

• 1st revert: 09:52, May 18, 2007
• 2nd revert: 12:32, May 18, 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:18, May 18, 2007
• 4th revert: 15:20, May 18, 2007
• 5th revert: 2007-05-19 23:08:55 by User:72.66.51.129 which is another address that User:207.114.16.210 has used in the past. This Comment just before the 5th revert was posted from User:72.66.51.129 but signed as User:207.114.16.210. Based on the editing history of these two users (focusing on topics related to Illinois or Indiana college basketball) I'm convinced that this the same person on both IP addresses.
• 6th revert: 09:30, May 20, 2007 (made by User:72.66.51.129).
• 7th revert: 14:00, May 20, 2007 (made by User:72.66.51.129, third by that IP in less than 24 hours).
• 8th revert: 17:38, May 20, 2007 (as User:72.66.51.129, fourth by that IP in less than 24 hours).
• 9th revert: 08:04, May 21, 2007 (as User:207.114.16.210).
• 10th revert: 12:49, May 21, 2007 (as User:207.114.16.210).

• Diff of 3RR warnings: 19:00, May 18, 2007 and 11:59, May 20, 2007

Response

If any action is taken with regard to this alleged violation of the 3RR, I would only ask that all offenders be treated equally. To this extent, I would note that this dispute also involved violations of the three revert rule by User:Chiwara who twice made 3+ reverts to the Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball article within 24 hours:

(1) 23:04 17 May 2007 (2) 15:43 18 May 2007 (3) 18:39 18 May 2007 and (1) 14:55 20 May 2007 (2) 05:44 21 May 2007 (3) 14:29 21 May 2007

The above notwithstanding, I would suggest that current discussions appear to be headed towards resolution and any blocking is unecessary and will simply inflame the situation. 207.114.16.210 15:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Simoes

(Result: unactionable)

• Previous version reverted to: 20:50, 19 May 2007

• 1st revert: 22:17, 19 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 03:19, 20 May 2007
• 3rd revert:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts&diff=132365566&oldid=132337438 22:07, 20 May 2007]

• 4th revert: 22:16, 20 May 2007

This report is coming off the heels of a first report and block that happened a couple days ago. Like last time, the user is insistent that his preferred version of the article remain in place despite objections from several editors.

) 06:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Three of the diffs are for

List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, the other is for Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball. Therefore, no violation has been demonstrated. Please use the example format at the bottom of this page to avoid mistakes like this. --Selket ^Talk

08:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I replaced that one with the one Simoes intended. The explanation is that at least one of these (the 1st or 2nd or both) was not a revert. In any case the article is back at the other version now.

It is clear that this is just more harassment by Simoes, as he has contributed nothing to the article over the past several days, while I have continued posting to the talk page and madesome edits to the article that have not been reverted. The way, the truth, and the light 08:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Asgardian reported by User:Doczilla (Result:)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Vision (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Asgardian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 23:33, 19 May 2007

• 1st revert: 01:50, 20 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 04:08, 20 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 02:25, 21 May 2007 The wording of his edit summary "Since the other version is fundamentally flawed for all the previously listed reasons, this is the version that should be addressed as it has been shaped to user comments." sounds like he didn't even glance at the intermediate version but simply reverted because it wasn't his. (I'm not saying that's what happened. I'm saying that's how it looked.)
• 4th revert: 02:48, 21 May 2007 This version isn't a 100% reversion because he edited it this time, but look at the intermediate version he changed. He keeps reverting this from a disambiguation page. Edit summary makes this look like another blind revert without looking at intermediate version: "Address the issues - this version has correct tense, no POV, correct grammar, sourcing and no spacing issues/poor use of images. Other version only suitable for fan site."

Notice that this is 4 reverts in 25 hours. However, (1) the 3RR guidelines stress that the rule is not a license to make 3 reverts every 24 hours ("Revert warring is disruptive, and the 3RR is not an entitlement to three 'free' reverts per day."), (2) this user has been endlessly cautioned about edit warring, (3) this user has gotten into trouble for 3RR before, so making 4 reverts in 25 hours comes across as an attempt to get around the rules without following their actual intent, (4) he has kept the Vision (comics), Vision (Marvel Comics), Vision (Timely Comics) locked in a war (he has kept numerous articles locked in edit wars), (5) he alone has been fighting against consensus to split Vision (Marvel Comics) and Vision (Timely Comics) into two separate articles, and (6) he apparently doesn't even know how to move articles correctly from one article name to another because his actions have caused disruption of discussion as talk pages and histories get left behind. I really, really hate to do this, but this edit war must stop.

Previous 3RR warning:

• 09:56, 25 September 2006 (not formal warning, just a caution)
• 17:52, 26 October 2006
• 18:39, 26 November 2006. (caution only? I'm not sure because of how often Asgardian deleted warnings and removed other contributor's comments from his talk page.)
• 17:40, 14 January 2007
• 18:24, 24 March 2007 (I thought this was just someone pointing out a violation to him, not a formal notice, until I saw comments at User talk:GentlemanGhost.

Notice that he has removed his 3RR block notices from his talk page despite previous warnings not to do that.

Other block notice:

• 12:22, 9 April 2007

Notification of recent administrator's noticeboard report:

• 01:01, 2 May 2007

Notification of an earlier adminstrator's noticeboard report:

• 08:29, 12 December 2006

Doczilla 06:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: The 25 hour timespan might make a block unlikely. Protecting Vision (comics) in its disambiguation page form might be sufficient action in this case. Protecting the disambiguation page might at least help reduce that aspect of the edit warring at Vision (Marvel Comics) and Vision (Timely Comics). Doczilla 07:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC) To be fair, I must point out that no new reversions have occurred to Vision (comics). Given the ongoing feuding[1] over the other two Vision (and many other) articles, though, protection for Vision (comics) might nevertheless help make a point about edit warring and help prompt the same kind of collaborative editing effort that may finally have resolved a different edit war involving some of the same players.[2] Doczilla 06:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Unfortunately, despite the hope expressed in my previous sentence, ongoing feuding between Asgardian and others has led to protection of one of the associated Vision articles(Talk:Vision_(Marvel_Comics)#Protected), although not the disambiguation page that initiated this 3RR complaint. Doczilla 07:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Good friend100 reported by User:Endroit (Result: Blocked 24h)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Goguryeo controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Good friend100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 00:39, 17 May 2007 — version right before the disputed text was moved over from another article, Goguryeo

• 1st revert: 03:39, 20 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 12:39, 20 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:58, 20 May 2007
• 4th revert: 15:14, 20 May 2007
• 5th revert: 02:45, 21 May 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 02:54, 20 May 2007

Comment: Repeated removal of the section entitled "==Political connections between Goguryeo and the Chinese Central Plains Dynasties". --Endroit 07:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Good friend100 blocked 24 hours from last revert --Selket ^Talk 08:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:DachMaCheh reported by User:Soman (Result: No violation)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Gail Omvedt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DachMaCheh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 04:28, 14 May 2007

• 1st revert: 20:23, 20 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 08:00, 21 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 09:20, 21 May 2007
• 4th revert: DIFFTIME

No violation has occurred. The

13:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, my bad. --Soman 14:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Beatle Fab Four reported by User:Staberinde (Result: Article protected)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Bronze Soldier of Tallinn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Beatle Fab Four (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 11:12, 20 May 2007

• 1st revert: 17:29, 20 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 18:34, 20 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 19:06, 20 May 2007
• 4th revert: 11:49, 21 May 2007
• 5th revert: 16:27, 21 May 2007

User has been blocked for edit warring before[3].

I'm a Beatle Fab Four. This Staberinde didn't follow controversy resolving rules. Look at the discussion page Talk:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn (→Advertisement) My reversions were fair, explained at the discussion page, and supported by several neutral users from Belgium and Finland, both in discussions and edits. For instance,

[4] [5] or "Thanks to Beatle Fab Four for reverting the deletion once more. LHOON 12:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)" Beatle Fab Four 17:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fab Four FOUGHT VANDALISM. A few Baltic nationalists try to change the content of the article from what it realy is to what they would like it to be. Fab Four fought vandalism and by that followed this rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules when there are a few people vandalizing, and the one who fights vandalism is one, ofcaurse he will have to revert more then 3 times, and by this law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules he's allowed to do so, and i think that every reasnoble man understands that. He was blocked by a user that didn't even learn the case, and who didn't care, he didn't use his logic, for him more then three reverts is enough to block (he is Sandstein). P.S. The administrator who blocked him blocked him and me, but he didn't block those from the other side of the arguments and didn't even give them a warrning, thought they were the once who started this edit war. M.V.E.i. 18:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Staberinde is an Estonian who took part in the argument, his complain can't even be taken serioucly. M.V.E.i. 18:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so because Staberinde is an Estonian and dared to argue with Beatle Fab Four, so he cannot be taken "serioucly"? That smells like a racism to me, but I'll leave it at that.

User

Bronze Soldier have pretty much stopped, because of that. He has been blocked repeatedly before (see [6]) and has a history of block evasion (Block evasion of Beatle Fab Four). Both he and M.V.E.i. constantly argue that he is just following rule Wikipedia:Ignore all rules

while fighting vandalism, however, when asked to show evidence of that vandalism, they fail to do so.

I don't think blocking BFF for normal duration will have any effect - he is on a dynamic IP and has shown clearly and repeatedly that he will evade the block. Although this is not the place to request this, I think that in addition to the block, semi-protection of the article

DLX

19:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

DLX, Offcourse the article needs protectionm, from you, so you would stop reverting it. You and your friends here are

trolls

(in the Wikipedian meaning), now your playing it an honest man who offers protection for the article. You are the one because of who the problems started. M.V.E.i. 20:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There has been edit-warring from multiple parties here; I have protected the article for three days. -- tariqabjotu 19:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Bingo! Just what i've said, there were a few groups fighting, and Sandstein blocked people only from one group but nevertheless didn't say anything to anyone from any other group. M.V.E.i. 21:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Simoes

(Result: Article protected)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

):15:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 20:50, 19 May 2007

• 1st revert: 22:17, 19 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 03:19, 20 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 22:07, 20 May 2007
• 4th revert: 22:16, 20 May 2007

This report is coming off the heels of a first report and block that happened a couple days ago. Like last time, the user is insistent that his preferred version of the article (particular the removal of an "

) 15:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The explanation is that at least one of these (the 1st or 2nd or both) was not a revert. In any case the article is at the other version now. The last edit above was 15 hours ago (Simoes is not using GMT, but GMT-6).

Simoes is trying to imply that I was the only editor who objected to the moon landing's inclusion, which is not true.

It is clear that this is just more harassment by Simoes, as he has contributed nothing to the article over the past several days, while I have continued discussion on the talk page, and made some edits to the article that have not been reverted. The way, the truth, and the light 08:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit-warring from multiple parties here. Thus, I have protected the article. -- tariqabjotu 19:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Bueller reported by User:Abe.Froman (Result: Warning)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Douglas Feith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bueller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 2007-05-21T11:09:26

• 1st revert: 2007-05-20T14:40:54
• 2nd revert: 2007-05-20T14:48:45
• 3rd revert: 2007-05-20T15:13:05
• 4th revert: 2007-05-21T11:09:26

16:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The user in question has never received a three-revert rule warning and rarely contributes to Wikipedia. Thus, I have warned him/her. -- tariqabjotu 19:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:84.68.67.13 reported by User:Vintagekits (Result: 24 hrs)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Template:British Isles (edit | [[Talk:Template:British Isles|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 84.68.67.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Time reported: 20:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 19:25, 21 May 2007

• 1st revert: 19:37, 21 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 19:48, 21 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 19:51, 21 May 2007
• 4th revert: 19:55, 21 May 2007
• 5th revert: 20:00, 21 May 2007
• 6th revert: 20:04, 21 May 2007
• 7th revert: 20:11, 21 May 2007
• 8th revert: 20:33, 21 May 2007
• 9th revert: 20:43, 21 May 2007

21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• 24 hrs ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Blocked
  User:Padraig3uk
  :
  • 19:45, 21 May 2007
  • 19:49, 21 May 2007
  • 20:09, 21 May 2007
  • 20:41, 21 May 2007

for 24 hours also. --Selket ^Talk 22:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:71.99.128.25 at Talk:Anna Halman

There were more than 3 reverts of this IP user in recent 24 hours. He is still continuing in vandalising, I request to block him immediatly, because he is violating the official policy. Thanks. --Aktron (t|c) 16:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User has already been blocked by User:Johnleemk. Issue resolved. Signature^brendel 22:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Urthogie reported by User:Taharqa (Result: No violation)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

) Time reported: 20:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 21:16, 20 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 21:29, 20 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 21:39, 20 May 2007
• 4th revert: 21:49, 20 May 2007
• 5th revert: 21:49, 20 May 2007

Continues to remain disruptive and controlling of the article, even though we're in dispute resolution. He still reverts every one's edits and it seems that he will not stop. I recommend that this person be blocked as he has clearly violated the 3 revert rule for about the 3rd time this past month.Taharqa 20:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

These are five edits in a row with no other edits between them. This notice board is for when a user reverts an article to a prior version more than 3 times within 24 hours. It is not for when an editor makes more than 3 edits within 24 hours. --Selket ^Talk 22:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Pompertown reported by User:156.34.236.46 (Result: Blocked 1 week)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Oasis (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pompertown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: [7]
• 2nd revert: [8]
• 3rd revert: [9]
• 4th revert: [10]
• 5th revert: [11]
• 6th revert: [12]

Comments:

21:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

 Done User:Pompertown blocked 1 week. --Selket ^Talk 22:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:85.158.34.139 reported by User:Someguy1221 (Result: Blocked 24h)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

7th Muslim Brigade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 85.158.34.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 8:27, 15 May 2007

• 1st revert: 13:49, 21 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 13:57, 21 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:12, 21 May 2007
• 4th revert: 14:16, 21 May 2007

Comments: Continuous reversion to version of page with poorly sourced POV and OR. User appears to be turning the page into a POV fork. User is operating from a dynamic IP.

I think this is not fair. I just asked user Someguy1221 to help me improve the article. I sourced all my claims which he asked for. He even didn't read the article, he tricked me this way just to block me. The problem is that no one wants to discuss.

85.158.34.139 blocked for 24 hours. --Selket ^Talk 22:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Reddi reported by User:Reddi (Result:No action)

I may have violated 3RR ... please check ... J. D. Redding 23:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radio_astronomy&action=history

1. (cur) (last) 08:14, 21 May 2007 Reddi (Talk | contribs) (16,921 bytes) (Undid POV revision 132431104 by ScienceApologist (talk))
2. (cur) (last) 07:13, 21 May 2007 Reddi (Talk | contribs) (16,921 bytes) (Undid POV revision 132420335 by ScienceApologist (talk))
3. (cur) (last) 13:12, 20 May 2007 Reddi (Talk | contribs) (16,921 bytes) (→Books)
4. (cur) (last) 13:10, 20 May 2007 Reddi (Talk | contribs) (16,917 bytes) (rv removal of references)

If so, please tell me. J. D. Redding 23:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you reported yourself, I won't take any action. Next time, just use the talkj page a

request protection if necessary. -- John Reaves (talk)

05:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:AKliman reported by User:Watchdog07 (Result:No violation)

• Three-revert rule violation on Temporal single-system interpretation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Akliman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported Watchdog07
  23:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 0407, May 21
• 2nd revert: 1718, May 21
• 3rd revert: 2233, May 21

There are only three reverts here, and the report isn't even formatted correctly. -- John Reaves (talk) 05:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:91.120.113.31 reported by User:Tankred (Result:48 hours)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Miklós Horthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Time reported: 00:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• 1st edit (actually also just revert): 02:05, 21 May 2007[13]
• 1st revert: 16:10, 21 May 2007[14]
• 2nd revert: 18:09, 21 May 2007[15]
• 3rd revert: 19:51, 21 May 2007[16]
• 4th revert: 19:53, 21 May 2007[17]
• 5th revert: 20:07, 21 May 2007 [18]

Also, the IP plausibly belongs to a banned user, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Urgent_admin_help_needed.

IP blocked for 48 hours and article semi-protected for same duration. Kafziel ^Talk 00:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Sarah Goldberg reported by User:Muntuwandi (Result:Incomplete report)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Black people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sarah Goldberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

• 1st revert: May 21

This report only lists one revert. -- John Reaves (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Isarig reported by User:Gamaliel (Result:50 hours)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Wolf Blitzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Isarig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 14:04, 17 May 2007

• 1st revert: 14:36, 21 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 19:36, 21 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 19:45, 21 May 2007
• 4th revert: 19:54, 21 May 2007

User has insisted on a large paragraph in the article regarding a supposed "controversy" regarding Wolf Blitzer but has nothing to substantiate it beyond a mention by two columnists. Concerns raised regarding

) 00:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 50 hours. -- John Reaves (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:75.45.85.124 reported by User:Musicpvm (Result: 31h Block)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 75.45.85.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [19]

• 1st revert: 03:42, 21 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 17:32, 21 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 18:44, 21 May 2007
• 4th revert: 23:45, 21 May 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 20:59, 21 May 2007

This case is quite obvious. The user was warned, had more than three reverts and included personal attacks/slander in his/her edit summaries. Blocked for 31 hours. Signature^brendel 02:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Momusufan

(Result: No block)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Berlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Frankfurt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dontworry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: Frankfurt [20] Berlin [21]

Frankfurt

• 1st revert: [22]
• 2nd revert: [23]
• 3rd revert: [24]
• 4th revert: [25]

Berlin

• 1st revert: [26]
• 2nd revert: [27]
• 3rd revert: [28]
• 4th revert: [29]

User keeps reverting the night shot picture from Berlin and Frankfurt to another shot of the city without discussing it. he has done this multiple times in a 24 hour period. he has also edited under 5 IP's 217.232.234.48, 217.232.246.168, 217.232.205.143, 217.232.206.48, and 217.232.251.177

14:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• The diffs are from days past. 3RR blocks are not punitive, rather, these blocks are preventative. If the user persists in reverting, he will be blocked. I'll leave a message in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Arbustoo reported by User:JJay (Result: Stale)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

([[Special:EditPage/List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning |edit]] | [[Talk:List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning |talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning |history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning |protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning |delete]] | links | watch | logs | views). Arbustoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 01:51, 31 March 2007
• 1st revert: 23:50, 21 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 02:55, 22 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 03:38, 22 May 2007
• Previous version reverted to: 14:37, 22 May 2007
• 4th revert: 15:41, 22 May 2007
• Experienced editor has continued to revert despite ongoing talk page discussion involving multiple editors. Three content reversions + immediate reversion of the addition of a disputed tag to the article.--JJay 16:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That is not a 3RR, if you 1) notice other editors have engaged in editing/reverting (for example calton reverting JJay's unreference removal) and 2) removing some's disputed tag when they did not dispute the entire list was explained on the talk. JJay is stalking me and won't discussion the issues at

WP:GAME. Arbustoo

16:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• You reverted four times. That constitutes a violation. The presence of four other editors in the dispute is irrelevant. None violated 3RR. As for stalking, your accusation is laughable. My first edit to this article dates to April 2006 [30].This is an article that merits close monitoring because of the continual addition of accredited schools to the list. That has been my involvement in this for the last year. JJay 16:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• User:JJay is litigious. Wikipedia isn't built on recriminatory behavior. I have observed that User:JJay tries to create an unpleasant environment for other editors. That is not conducive to anything with any semblance to a comfortable environment in which editors can build an encyclopedia. I have been at the receiving end of the behavior which I am describing too many times. User:JJay should do some introspection and stop applying litigiousness where camaraderie is far more called for. Bus stop 16:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• As you well know, the first step in that is not to violate 3RR. JJay 16:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• You are violating
  WP:3RR. Stop following my edits to revert me or be disruptive in my AFDs. You don't add content to articles. Arbustoo
  17:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting litany of accusations. Make them in the proper forum. In the present case, I would point out that I reverted twice. JJay 17:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

My "accusations" were made at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JJay and currently with my recent ArbCom request. Arbustoo 17:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And I have had to report JJay here at an editor's page who offered editor's assistence in an ongoing dispute. Bus stop 19:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears that some of the edits complained of are Arbusto adding sources, which is not a violation of 3RR. DGG 20:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding sources? You must be kidding. Let's see those diffs. --JJay 00:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It was not a violation of 3RR. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the policy. Arbustoo 03:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Four reverts in under 24 hours = 3RR violation. No misunderstanding. Nothing fundamental. And no matter how many messages you leave here, the diffs above are quite clear. --JJay 03:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you don't understand the policy as noted by others who are impartial. Arbustoo 03:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. Any more diffs you want to throw up instead of explaining your 3RR vio? --JJay 03:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit war seems to have ended and the reported reverts are too old to require administrative action. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• That's quite true. But given the attacks I was subject to for reporting this, you might want to point out that this was a 3RR vio, so it doesn't happen again. --JJay 11:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Or you could just
  drop the stick and move on. --Calton | Talk
  12:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• I have moved on. Since you enjoy essays, you might want to read
  List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning, while smearing other parties as vandals and the like is not particularly cool. JJay
• How can you of all people be complaining about attacks? In my subjective experience I have yet to see anyone on Wikipedia engage in more attacking than you do. You have been attacking me in your every interaction with me. That is just my subjective experience. I think you need to do a bit of introspection concerning your own behavior. Wikipedia isn't about reporting people for 3rr. That is not the primary reason d'être for Wikipedia. Yet judging from your edits one would get that mistaken impression. Bus stop 12:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Judging from your block log, I could argue that your primary "raison d'etre" is violating 3RR. The situation is really quite simple. Don't violate 3RR and you won't get reported, blocked, waste people's time with unblock requests or intervene here with baseless messages.JJay 13:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Wgungfu reported by User:76.79.72.82 (Result: page protected)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

): Time reported: 16:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [31]

You need at least 4 reverts in the last 24 hours to same page to qualify as 3RR. You only have one. Can you please expand a bit on this? Evilclown93 19:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[32] [33] [34] [35] [36] ...

• I have fully protected the page. Even if I block Wgungfu, he'll probably come back after the block to keep reverting the dynamic IPs edits, and there seems to be no point to it. Page protection is the best solution here. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The anonymous user that made this report is using multiple anonymous IP sock puppet accounts to make disruptive edits to these articles:

X86 architecture Apple IIc Acorn Atom ZX Spectrum. These kind of changes have been noted here. There is a long history of a user using anonymous proxies to make these disruptive edits to this group of articles relating to computer systems. I have asked if it is feasible to have these pages with this problem semi-protected. Wgungfu has been reverting deliberate attempts to make disruptive edits by the same person who is using multiple anonymous accounts. The user causing the problem here is the user who is using multiple anonymous IPs, not Wgungfu. Fnagaton

14:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Giovanni33 reported by User:Evilclown93 (Result: Warning)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [37]

• 1st revert: [38]
• 2nd revert: [39]
• 3rd revert: [40]
• 4th revert: [41]

Please look at this, at this massive block log, and that User:John Smith's, also had 4 edits to the same page,of which 3 where reverts. Evilclown93 19:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I did indeed make 4 edits. However, the first one was to add my own comment to the original response. John Smith's 19:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

But three reverts, that's basically edit warring one step away from a preventative block. I advise to not edit that page for a day or two. Evilclown93 19:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I believed I was reverting vandalism (as it was blanking), so that there wasn't a problem in reverting 3 times. John Smith's 19:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a little notice on your talkpage to make sure you have the appropriate links and eveything. Also, it should remind you that it's better to discuss that to revert here (you're in a request for mediatiaon). Evilclown93 19:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: What I removed is a POV rant left on the talk page about "murders" that is not relevent to the article, and it is in fact a personal attack against Prof. Bernstein, with a bunch of name-calling. Removing such clutter from the talk page is not vandalism (as Smith is claiming), and important to do, as I've explained to John Smith (the only one who keeps restoring it). But because it's a personal attack against a living person, I believe the 3RR does not apply, and why I insisted that it be removed on sight. If I am wrong about that, and this is not in that category of things that should be removed notwithstanding 3RR, then I'd be happy to self-revert.Giovanni33 21:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

My comments weren't a rant and you removed them too. Also you are the only person removing them, so why mention that I was the only one reverting? Also it isn't just me that thinks there's been a 3RR vio here, as can be seen by this report. John Smith's 21:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of keeping your response to him, when what your responding to has been removed? And, if you were really interested in keeping your response to him, and not the personal attack on the Professor, then why not only restore your comments? Because they would be meaningless alone. So, your point here is really a non-point, isn't it?Giovanni33 21:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Because my comment was about more than the source the user in question mentioned (you could have easily mentioned my reply was in reference to a deleted "personal attack"). The reason why I didn't just revert my comments is that I see that user's comments as valid. John Smith's 22:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If you wanted to dignify that personal attack with a response, then at least take it to the users talk page. It makes no sense and adds nothing to assiting with editing the article to want a response to a removed "personal attack" that should never have been left there to begin with. In removing the attack, there is nothign to respond to anymore. If you felt that needed a response, the talk page would be the place--not the articles talk page.Giovanni33 22:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a talk page... not sure why you're edit-warring over that. I'm a bit hesitant to issue a block over a revert-war on a talk page. But please do stop. -- tariqabjotu 22:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Giovanni33 22:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:71.10.169.33 reported by User:Chrisjnelson (Result: 24h Block)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

NCAA Football 08 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.10.169.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: [42]
• 2nd revert: [43]
• 3rd revert: [44]
• 4th revert: [45]

IP user keeps advertising his site and has violated 3RR. (I know it is his because he has contacted me via email.) You'll also notice this is all he edits and he consistently ignores policy.

The user has not yet been warned. A warning needs to be placed on his talk page first. Also, please provide diffs not versions. Thank you, Signature^brendel 21:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I warned him. He knows what he's doing, he's vandalizing the page on purpose and that's the only reason he's here. He's familiar with both WP:3RR and WP:EL.Chris Nelson 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay now he has created a name User:Bkaldenberg and is editing it again. This is his sixth edit today between hist last IP and his new name, and he's had even more than that. He IS aware of policy, and if you go to www.gamerosters.com you will see that he is the owner of the website and is advertising his product. This should not go unpunished and needs to be stopped.Chris Nelson 21:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it's quite obviously the same user and he's spamming the article. Now that he has been warned and is aware of his actions, I have issued a 24 hour block for User:Bkaldenberg and User:71.10.169.33. Signature^brendel 21:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you tell me what my next step would be if (or more likely, when) he comes back and is doing it again? I mean will this ever be enough for any kind of page protection?Chris Nelson 21:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If he comes back you will need to report him once again, and the next block will likely be longer. If he keeps breaking Wiki policy he may eventually be blocked indefinitely for "exhausting the community's patience." Page protection is usually issued for article that continously fall vicitim to vandalism and spamming by multiple users. Regards, Signature^brendel 21:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Digwuren reported by User:Petri Krohn (Result: 48 hours)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Jüri Uluots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Digwuren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 6 May 2007

• 1st revert: [46] - Reverted to contested version, omitting {{totallydisputed}} tag
• 2nd revert: [47] - again
• 3rd revert: [48] - again
• 4th revert: [49] - removal of tag and revert to contested version

• Diff of 3RR warning: [50] (2 May 2007)

New user with agenda, has systematically been reverting all my edist for the last 3 weeks, often in only two minutes.

Well, I am not specialist in issue but I would like to point out that according to report Petri provided, 1-3 reverts and 4th revert are not connected at all. Just my 2 cents.--Staberinde 21:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have blocked the user for 48 hours per
  stalking. Nishkid64 (talk
  ) 21:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

comment: Two cases are missed out a bit upper! I moved them here, down under this line --84.236.89.208 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Chris Bulgin reported by User:YOUR_NAME (Result: Blocked 24h)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

): Time reported: 04:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

User is ignoring consensus talk on the discussion page. Seems bent on changing the character's status to deceased. Has changed status from unknwon to diseased multiple times

• 1st revert: [51]
• 2nd revert: [52]
• 3rd revert: [53]
• 4th revert: [54]

This needs

diffs, not versions. -- John Reaves (talk)

05:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And I only count 3 reverts by going through the history of the article. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, first edit is revert here, also 2, 3, and 4. Blocked 24 hours. Also 66.25.157.129 at:

1. 01:58, 22 May 2007
2. 02:05, 22 May 2007
3. 05:54, 22 May 2007
4. 18:54, 22 May 2007
5. 03:49, 23 May 2007

--Selket ^Talk 06:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Tankred reported by User:195.56.6.31 (Result: Blocked see below)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Miklós Horthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tankred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: this

• 1st revert: [55] 03:23, 21 May 2007
• 2nd revert: [56] 03:23, 21 May 2007
• 3rd revert: [57] 23:52, 21 May 2007
• 4th revert: [58] 00:03, 22 May 2007

User is on a crusade against IPs from Budapest, and got into a revetwar with an IP, wich Tankred claims User:VinceB, but VinceB's IP range is pretty similar to mine (195... [59], wich is also similar to at least that half of Budapest's 2 million population, wich contracted to the same internet provider), so plausibly IP 91 something was just a victim of their debate. Tankred had similar trouble in the past, once, and often goes revertwarring with IPs. --195.56.6.31 13:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This complaint is now moot because the article has been protected; however, this user should have been blocked when he/she reported 91.120.113.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) above. Blocked with expiration set to match other blocks on same article at 00:54, 24 May 2007. --Selket ^Talk 06:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Kulendra reported by User:Superplaya (Result: 24h Block)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

National sport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kulendra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 17:08, May 20, 2007

• 1st revert: [60]
• 2nd revert: [61]
• 3rd revert: [62]
• 4th revert: 22:54, May 21, 2007
• 5th revert: 17:10, May 22, 2007
• 6th revert: 19:29, May 22, 2007
• Diff of 3RR warning: 20:56, May 21, 2007

Quite obvious violation of 3RR-24h block to calm things down. Thanks for filing your report "by the books." ;-) Regards, Signature^brendel 06:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:71.32.61.142 reported by User:SEWilco (Result: 31h)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Meteorite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.32.61.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 15:31, 22 May 2007

• 1st revert: [63]
• 2nd revert: [64]
• 3rd revert: [65]
• 4th revert: [66]
• 5th revert: 02:33, 23 May 2007

Older reversions exist.

Straight forward case of three revert rule violation and spamming. 31 hour block to calm things down. Signature^brendel 06:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:DLX

(Result: Blocked 24h)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Jüri Uluots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Petri Krohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 01:07, 23 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 04:22, 22 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 03:48, 22 May 2007
• 4th revert: 02:20, 22 May 2007

Comment. User keeps inserting {{totallydisputed}} tag without any explanations on talk page, although that has been repeatedly requested. 05:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. Also Digwuren. --Selket ^Talk 06:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Selket, just to inform you. DLX is a typical representative of

trolls. His contributions [67] tell everything: constant purges of controversial articles, constant aggressive manner of speech and complaints on others, constant edit warring. Beatle Fab Four

13:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Eupator reported by User:Grandmaster (Result:24 hours)

• Arbcom parole violation on Paytakaran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Eupator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Eupator (talk · contribs) has been placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee. The final decision in his case is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Eupator_placed_on_revert_parole. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. However he reverted legitimate edits of other users to Paytakaran twice in less than 7 days.

• Previous version reverted to: 13:39, 27 April 2007

• 1st revert: 20:11, 18 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 17:48, 22 May 2007

24 hours (logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Blocks for violation of revert parole). -- John Reaves (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Johnreed reported by User:Tvoz (Result:24 hours)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Ron Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Johnreed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 01:37, 19 May 2007 by Interpaul

• 1st revert: [68]
• 2nd revert: [69]
• 3rd revert: [70]
• 4th revert: [71]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [72] (2 warnings)

Comment No edit summaries, no attempt to discuss this - just repeated blanking of a section of this article, despite warnings and despite the fact that the section has been re-worked several times for balance. No other edits since January - just this series of blanking vandalism. Appears to be a continuation of same repeated reverts that Interpaul did - removing the same section without discussion on this political candidate's page - so it appears to be a deliberate attempt to promote an agenda, and unclear if it is more than one person or socks. Tvoz |talk 09:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Clear case; 24 hours for first offence though I think I may be being lenient. Sam Blacketer 09:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks- I think you are, but let's see what happens. Tvoz |talk 17:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Samil20 and User:MykeType reported by User:Foochar (Result: Blocked 24h)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Nas discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Samil20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 01:34, 23 May 2007

• 1st revert: [73]
• 2nd revert: [74]
• 3rd revert: [75]
• 4th revert: 12:02, 23 May 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 20:37, 22 May 2007

Comment: User is involved in a protracted edit war with MykeType over this page. Report on MykeType also filed. War has spilled over into both user's talk pages with pages being blanked, moved, and redirected.

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Nas discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MykeType (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [76]

• 1st revert: [77]
• 2nd revert: [78]
• 3rd revert: [79]
• 4th revert: 03:10, 23 May 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: Was left at about same time as one above to Samil20 (20:37, 22 May 2007) however as part of edit war between Samil20 (who I have filed a report on just above) and MykeType talk page was moved to BANNED and subsequently appears to have been deleted.

Comment: User is involved in a protracted edit war with Samil20 over this page. Report on Samil20 also filed. War has spilled over into both user's talk pages with pages being blanked, moved, and redirected.

Result Obvious violations. Both users blocked for 24 hours --Selket ^Talk 14:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Fnagaton reported by User:193.93.3.6 (Result:No Block)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Apple_IIc_Plus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Fnagaton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [80]

• 1st revert: [81]
• 2nd revert: [82]
• 3rd revert: [83]
• 4th revert: [84]

The anonymous user that made this report is using multiple anonymous IP sock puppet accounts to make disruptive edits to these articles:

X86 architecture, Apple IIc, Acorn Atom, ZX Spectrum. These kind of changes have been noted here. There is a long history of a user using anonymous proxies to make these disruptive edits to this group of articles relating to computer systems. I have asked if it is feasible to have these pages with this problem semi-protected. I am reverting deliberate attempts to make disruptive edits by the same person who is using multiple anonymous accounts. The user causing the problem here is the user who is using multiple anonymous IPs, not me. The same anonymous proxy user has also tried to 3RR attack [[85]] User:Wgungfu who has also been good faith reverting these kinds of disruptive edits. Fnagaton

14:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to go ahead with a multi-page semi-protection request, at least this way if the request goes through it will stop the anonymous sock puppet edits better than constantly reverting what I see as their vandalism. [86] As you can see from the recent history of Commodore 64 there have been open proxies used to make the same kind of changes and this article has been semi-protected more than once to combat this. Fnagaton 16:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The user talk page you linked to specifically notes that the kind of behavior you and the anon have been engaging in is an edit war. Both of you are being disruptive. The conflict is over a currently-disputed section of the MOS regarding

the use of binary prefixes. — Aluvus t/c

19:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm reverting deliberate vandalism by an anon user then I do not believe 3RR applies to me? Especially considering the fact I've now been trying to get these pages semi-protected against this vandal. I'm also not the only editor who thinks the anonymous user is a vandal so it's not like I'm a lone ranger here. Dealing with anonymous IP proxy vandals is hard. :) Fnagaton 20:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

you are edit-warring you are not dealing with vandals. Edit wars ,even with Anonymous IP ,is not vandalism. 3RR applies to you and

WP:AGF too. 88.84.155.37

21:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No. The above post is another example of the user who has been using anonymous proxies to push their edits through to avoid the 3RR rule as shown by the edit history.Fnagaton 23:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, the page you linked specifically reaches the conclusion that revert-warring of this type is not protected as reversion of pure vandalism and is subject to 3RR. The anonymous edits are disruptive, but they are not simple vandalism. On Intel Core 2 for example, binary prefixes were both the established units and the ones used in the first major contributor's version, yet you persisted in reverting (5 times) the page to use decimal prefixes, in contravention of the current wording of the MOSNUM. In fact, you even did this with edit summaries that falsely claimed the first major contributor used KB and MB; not only did you link to two different version of the page, of which neither is really the "first major contributor", but both version used MiB repeatedly! — Aluvus t/c 22:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The page I linked to doesn't reach that conclusion because it's not a simple content dispute, it is about the actions of an anonymous user who is using proxies to vandalise Wikipedia. I've been reverting those edits based on their vandalism, disruptive nature and the fact that they are all the same user sock puppet using anonymous proxies so I still do not think the 3RR rules applies here. If the admin looking at this would check with

User:Wackymacs they will be able to confirm what I've been saying about the vandalism and multiple IPs. Fnagaton

23:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you read what you linked to? "I note that this is actually a content dispute, regarding Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Binary prefixes, and not vandalism. You have violated WP:3RR" "I take full responsiblity for being in an "edit war" with a person using dynamic IPs/IP spoofing." "Okay, well in that case, just please don't edit war when you know it's a content dispute and not vandalism." And once again, the IP's edits to Intel Core 2 were absolutely not vandalism and are in fact consistent with the current wording of MOSNUM. — Aluvus t/c 23:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I did and I refuted what you wrote. Again it's not a content dispute, it is about reverting the actions of an anonymous user who is using proxies to vandalise Wikipedia and that is the basis for my reverts. Fnagaton 23:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You will also notice from my edit history that I've not made a revert after I became aware of the anonymous proxy user trying to game the 3RR system by making spurious 3RR reports, this is to make it easier for the admin looking at this to see exactly what has been going on. All my reverts have been in good faith against this anonymous proxy user's vandalism and I still think reverting vandalism is something that doesn't count towards 3RR. Fnagaton 23:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Since Fnagaton has stated he will not conduct any further reverts that would be in violation of the 3RR, no block is neccessary. Regards, Signature^brendel 00:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:melonbarmonster reported by User:Komdori (Result: no vio)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

): Time reported: 16:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed infobox and/or mention of Takeshima from the infobox on the Dokdo article.

• Previous version reverted to: 15:54, 23 May 2007

• 1st revert: 16:13, 23 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 16:22, 23 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 16:30, 23 May 2007
• 4th revert: 16:42, 23 May 2007

• Fresh off a one week block for persistant 3RR violations (blocked three times since 1 March). Even the version reverted to could in itself be considered a revert as he's reverting the inclusion of the infobox, but since it's been there for quite awhile, I did not know if that would count. Still we're up to four. Continued edit warring on the same articles he was blocked for (
  Yoon Bong-Gil and An Jung-geun
  ), immediately using up his three/day "quota", with no attempt at discussion despite multiple editors undoing his deletion of sourced material.

—
Supplemental evidence: (These comments were left by Endroit in response to discussion below. They were separated and brought up here as its own section by Endriot to separate them from my response. I've attached my response to this this appropriatelymelonbarmonster 19:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

There's nothing but evasion by Melonbarmonster. He's been blocked before, but is obviously playing around with 3RR rules here, to see how much he can get away with.

The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd reverts, as well as the version being reverted to are outright vandalism, and removal of content, for which he was warned. The following diff shows his "Last Warning" for content removal (from another revert war):

• 16:25, 23 May 2007 {{uw-delete4}} "Last Warning" for content removal

The 3rd revert / content removal is clearly AFTER this "Last Warning".

Now regarding

WP:POINT (gaming the system).--Endroit

17:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Endroit is actually the editor who initated the FIRST revert claiming my edit as "vandalism" as he does above. He has reverted 3 times himself and now wants me to be blocked for my 3 reverts. Komdori picked up on reverting after Endriot's third revert whereas I had to stop at my third. Endroit then informed me where I can go to make edits to the Info Box instead of deleting the entire POV Info box at which point Komdori reported me for 3rr.melonbarmonster 17:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

—
Comments:

Komdori has been shadowing my edits and instigating revert wars and leaving comments in a mocking and sarcastic tone. He mocks my previous [comment][87] with [this][88] and even his notice of this 3rr report contains sarcasm:[here][89].

As for this report, I honestly didn't know how to edit the info box content and thought the info box being used was a POV version that a POV editor made up. I actually stopped reverting when I found out how to edit the info box. Instead of deleting the info box wholesale and "reverting" I made edits to problematic portions of the info box for the first time.melonbarmonster 17:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

On the top of this page, it describes how it's good form to leave a notice that the report was made here. That's not being sarcastic, it's letting you know to come check this out.

Anyway, it's still a violation, you wanted to remove "Takeshima" from the infobox, and were willing to remove the entire thing if possible. Editing the infobox has the same effect of editing the page (you knew that, you wanted the Japanese name gone and the Korean name remaining). You've been blocked 3 times for this, you know the drill by now. --Cheers, Komdori 17:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Komdori was complaining that the info box was being deleted, not that "Takeshima" was being taken out. He's changing his tune now that he's trying to report me for 3rr violation. 4th edit is actually more of a repair of my previous reverts more than anything else.melonbarmonster 17:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Komdori has reverted my last edit again. [90]melonbarmonster 18:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Melon, I don't want to clutter up this place with off topic things, but just to eliminate confusion, as you point out that infobox is part of the Dokdo page. That's why you were reported, your fourth revert (removing the infobox or parts thereof) happened there. Also, keep in mind that while the 3RR stops you at 3 reverts, you are by no means entitled to even that number. Reverting immediately up to your limit on several articles today on undiscussed unilateral changes (and going beyond on the Dokdo one) is not good practice. --Cheers, Komdori 18:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Endroit has reshuffled the comments and has catagorized them to favor his POV. I've tried to restore the discussion the way it transpired. To clarify my position, I deleted the info box in entirety because mistakenly because I didn't know that contents of InfoBox could be edited and because it contained POV regarding dispute of the the title of this article. The last resolution on this issue was to title the article "dokdo" and I felt that this naming convention should be applied uniformly throughout the article until future consensus regarding this dispute can be reached. After Endroit and I both reverted three times, Komdori stepped in for Endriot and continued the revert war while leaving mocking comments on my talk page. I stopped reverting due to the 3rr. At this point, Endroit informed me that the Info Box in question was editable. Realizing my ignorance of this feature, I edited the contents of Info Box page rather than making reverts on the Dokdo page. While I acknowlege my 3 reverts and my ignorance on how to edit content of Info boxes I tried to purposefully not violate the 3rr, and this tag teaming between Komdori and Endroit and attempt at manipulating even this 3rr report is illustrative of the problem.melonbarmonster 19:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Where? I never moved comments, except just now to put the bit from the original report under the supplimental evidence. --Cheers, Komdori 19:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait, it wasn't you. It was Endroit. Why is Endroit making revisions to your 3rr report above the comments section?melonbarmonster 19:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Result: no violation. The 16:42 edit is a different article and appears to be a move to a compromise version. All parties are strongly encouraged to work out a resolution on the talk page, perhaps copying the template, which is only used in this article, and avoiding two separate edit histories. --Selket ^Talk 21:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Surely the infobox associated with an article is not an article in and of itself? Per the edit summaries he clearly made all four reversions to remove "Takeshima" because he felt it was POV. --Cheers, Komdori 21:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The first three edits removed the info box in its entirety. The last one preserved most of the content of the infobox but only removed a small part that this user found objectionable. This struck me as an attempt to move towards compromise, even if it wasn't a great one. I agree that forking part of the article into a template is not good practice. I'm going to put it back and delete the template. --Selket ^Talk 21:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Wisamzaqoot reported by User:Brian0918 (Result: blocked 24 hrs)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wisamzaqoot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 10:46, 23 May 2007

• 1st revert: [91]
• 2nd revert: [92]
• 3rd revert: [93]
• 4th revert: [94]
• 5th revert: 12:53, 23 May 2007
• 6th revert: 13:03, 23 May 2007

Comment: 3RR broken while page was semi-protected for revert war and vandalism. User was warned at User_talk:Wisamzaqoot#Jerusalem. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-23 17:59Z

• I've blocked him for 24 hours. If anybody decides to lift this block I would ask them at least to wait until the article is off the main page. —freak(talk) 19:16, May. 23, 2007 (UTC)

User:Lotlil reported by User:Sarvagnya (Result: 24h block)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Tamil_language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lotlil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 02:05, May 23, 2007

• 1st revert: Revision as of 02:05, May 23, 2007
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 02:26, May 23, 2007
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 17:10, May 23, 2007
• 4th revert: Current revision (18:28, May 23, 2007)

User was aware of 3RR and some more background

I added the disputed tags to the article after weeks of discussing various issues on the talk page. All the discussions can be seen on the talk page. Then out of nowhere an ip 143.something([95], [96]) came out of nowhere and started reverting me to keep in line with User:Praveen pillay's POV. Praveen Pillay asked the ip to create an account which the ip(now Lotlil) did. After creating the account, Praveen told Lotlil to be careful about 3RR. Lotlil after reading about 3RR even enquired with Praveen if he had violated 3RR. Praveen said no. The diffs for all this is below. It is clear that Lotlil knows what 3RR is.

Praveen to Lotlil
Lotlil to Praveen
Praveen to Lotlil

Also, if you see Lotlil's contribs, it is clear that he is not a NEW user. There clearly are less than holy things going on there. For a newbie who has to get clarifications about 3RR, he edited his monobook.js page the very second day to insall handy tools. Tools which he has used to revert war here and nothing else. This is most probably a single purpose account and/or somebody's sock/meat though they're trying very hard to fool people. Sarvagnya 19:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, the ip edits of Lotlil were from Intel [97]. Mastering monobook.js might take years for some people, but I am sure it will take less time for people who work in software related industry such as Intel. It is the policies of wikipedia that should take more time for any new user to get acquainted himself. I feel that since user is new, he should be given a warning (as per the norm). BTW: Since Sarvagnya has indulged himself to show some 'background', I would add some 'background' too. If you see the history of Tamil language article, you will see revert war between 4 accounts. Unlike the single purpose account that you will see in the history (which is probably a sock puppet & supports Sarvagnya's POV), Lotlil made constructive contributions. User:Sarvagnya has a history of removing pertinent cited content when it comes to Tamil related articles. Praveen 20:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Now he wants to discuss issues related to the article here. They tried this cheap stunt on ANI and found no takers for their rant. Now Praveen is trying the same stunt on the 3RR noticeboard. And that the ip was from Intel is another red herring. No extra special level of technical skill is required to install and operate tools on wiki. But it is extraordinarily impossible to believe that the first thing the newbie discovered on wikipedia, even before he discovered the most basic policies(as PP would have us believe) was

TWINKLE

! Not only that, the user within days has/claims to have read up entire weeks and months of discussion on multiple talk pages.

And in any case, all this is besides the point. I have shown that the user was specifically aware of the 3RR policy and yet, has violated it. Nothing, I repeat, nothing can justify a 3RR vio. Sarvagnya 21:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

When you discuss about the 'background' about his monobook etc here, showing your 'history' here is not 'wrong'. Did you warn him? This is obviously a bad faith trash that you are resorting to since he is sitting on the other side of fence. Praveen 21:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Warnings are only required where we are unable to demonstrate that the user was aware of WP:3RR. I provided the 'background' only to demonstrate that a) The user was fully aware of WP:3RR and b) that I had valid reasons to NOT consider him a new user. Even if you write off (b) as speculation, (a) is enough to put your friend in the dock. And if you didnt notice, unlike you, I am not making any attempt to discuss the article here or on ANI because that is the way things work here. The 3RR board is not the place to discuss article issues. Sarvagnya 22:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Do the admins need any clarification? Why is this case not being dealt with yet? I request an admin to please look into this and take action. Thanks. Sarvagnya 23:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, User:Lotlil did break the 3RR and seems to have been aware of rule. I have issued a short 24 hour block. Signature^brendel 00:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Smee reported by User:Lsi john

(Result: No Block)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

): Time reported: 20:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

): Time reported: 20:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

This is a very experienced editor who has a contentious edit history who has been blocked 5 times already by this board. As Smee blocklog1 And Smeegolva blocklog2

This editor was recently blocked for warring with the same editor and is now warring again in two articles. The editor knows the rules and is pushing the limit to 3RR. The editor has been asked to stop warring and continues. Given that this is going on in multiple articles, this can be considered a violation even without 4 reverts.

I have stopped editing both articles, and am taking a break to keep this out of other articles as well.

I would appreciate an administrator to look into this situation. Thank you.

Lsi john 20:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments by

User:Smee

Please note that there was no 4th revert in this case. Please also note that the 3rd revert, was only after comment by User:Jossi on the talk page of Talk:Mind Dynamics, confirming the general policy regarding removal of the "Unbalanced" tag. I only removed the tag a third time after this comment from User:Jossi, DIFF. In the other case at Lifespring, there were 2 reverts, and also edit warring from User:Lsi john, however, I restored the version back to User:Lsi john's version, which was a self-revert. DIFF of Self-Revert back to Lsi john version. Thank you for your time.

• 3RR is not an 'entitlement' to revert 3 times and this very experienced editor knows better. Given the contentious edit history and current aggressive reverting there is reason to believe this will continue. Lsi john 20:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You are correct. 3RR is not an entitlement. However, I must point out this comment by
    Smee
    20:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

• And now it is clear that
  User:Smee is aware of the spirit of 3RR and has acknowledged violating it. This demonstrates that there is good reason to believe that the warring will continue across other articles and warrants a preventive block. Lsi john
  21:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I apologize for any inappropriate actions, which have since ceased.
2. On the article Mind Dynamics, a third editor, User:Jossi commented, DIFF, and only after this comment did I remove the tag.
3. On the article Lifespring, I voluntarily self reverted, and there will be no edit war.
4. As these issues are since resolved, there will be no edit war, and any block would be punitive in nature only. If
   Mindspring
   , I will not remove it again, but again ask him to provide reputable citations to back this up, as the burden is on the editor adding the tag. If not, I will again allow a reasonable length of time (in the last instance 20 days went by, no citations), and eventually ask him to remove the tag again, if he does not provide citations.

Thank you for your time. Yours,

21:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

• Basically the same excuses, rationalization, justification and promises as last time here for the recent 48 hour block, where this editor was sternly warned. (and yet we're back here again) The warring has only stopped, because I have stopped editing, pending the determination here. Lsi john 21:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Previous admin's conclusion after similar justification for 3RR:

No, I'm afraid you're mistaken. It is not necessary to revert to the same version each time; any three reverts count. And all four of the above edits are reverts. You also seem think that because you are discussing your reverts, it's OK to keep reverting. This is also not the case. As for your compromise: Lsi john clearly doesn't consider it as such: [82]. Therefore, I'm forced to conclude the edit war is not concluded, and will therefore block for 48 hours. Given your history of being blocked for 3RR, you ought to know better than to edit war by now, anyway. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Both issues have now been resolved. I will not remove the "citecheck" tag at
  Smee
  21:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

• (edit conflict) If I may comment as an uninvolved editor, I would like to highlight the fact that
  Arkyan • ^(talk)
  22:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Your 3O allowed approximately another 10 days before the tag would be removed. Smee immediately reverted. Lsi john 22:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Only yesterday [here] an editor had this to say to Smee:

Smee, you do not

WP:OWN the templates. You have been edit-warring and reverting any edit that removes links that are precious to you, especially ones that you have created or had a hand in. Your last edit had a misleading summary which didn't mention that you reverted my removal of your unnecessary links yet again. You are monopolizing the templates, and in fact, monopolizing the Wikipedia Scientology articles in general, and it's really starting to affect the quality of the Scientology project. I cannot edit-war with you and the Scientologists at the same time, and I submit your edits are actually helping their cause by making these articles and templates a biased, undue-weighted, blatantly unfair mess. This is not a personal attack, it has nothing to do with you personally, it has to do with these tendentious edits and the mass-dispersement of links to articles that you favor. And edits are what we are supposed to be discussing here. wikipediatrix 14:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john