Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive55

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210
211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230
231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240
241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280
281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290
291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310
311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320
321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330
331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340
341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350
351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360
361
Incidents (archives, search)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210
211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230
231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240
241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280
281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290
291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310
311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320
321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330
331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340
341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350
351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360
361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370
371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380
381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390
391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400
401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410
411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420
421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430
431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440
441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450
451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460
461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470
471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500
501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510
511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520
521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530
531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540
541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550
551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560
561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570
571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580
581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590
591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600
601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610
611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620
621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630
631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640
641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650
651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660
661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670
671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680
681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690
691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700
701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710
711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720
721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730
731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740
741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750
751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760
761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770
771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780
781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790
791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800
801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810
811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820
821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830
831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840
841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850
851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860
861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870
871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880
881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890
891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900
901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910
911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920
921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930
931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940
941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950
951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960
961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970
971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980
981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990
991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000
1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010
1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020
1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030
1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040
1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050
1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060
1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070
1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080
1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090
1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100
1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110
1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120
1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130
1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140
1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150
1151 1152 1153 1154
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210
211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230
231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240
241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280
281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290
291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310
311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320
321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330
331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340
341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350
351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360
361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370
371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380
381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390
391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400
401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410
411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420
421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430
431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440
441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450
451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460
461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470
471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
481
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210
211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230
231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240
241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280
281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290
291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310
311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320
321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330
331
Other links

User:Beh-nam reported by User:Khampalak (Result:no action)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 19:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  • 1st revert: [2]
  • 2nd revert: [3]
  • 3rd revert: [4]
  • 4th revert: [5]
  • 5th revert: [6]

Several editors have tried engaging User:Beh-nam with regards to controversial edits that the user continues to make. Our edits have been reverted time and time again, despite efforts to engage the user. The user's activities go far beyond this article and are becoming extremely problematic for the vast majority of editors working on this and related articles.

Article Discussion Page: [7] User:Beh-nam Talk Page: [8]

Entering another piece for my argument. This is a comment left on my talk page by the user in question. It should help paint a picture of the motivations behind what I and others see as inappropriate behavior if not vandalism.

My Talk: [9]


This user was repeatedly removing sourced material and I told him several times to stop removing sourced material. Removing sourced material is strictly considered vandalism and vandalism may be removed without the 3RR violation. So this 3RR violation is not valid since it was removing repeated vandalism. --Behnam 19:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, user:Khampalak has been removing this source repeadtly. Take a look at these 4 reverts from him. If a user is removing sourced info it is vandalism and leaves others no choice but to rv it again until they understand that sourced info cannot be removed. Here are his reverts of sourced material:

--Behnam 20:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

-- Lexie Kaye From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Revision history

User has been addressed several times about this page and other pages and ignores the comments by other editors. Chuck Sirloin continues to edit and delete and provide incorrect information.

  • 1st revert:(cur) (last) 00:37, 16 August 2007 Chuck Sirloin (Talk | contribs) (1,351 bytes) (major re-write to keep in line with WP:BLP, see talk page, added refs) (undo)
  • 2nd revert:(cur) (last) 00:38, 16 August 2007 Chuck Sirloin (Talk | contribs) m (1,347 bytes) (fix ref) (undo)
  • 3rd revert(cur) (last) 00:41, 16 August 2007 Chuck Sirloin (Talk | contribs) (1,554 bytes) (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lexie Kaye. using TW) (undo)
  • 4th revert(cur) (last) 15:06, 17 August 2007 Chuck Sirloin (Talk | contribs) (1,554 bytes) (rm unsource info, see WP:BLP if you are confused about biographies of living people rules) (undo)
  • 5ht revert(cur) (last) 15:46, 17 August 2007 Chuck Sirloin (Talk | contribs) (1,839 bytes) (again, removed unsourced information, added new line with source. See talk page.) (undo)
  • 6th revert(cur) (last) 15:55, 17 August 2007 Chuck Sirloin (Talk | contribs) (1,839 bytes) (rv unsourced info) (undo)

User:Brickoceanmonth reported by User:Rjecina (Result: Indefinite - sockpuppet)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Demographic history of Bačka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Brickoceanmonth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverts:

4 times today he has deleted statement in article which is confirmed with internet source without any known reasons. In all his reverts he has deleted statement: "In 1948, after Yugoslav/Serbian ethnic cleansing [3] Yugoslav Bačka had a population of 807,122, including". This user is without question somebody sockpuppet because he has become "new" member of wiki only today and in this 13 hours he has started 3 revert wars. During this short time he has broken 3RR rule in another article (

Vlach language in Central Serbia
)

User:Brickoceanmonth reported by User:TodorBozhinov (Result:blocked sock)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Template:Ethnic groups in Bulgaria (edit | [[Talk:Template:Ethnic groups in Bulgaria|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Brickoceanmonth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait

WP:RCU and stop with your accusations please.--Brickoceanmonth
20:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

User:218.133.184.93 reported by User:Arthur_Rubin (Result:48 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Copeland–Erdős constant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 218.133.184.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  • (I can't find the exact version; but all of these are to the same version; even if the first one isn't a revert, the rest are)
  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Comment
There have been at least 4 more reverts. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

User:MichaelCPrice
(Result:No Violation)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Ebionites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Str1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Reverts:

User insists on using misleading modern descriptions, and deletes others passages in entirety, despite talk page dialogue. Removes all references to Ebionite schism with "Pauline Christianity", which defined Ebionite movement, rendering article meaningless.

  • Comment It should be noted that the History section of the Ebionites article is being reworked by several editors in an attempt to make it more concise and remove some editorial commentary. Several of these supposed reverts were done in the normal course of editing for clarity, rather than the tit-for-tat dispute that is being implied. The complainer has a history of trying to provoke other editors into 3RR, and he is trying to get payback for a recent 3RR block on
    another article. Ovadyah
    03:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment No tit-for-tat implied. --
    talk
    05:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I did not imply the 5th revert was from the same passage as the 1st, 4th and 6th -- quite the reverse since only the 1st, 4th and 6th were identified as the same. But the 3RR applies to all changes to an article, so this is irrelevant, hence the inclusion of the 2nd and 3rd as well. I agree the 2nd revert was partially reverted - but only partially. As for the times, they look fine to me, but my PC is on UK summer time, not GMT -- are the display times off by an hour? If so it should only be a relative shift and not affect any 3RR claim. --
    talk
    09:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, one hour. I did not say that they affect the issue, just that I was confused about this. You should adjust your settings.
IMHO my edits are not reverts but pretty standard (though heated) edits in a conflicted article (I will not count the "reverts" on Michael's parts) - true, reverts are not restricted to one part of the article but if one revert and another concern unrelated passages they are usually considered one revert. Str1977 (talk) 10:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User:RookZERO reported by User:Exactends (Result:page protected / 48-hour block)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RookZERO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 00:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactends 00:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  • comment, I must say this is a gross miscarriage of justice. While not officially proven just yet, Rook, like a lot us today, spent a great deal of time fighting rolling ip socks of permabanned User:His excellency. Given that you are allowed to infinitely revert banned users and their ip socks, I advocate for Rooks release from exile until The ip's are identified. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 04:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Rook was blocked for 4RR and
WP:NPA on a completely different subject today. Got on him for reporting Exactends though. Misou
07:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:BIGCANDICEFAN reported by User:Bastun (Result:Final Warning)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BIGCANDICEFAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 00:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: 00:03 (BIGCANDICEFAN then removed it).

User continually removing

Dave Finlay's ring nicknmaes - claims they don't exist. I gave him a link to google searches demonstrating how common they were. Another user also restored and inserted references to their use. These were also reverted. Yet another user also stated they were common knowledge. BIGCANDICEFAN denies this. He then stated "No those links are as useless as those nicknames and those nicknames are not on WWE.COM I practicly live there so no it's not on there." on the talk page. I gave him a direct link on the talk page to their use on WWE - he reverted again. BastunBaStun not BaTsun
00:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User:W. Frank reported by User:Domer48 (Result:12 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Gerry Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). W. Frank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)



  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

User:220.253.45.202 reported by User:LuckyLouie (Result: Not handled)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Ghost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 220.253.45.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [19]
  • 1st revert: [20]
  • 2nd revert: [21]
  • 3rd revert (possible sockpuppet): [22]
  • 4th revert: [23]
  • 5th revert: [24]

Notice of possible 3RR: [25]

User:Misou reported by User:Foobaz and User:AndroidCat[26] (Result: Not handled)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Scientology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Misou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Hi. The so-called reverts up there are - no surprise to me though, knowing the two guys reporting me - fake, as they do not cover the same area, same topic nor same content. BTW, on this earlier story it was me reporting
WP:NPA violations (got blocked 48hrs), see here
.
Anyway, see talk page. We went in "negotiations" of the controversial changes and left the revert game. The sockpuppet lie is regularly used to get unbriefed Admins to shoot me. If you really want to dive into this subject, check this here. Misou 07:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
"…no surprise to me though, knowing the two guys reporting me"?! Way to violate
WP:NPA in one fell swoop. I'm reporting you because you went far beyond your allowed 3 reverts and are preventing attempts to improve the article, not because i have some personal vendetta. I have stuck up for you before, and look forward to doing the same in the future. The catch is, you have to make edits that i and your other peers can work with. Foobaz·o<
20:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Listen, if I am making edits and someone comes along and reverts them without comment, refusing to use the talk page and then calling my edits "cult" edits, I am not ok with this. You have not shown any impartiality in the last months - to the contrary - and I have not seen you taking a stand against
WP:NPAs against Scientologists. So I don't really care what you have to say to justify your behavior. The reverts you listed are a) not on the same subject, b) not on the same part of the article and c) reverts of pure POV pushing. That is what you support. I am not out for "fight" or some nonsense like this. I want neutral and correct encyclopedic articles. Show me that we are on the same page and we can stop wasting time here. Misou
01:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
According to
Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." In many edit wars, including this one, both sides are convinced that their version is the right version. You don't get a free pass to violate WP:3RR because you disagree with the content of people's edits. None of the other editors involved broke three reverts. Foobaz·o<
01:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Cool, you are trying to apply Wikipedia policy. Keep it that way, this is great! Misou 05:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
PS, RookZERO was blocked for 48hrs, keep looking. Misou 05:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

User:212.182.158.110 reported by User:Dynaflow (Result: Not handled)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 212.182.158.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 01:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: 14:34, 12 August 2007 (1st revert was a scaled down version of the change added with the last edit here, which was reverted by another user per the discussion on the Talk page. After the first revert, I could AGF, but the rest of the reversions blew that away. If necessary, consider the first revert as the initial version. This is not a strict 24h 3RR, but should be blockable as a disruption from a user who has shown a willingness to edit war.)
  • 1st revert: [27]
  • 2nd revert: [28]
  • 3rd revert: [29]
  • 4th revert: [30] (poss. meat- or sockpuppet)
  • 5th revert: [31]
  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [32]


Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) reported by User:Tbeatty (Result:2 weeks)

  • Criticism of George W. Bush

Now normally this wouldn't be a technical violation yet here User:Giovanni33 acknowledges he understands 3RR policy, that he is edit warring, and that he was recruiting for more editors to continue his edit warring reversions so that he is not in technical violation. [33][34]. This is blatant Gaming the System violation of 3RR. --Tbeatty 03:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


Also, he's gamed the system before according to his extensive block log [35]. Most recently, gaming it on June 28, 2007 with a 24 hour, 30 minute revert. --Tbeatty 03:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Giovanni has a long history of edit warring and has been told many times to stop. I'm blocking for two weeks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Flavius Belisarius reported by User:Vonones (Result: Blocked 24h)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Flavius Belisarius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The personal attacks are to be noted too. --Vonones 03:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Blocked 24 hours. --Golbez 08:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:DigiFilmMaker reported by User:Girolamo Savonarola (Result: Not handled)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DigiFilmMaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 05:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

    • Several {{
      spam
      }} warnings were placed on the user page and blanked by the user. (See user talk page history.)
  • Diff of 3RR warning: made by an anonymous editor

Also suspected sock-puppet account: James8445 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Account behavior between two accounts is very contemporaneous, edits are nearly identical, as are edit summaries. No other substantial edits by either account. Girolamo Savonarola 22:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Addressed above. Girolamo Savonarola 22:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:VitasV reported by User:Dr.Who (Result: 24 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Doctor Who story chronology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). VitasV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Even though other users have repeatedly told User:VitasV that he is making an incorrect change to the title of the Doctor Who movie, he just keeps changing it to the wrong name.

  • Not a brand new user. This user has been getting warnings since March about civility, edit warring, and blanking content, particularly with regard to that same webpage, but deletes warnings from talk page. [40]

Immediately after a specific 3RR warning, User:VitasV reverted again:

Reported by Dr.Who.

User:Dilip rajeev reported by User:PCPP (Result: Not handled)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dilip rajeev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Dilip has repeatedly reverted Ohconfucius's and my edits on Falun Gong and Persecution of Falun Gong, reverting entire pages and notices over a few disputed words within two days. He also called me a vandal, and a sock of User:Samuel Luo and threatened me with a user check [49]. He has previously violated 3RR a little over a year ago [50]--PCPP 08:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:AquariusBoy01 reported by User:Art_281
(Result: appears to have been resolved)

This user made created the following article Milena Roucka in which his version of the article had run-on sentences, fragments and no references. So I edited with more detailed stuff and with references but he keeps on reverting it saying that he "OWNS THE ARTICLE". I told him that I just added more detailed stuff with references and the article looks better with references and detailed parts, but he keeps on reverting it. I do not know what to do, I am doing what I am supposed to do and please warn him or something. Thanks!

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 15:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • We worked it out.

User:BigDunc reported by User:Conypiece (Result:Page protected)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Birmingham pub bombings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BigDunc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment BigDunc is not a new user. He seems to be well aware of Wiki guidelines. However he has become too attached to the article in question. He has edited/reverted 3 individual editors contributions to the article in the last 12 hours. He has previously been warned from edit warring. [55]


User:Cz mike reported by User:Isarig (Result:24 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Coastal Road massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cz mike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [56]

User is involved in a additional edit wars and additional 3RR violations at Dalal Mughrabi and at Baruch Goldstein.

I was just about to report this user myself. They are edit-warring over a number of related entries, and while they are a new user, a warning was issued. TewfikTalk 23:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Please note the user continues to revert, the last 2 reverts (5 & 6) coming after the 3RR was filed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isarig (talk • contribs)
Also coming to alert that the disruption is ongoing, and so any action should be taken sooner rather than later. TewfikTalk 23:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:TerriersFan
(Result: 24 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

TAXI (advertising agency) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 209.171.84.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 21:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Blocked for 24 hours. If other IP's become a problem, let me know or go to
WP:RFPP for semi-protection. MastCell Talk
22:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Burgas00 reported by User:Isarig (Result: 48 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Battle of Jenin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Burgas00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported:

  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: 20:16, 15 August 2007 not a new user, but warned nonetheless, and responded by denying he violated 3RR, and removing the warning.
Comment The user in question had this as a response to a uw-test warning I gave him after the second revert [57] Kyaa the Catlord 22:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Blocked for 48 hours, given 3RR violation, prior history documented in block log and personal attacks. MastCell Talk 22:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Funkynusayri reported by User:Egyegy
(Result: 24 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Funkynusayri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 22:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Not the first time that this user breaks 3rr or the first time he has been warned by an admin [58] and other users about this particular deletion. Also keeps calling other editors names, even though they've never insulted him. Egyegy 22:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Nospam3333 reported by User:Oli Filth (Result: Blocked 24 Hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Clyde N. Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nospam3333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

User:AquariusBoy01
(Result:No action)

He keeps reverting that Torrie Wilson's moves section taking away ":*Running tornado DDT (2003-04)

I am not reverting it, I haven't revert it, I have been to the "Edit this page" I have never revert it, see the history. Art 281 00:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

User:AquariusBoy01 reported by User:Art_281
(Result: No action)

He keeps on putting on her article "Tornado DDT" and that move hasn't been used since 3 years ago, and even though it has the time in it, it's too old to put the move.

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 00:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Neither of these requests were handled properly, going to see if they can work it out before they both get blocked CitiCat ♫ 06:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Jmfangio reported by User:Ksy92003 (Result: No Action)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 09:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

  • This user has previously violated
    WP:3RR
    twice in the past week (Friday and Tuesday)
  • Same issue we had then too - You have adjusted comments. I had removed a comment within seconds of posting it. You then reinserted it so you could reply. As you should be well versed on
     ►Chat 
    09:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Does not appear that the relevant edit was even included - here it is.
     ►Chat 
     09:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
You need to realize, Jmfangio, that I typed my comment in response to your comment. Whether you removed it or not, my comment was still in response to yours. The value of my comment was lessened due to the removal of yours. Because I posted my comment, it needs to be visible what the reason for me leaving that comment was. By removing your comment, my comment doesn't make as much sense. I even came up with a compromise, striking out your comment, perfectly acceptable per
WP:TPG
, and that didn't satisfy you either. The comment that I was replying to needs to be visible so people reading that discussion can see why I said it.
And I seem to remember last night, Chrisjnelson left a comment here, but then deleted it because he wanted to. You restored it, and do you remember what your edit summary was? "This needs to be seen." Whether you said something and retracted it or not, you still said it, and I still responded to it. I did the same thing to your comment that you did to Chrisjnelson's comment, which was perfectly acceptable by your standards. Now, when it's done to one of your comments, it's illegal? Ksy92003(talk) 09:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • No action. Seriously guys does it really matter? Just leave the page at whatever state it is in now and go and find something useful to do.
    Spartaz Humbug!
    09:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Would love to Spartaz, I've been clamoring for this editor (and another editor) to stop engaging me on all talk pages except
     ►Chat 
    09:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
So being blocked depends on whether it personally matters to the reviewing admin? As opposed to say... a violation of a policy. Or perhaps the fact he's been blocked for it twice within the past week or so. Mmkay.►Chris Nelson 09:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Since you commented so nicely, I'll say what I originally say to say which was that this is the lamest revert war I have yet seen. This isn't so much disruption as handbags at 4 paces. Frankly it's borderline harassment to try and force an editor to engage when they don't want to. The first step of dispute resolution is disengaging. Preventing an editor from doing is simply not on and I'm not going to block an editor for trying to disengage.
      Spartaz Humbug!
      09:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying you should block a user for not wanting to continue a conversation. You should block him for the policies he's violated (one for the third time this week). Jmfangio should not be allowed to remove his comments from a talk page entirely. They are part of the discussion and once it's out there it's no longer "his". I'd also like to point out that yesterday I tried to delete a of mine and Jmfangio restored it saying "this needs to be seen." Can you say hypocritical?►Chris Nelson 09:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: Other said editor - now unwatching.
     ►Chat 
     09:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Watermint reported by User:Leavepower (Result:no violation )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Sea of Japan naming dispute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Watermint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [59]

he is a socket puppet of Endroit. he continually revert. he block justified edit continually.Leavepower 11:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No violation by the look of the report.

Spartaz Humbug!
17:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

User:L reported by User:Iceage77 (Result: No violation )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Criticism of the BBC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

All of these edits relate to a content dispute. None are reverting vandalism. Iceage77 15:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been another revert to remove the same information that has been placed in by various other editors. The Enlightened 18:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I already included that by adding the 6th revert. Iceage77 21:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Ksy92003 User:Jmfangio reported by User:Navou (Result: already reported and resolved)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 17:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


Note that I am reporting both editors, this is more a behavioral issue verses a content issue at the moment. I'm in not involved in the content dispute and have no opinions on the content. Navou banter 17:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I dealt with this a little earlier today (see millions of edits on my talk page and a bit further up). I didn't block then because I felt that continuing to restore the talk page comment was effectively thwarting Jmfangio's attempts to disengage from that particular discussion. There appears to be a further conduct issue for at least one of the editors concerned that needs to be addressed but not at 3RR I think.
Spartaz Humbug!
17:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Yup, it does appear that way, and I'll understand that Fangio also has the option of this and to just leave the comment and ignore depending. After looking into this further, I'll agree with you on the overall assessment. There is another venue I'll likely post to tonight if I can. Navou banter 17:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
For the record, unless I'm mistaken, I only made three reverts; the fourth is what may lead to 3RR. Ksy92003(talk) 17:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Five reverts are linked above. Either in part or in whole. Navou banter 21:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


User:HillChris1234 reported by User:Raymond_arritt (Result: 24 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). HillChris1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 20:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


Original addition of material http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=151668008&oldid=151667940 19:51, 16 August 2007

  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Has begun adding the same material to

Global warming controversy as shown here
.

*@Raymond_arritt #2 isn't a revert. I'm disappointed that this has been presented as 4 reverts when it is actually 3. You are experienced enough to know better then that.

Spartaz Humbug!
20:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It was a partial revert. Notice the intermediate revision was omitted. I formatted it this way to emphasize the material that was involved in the partial revert, but understand how it could be confusing. Here's a diff showing the change from the intermediate edit.[69] Raymond Arritt 20:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks I have it now but Coredesat beat me to the block. He has 24 hours. My apologies for the implication of my earlier post - that was uncalled for and I have struck it.
Spartaz Humbug!
20:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
No big deal. I should have explained it more clearly to begin with. Raymond Arritt 21:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


User:Someguy0830
(Result: 24 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Ben 10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 75.92.137.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

24 hours

wat's sup
02:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Ksy92003 reported by User:Jmfangio (Result:48 for Jmfangio, no block for Ksy92003 )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ksy92003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 01:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • This is a symptom of an ongoing dispute. We have been edit warring a great deal over the past few days. His edits have drifted away from
     ►Chat 
    01:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Jmfangio is mistaken. "1st revert" is the first edit I made to that page. Therefore, I have only made three reverts and haven't violated 3RR. Please look at the "1st revert" edit to see that it wasn't a revert. Ksy92003(talk) 01:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

First edit isn't a revert as far as I can see, as for you Jmfangio, you had four reverts looking at the history, 48 for you as this is your third block.

wat's sup
01:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Dohanlon reported by User:Girolamo Savonarola (Result: 24 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Children of the Century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dohanlon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

24 hours, looking at the history, blocking

wat's sup
02:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked Reginmund, my fault

wat's sup
02:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Soulgany101 reported by User:Zeraeph (Result: No action)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Alexithymia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Soulgany101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  •  Not done Result was no action. This request was malformed, with many sections not completed. No evidence of user being warned. Strong suspicion that requesting user is equally guilty of revert warring.
    ム
    10:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


User:RookZERO reported by User:Misou (Result: No action, editor counseled on user:talk)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Scientology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). rookZERO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Misou

Crossposted from AN/I:

This is predictable and will be just another 4RR or so. Misou 01:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This blocking does not work with him. Voila:

Diff 1, :Diff 2, :Diff 3, :Diff 4 (sneaky1), :Diff 5 (sneaky2)

Misou 03:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, more reverts happening by the minute (and yes, I am in this war too, trying to keep the status quo of this article. Can someone freeze it, maybe...?) Misou 03:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
If anyone does freeze it, I suggest not Misou's version since this is a previously used last-ditch tactic. AndroidCat 03:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

User:देसीफ्राल reported by User:Muntuwandi
(Result: No violation )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

One drop rule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
).



Though one revert is from another article, I believe it is necessary because the User is noted for possible wikistalking at [71]

the user is also quoted in the edit summary [72] as saying Again with the misleading edit summaries, the talk page is of the consensus that you leave this article alone. I don't believe it is in the spirit of wikipedia to tell other editors to stop editing an article. Muntuwandi 06:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I haven't looked at this closely yet but the user is not stalking he is addressing some persistent POV-pushing and introduction of uncited material by muntuwandi. Muntuwandi has already been blocked for edit warring on these sort of articles himself (just recently) and may have violated 3RR again. Certainly देसीफ्राल's edits from another article don't count toward a 3RR violation. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 06:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
No violation. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Rhun reported by User:Joka (Result: 12 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Srbosjek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rhun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 06:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Moreover, User:Rhun keeps deleting sourced material in his reverts.
  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.


User:MUSASHIKOGANEI reported by User:HongQiGong (Result: 24 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

The Battle of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MUSASHIKOGANEI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [73]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: 2007-08-17T07:29:29 (a version link instead of a diff because my edit created the user Talk page, so no diff available)
  • Result: 24 hour block.
    ム
    10:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Proabivouac reported by User:In The Wavy (Result: No block)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Proabivouac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [74]
  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Apparently a sockpuppet of banned user User:Kirbytime. Having registered just yesterday, he has no way of knowing Matt57, whom Kirbytime has dedicated himself to trolling with a string of socks, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kirbytime, also User:Cheszmastre who just the other day created a sockpuppet page for Matt57 after banned User:His excellency had framed him with sockpuppets.Proabivouac 07:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if that is true (which it isn't), that does not excuse your violation of 3rr.--In The Wavy 07:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The reporting troll has been blocked. Blnguyen (bananabucket)
Thank you. This is the first semblance of law and order I've seen all day.Proabivouac 08:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Dilip rajeev reported by User:Ohconfucius (Result: 24 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Persecution of Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dilip rajeev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that in each of these cases, the revert spanned more than one intervening edit, and often from by more than one other editor. Admittedly, I had made a large number of changes, but I broke them down into a large number of edits to improve transparency.

Dilip only edits FG related articles. He and I have clashed in the past on edits. He is very impetuous, and has already falsely accused me, at least twice (#1, #2) of vandalism and sock-puppetry, only having to offer humiliating apologies later. On several occasions before yesterday, he has made wholescale revert edits with complete disregard for intervening editors' changes, with a single-line flippant remark in the edit summary. He has been warring with one or two other editors that I know of, and has also received polite requests from others to cool it, only no real moderating effect. I find his behaviour very disruptive. We are talking, but I cannot help but feel that he needs a long spell on the bench to cool his hot head.

Ohconfucius 08:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • 24 hour block.
    ム
    10:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Haraharamahadeva reported by User:Priyanath (Result: )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Mahavatar Babaji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Haraharamahadeva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition, the same user presumably made the same revert just minutes before he created a username. He used the IP User:84.126.111.206, making six reverts.

  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

It's not clear that the first is a revert. Is that not the initial addition of the material? Tom Harrison Talk 20:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I see, yes it is. I've now changed it to show the earlier initial change by the IP address, exactly the same as the first revert made eleven minutes later by the newly created account, Haraharamahadeva. I don't know if that suffices, or if checkuser is required - but it's obviously the same user. ॐ Priyanath talk 21:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

User:217.134.81.133 reported by User:Biophys (Result: Protected)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Jeffrey Nyquist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 217.134.81.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a user with a variable IP address. This article has been twice sprotected because of his edits. See for example 23:50, 8 June 2007Biophys 21:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a side note. This anonymous user terrorised some other users so much by vandalizing their user pages, [75] so they complained about WP as a "very hostile place": [76]Biophys 00:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You both were edit-warring, so I protected the page. Also, I find Lastingwar (talk · contribs) rather suspicious. -- tariqabjotu 03:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Al-Andalus reported by User:Egyegy
(Result: 24h (Al), 36h (Eg))

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Al-Andalus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 23:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I have tried to in different ways to compromise with this user [77] [78] [79]. All of my attempts have been reverted to his preferred version. In the 3rd revert, he called me a "Vandal" after I explained myself on the talk pages and here [80]. He seems to think no body else is allowed to edit the infobox except for him. Egyegy 23:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Arab and Middle East. -- tariqabjotu
03:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Funkynusayri reported by User:Egyegy
(Result: 48h (Fun), 36h (Egy))

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Funkynusayri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 23:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • He just came back from a block for making this deletion. The discussion took place a long time ago and sources were given, but he dismissed them and does not provide any sources. Egyegy 23:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • He broke 3rr on another article at the same time as this [81] [82] [83] [84]. Unrelated but a pattern. Egyegy 00:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Arab and Middle East. -- tariqabjotu
03:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Naruto134
(Result: Warning)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Keizer Ghidorah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Apelinq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 21:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This user

Naruto134
00:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The user is new; I warned him/her about the three-revert rule instead. -- tariqabjotu 03:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Postal68 reported by User:Satori Son (Result: 24 hours )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Bruce Springsteen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Postal68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


User:MSJapan reported by User:Muntuwandi (Result: 48 hours for both )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MSJapan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


  • Diff of 3RR warning: User has been given the opportunity to revert but has not taken it. 01:06, 18 August 2007
  • Ignore this request, Muntuwandi is a troll, and has received numerous warnings, I'd say a block is coming soon for him. Editors are doing wikipedia a favor by reverting his edits --
    देसीफ्राल
    02:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • 48 hours for both editors - Muntuwandi had 4 reverts in 24 hours and 10 minutes so was clearly gaming the 3RR
    Spartaz Humbug!
    12:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC).

User:Hare-Yukai reported by User:HongQiGong (Result: 24 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

The Battle of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hare-Yukai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


I only count 6 reverts (number 7 is unrelated) but that's enough. 24 hours

Spartaz Humbug!
11:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

User:220.255.34.134, User:220.255.49.242 reported by User:Cocoma (Result: semi-protected)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Campus SuperStar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 220.255.34.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: 05:19
  • The user following the IP of 220.255.34.134 and 220.255.49.242 have been bypassing the discussion on Campus SuperStar. It have been noted that their edits are simply reverting the article to its original state without a valid reason. Persistant reverting are still on-going after notice. Cocoma 17:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Nat.tang
(Result: No violation)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lahiru_k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't violate

WP:3RR and the Sri Lanka page also now been protected.[89] --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie
22:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There's certainly an edit war going on, but there is a 24hr gap right in the middle of those 6 reverts. As the page is now protected, I don't see any further action needed. Kuru talk 22:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

User:IPSOS reported by User:Watchtower Sentinel (Result: No violation; 24h for WS)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Hariakhan Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). IPSOS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [90]


NOTE: No warning necessary since the editor being reported is not a new user and is well-aware of 3RR as he himself expressed in this edit summary. He has also been duly advised by SysOp Theresa Knott as to the inanity of his edit-warring as far back as 12:16, 10 August 2007. - Watchtower Sentinel 19:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the link you're using to illustrate his awareness of 3RR is a fairly clear warning to you that the fourth revert is what triggers the problem. Oddly, you seem to have simply reverted him again anyways. Ms. Knott's message does not seem to explicitly mention 'inanity' or 'edit-warring' at that. Kuru talk 22:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

User: Nospam3333 reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: 72 hours )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Clyde N. Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nospam3333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The User was blocked for the three-revert rule violation on the same article on August 16 after receiving a warning (which he has reverted from his talk page). Since coming back he reverted the same material from the same article three times yesterday and once today. Although the fourth revert came outside the 24 hour period, it seems clear what the Users intent is. The User’s reverts have a single theme – the unreliability of the Southern Poverty Law Center as a source. His only 16 edits of articles since he registered include 14 reverts related to the SPLC as a source, an edit to the SPLC article itself, and an edit unrelated to the SPLC.

  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [20:28, 15 August 2007 North Shoreman]

Tom (North Shoreman) 19:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


There is a legitimate debate going on over this article. It is, in my opinion, not in compliance with the policy on biographies. The SPLC quote is is harmful in nature and is from a controversial source. The second quote is original research by North Shoreman yesterday, and is an out of context clip added only for the purpose of constructing an argument for me. As for being banned a few days ago, I only registered a few days ago and am just picking up the rules. Nospam3333 09:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC) David

Blocked for 72 hours for second violation.
Spartaz Humbug!
11:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Someguy0830
(Result: 72 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Kagura (InuYasha) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.188.24.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 03:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Joebloetheschmo reported by User:Jaakobou (Result:Final Warning)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Battle of Jenin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Joebloetheschmo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  • 1st revert: [95] (11:40, 18 August 2007)
  • 2nd revert: [96] (19:05, 18 August 2007)
  • 3rd revert: [97] (20:16, 18 August 2007)
  • 4th revert: [98] (21:35, 18 August 2007)

user was given a notice about removing materials that are well cited and was referred to talk page,[99] but has not taken the time to respond and instead continued reverting. (link to relevant talk). JaakobouChalk Talk 11:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

They appear to be a very new user and a quick glance on their user page suggests they haven't had a warning. Is this correct?
Spartaz Humbug!
11:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
we've been getting some extremely disruptive behavior on that article. one user was force assigned a mentor, another was blocked and a new IP started making edits, others keep making disturbing and uncivil comments, and now this. perhaps my warning was not strong enough and i leave the decision to you (slight chance that this is the second sock on the page). p.s. i would appreciate someone volunteering to help out just a little with this article. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not going to block right now because there wasn't a specific warning but will leave the user a firm message. I have watchlisted the article and will keep an eye on it.
      Spartaz Humbug!
      14:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Kungfoofighting1 reported by User:Moe Epsilon (Result:Final Warning)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kungfoofighting1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 14:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Warned on his talk page by The Hybrid. — Moe ε 14:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The warnings appear to be almost simultaneous to the last revert and it appears that (whether correct or not) the user thinks there may be a BLP related concern. Also, they indicated on the Hybrid's talk page that they didn't understand 3RR but wanted to work with The Hybrid on this. I'm going to let this go with a final warning but any more revert warring will result in sanctions.
Spartaz Humbug!
14:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Tiamut reported by User:Isarig (Result: One Week)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Random checkpoint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tiamut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Repeated insertions (with minor variation) of country-specific examples. This user has edit warred over the inclusion of the same material a month ago, and is back reinserting the same stuff. User is aware of 3RR, and was warned agian, in edit summary. Isarig 16:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Spartaz, please forgive the interjection. While a week-long block may seem reasonable after a third 3RR violation, there are circumstances here that make me think this result is unjust. It is debatable whether User:Tiamut's first edit was a revert. She was adding material, and the last time any of this was present in the article was over a month ago. I doubt very much she thought she was "reverting." It is true that she and Isarig had edit-warred over some of this material in the past, but Isarig edit-wars with Tiamut on a range of articles, reverting almost anything she adds. Here's an example just from the past few days: Tiamut adds very well-sourced and obviously relevant information to Hafrada; this is reverted by Isarig here, who says her edit is "editorializing," though the added material is a bare-bones presentation of what an academic source "argues" about the subject of the article (in this very same edit Isarig quietly inserts an unsourced reference in the lead about "protect[ing] Israelis from Palestinian terrorists," an insertion he makes no mention of in his summary); Tiamut is subsequently supported by another editor, who leaves a polite edit summary explaining why [100]; Isarig then proceeds to revert war with both editors, Tiamut and Andyvphil, reverting their edits no less than seven times, responding to their patient and detailed edit summaries [101] [102], with brusque ones of his own [103].
In the present case (
3RR
:

The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence".[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system. Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any disruptive edit warring, even if they do not exceed three reverts on a page in 24 hours. Similarly, editors who may have technically violated the 3RR may not be blocked, depending on circumstances.

You have applied your discretionary judgment in giving Tiamut a week-long block in lieu of the more usual 24 hours. In light of the fuller context I've provided, a further application of your discretionary powers might be in order, and you might consider giving Isarig a comparable block; or giving them both comparably shorter blocks. This would certainly seem to be one of those cases where such discretion is in order:
3RR was devised to create a strong counter-incentive to edit-warring, not to create a game of strategy.--G-Dett
22:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I accidentally saw this and haven't checked the diffs but blocking for a week only because it is third 3rr violation seems quite excessive. --Aminz 22:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
It was Tiamut who first added this material on May 24 [104], and who restored it when it was removed. The only way he'd think his first edit wasn't a revert is if he'd completely forgotten that he was the one who added it in the first place a few weeks earlier, which is unlikely to say the least. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, Tiamut's edit seem
pointy and may count as vandalism. But a week block seems quite excessive to me. I think 24-48 hours would be good (24 hours for passing 3rr and 24 hours for pointiness of the edit).--Aminz
22:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism? I just don't see it. If you look at the talk page discussion, it's very clear that Tiamut, who created the article as
Flying checkpoint
, took Isarig's objections and demands for a move very seriously, and even after an RfM created by Isarig failed, she graciously announced that she "would be more than happy to abide by any consensus generated via the involvement of outside editors," after which an RfC was filed. That RfC failed to elicit much outside interest, beyond a couple of comments from openly partisan editors closely allied with Isarig. Nevertheless Tiamut posted another gracious note accepting Isarig's demands, with a small and very reasonable qualification:

For the sake of compromise, I am willing to accept a name-change to the article. It should be entitled Random checkpoint. Types or synonyms of random checkpoint - such as "flying checkpoint" - should be mentioned, as well as where the term was first used and where it is used now. The issue of the level of detail of specific examples of the impact on civilians in different countries or situations can be discussed as the new article takes shape.

She then took a month break from the article "to get some distance, since I felt I could use some." Tiamut is unfailingly gracious and modest about such things. She returned today to restore the material she had asked, by way of compromise, to retain in exchange for moving the article where Isarig wanted it. Isarig immediately began his edit war, bringing things to where they are. Tiamut's various efforts at compromise have been met all along the way with only one response from Isarig – edit-warring. Spartaz and Aminz obviously mean well here, but both the lopsided block and the characterization of Tiamut's work as "vandalism" are unjust.--G-Dett 22:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
G-Dett, I am ignorant on this topic. I just felt that this should be used at a global level and as such specifically pointing out that Israel is doing that (plus mentioning the extra details of how long people are in the lines) seemed strange to me. Anyways, I shouldn't have called it "vandalism" as I don't know anything about this topic. --Aminz 22:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
It's the second time Tiamut has been blocked for a 3RR violation on the same article. [105] That alone would suggest a block longer than 24 hours is appropriate. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe 30 hours. I think it may depend on how serious the dispute is and also may depend on her activity on the talk pages. G-Dett says she has been quite active in the discussion pages and believes her edits were not vandalism. --Aminz 23:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
It's also worth pointing out that her previous 3RR violation on the same article (referred to by SlimVirgin) also came about through another edit war initiated by Isarig,[106] and waged by Isarig against three editors (Tiamut, Steve Hart,[107], Andrew pmk,[108], and Tiamut [109] [110] [111]) over several days, with six reverts total by Isarig, three of which he performed on the day of Tiamut's violation. After Isarig's orgy of edit-warring, he reported Tiamut,[112] resulting in the block SlimVirgin alludes to. Again, the point of
WP:3RR is to create a counter-incentive against edit-warring, not to reward edit-warriors for the dexterity of their gamesmanship.--G-Dett
23:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
It's true that editors can be blocked for reverting without violating 3RR if the reverting has clearly reached the level of disruption, as the policy says. But the point of 3RR is to make it clear that four reverts is unacceptable. Tiamut has to learn not to revert more than three times in 24 hours regardless of any other consideration. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought the point of
WP:3RR is merely the rule book for a game of tic-tac-toe, then it must be said that Isarig is a formidable opponent. Credit where credit's due. But it isn't supposed to be a game. The judicious thing here, obviously, would be to deal even-handedly with both editors, who have a long history, and to take into account Tiamut's unreciprocated attempts at compromise with Isarig.--G-Dett
00:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
No such compromise attempts were made. Taimut "agreed" to the name change only after a clear consensus of editors, who came in through the RfC, clearly disagreed with her. She then resumed edit warring over the content of the article, again, against the clear consensus of editors there. She was warned by me after her 3rd revert today, and brazenly continued reverting. If 3RR is to mean anything, violators should be blocked. Blocking non-violators alongside violators makes a mockery of the whole thing. G-Dett is really not one to talk - as she has been a repeat violator of 3RR herself, and often skates the thin ice of exactly 3 reverts per day, and sometimes breaks that ice, though has been spared a report & block by some gracious editors. Isarig 00:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Everyone who edits Middle-East-related material has participated in edit wars, and I'm no exception. I find them to be an unfortunate thing all round, and I try to stay away from them, and I have never reported anybody else for their participation in same. You, by contrast, are both an avid participant in edit wars and an avid contributor to the 3RR noticeboard, and your contributions to the latter invariably grows out of your participation in the former. And this is now the third time you've reported Tiamut for a revert war in which you have yourself racked up three reverts. You are good at tic-tac-toe, Isarig, but you're making a mockery of
WP:3RR.--G-Dett
00:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Since you admit you're no exception to edit wars, and contrary to your assertion above, you're just as avid a participator in them as me, and since you've have had a very recent 3RR violation that has gone unreported, are you advocating that you be blocked now, too (perhaps for a week, as this is your 3rd such violation), in the spirit of dealing even-handedly with violators? or is this merely a continuation of your obsession with me and my edits, all over WP? Isarig 00:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The details of this exchange seem to have been hashed out already, and I'm not certain there's anything I could add that would improve the community's understanding of the Tiamut/Isarig situation. That said, I believe there's a larger problem here that Wikipedians should be willing to address.
  • Anyone familiar with Wikipedia's articles on the Middle East will know that they tend to be magnets for POV-pushing and edit warring. Since I began engaging with this issue in 2005, I've witnessed innumerable instances of blind reverting, obvious tag-teaming and over-the-top partisanship. While both sides of the "discussion" have been guilty of these offenses, my experience has been that editors on the "pro-Israel" side (to simplify matters a bit) have often been able to win short-term edit wars through the strength of numbers rather than arguments.
  • There have been numerous instances of 3RR gamesmanship in these articles, and frequent instances of editors being punished for accidentally "slipping up" or violating the policy in an ambiguous manner. These editors will be then reminded of their 3RR violations during subsequent disputes, and threatened with more serious sanctions if they act too boldly. This often has the effect of reducing the 3RR to a tool of intimidation.
  • If the 3RR is really to be "preventative rather than punitive", this situation needs to change. CJCurrie 03:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
One minute after posting this self-righteous missive, CJCurrie proceed to edit the
Allegations of Israeli apartheid article, where he has edit warred extensively, in order to revert, without any explanation nor discussion on the Talk page, an edit made by another editor. I hope the irony will not be lost on anyone who might be reading this. A little while later, he manged to outdo even this, by reverting a series of my latest edits, re-introducing in the process a slew of broken links I had carefully removed from the article, with an edit summary that says he doesn't really have a position on the edits being reverted - in other words, he's doing it for the pure sake of reverting. Well done. Isarig
04:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Isarig's comments are a inversion of reality. In actuality,

User:68.60.161.6 reported by User:Friendly Neighbour (Result:3h )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.60.161.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There were five identical reverts by User:68.60.161.6 between 18:12 and 19:36, 19 August 2007 (within 85 minutes!).

Hi FN, you'll need to supply diffs showing the reverts. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
OK. The example says If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. which I understood as "instead". Anyway, here they are:

I have blocked him for 3 hours to teach some respect to the 3RR rule, also semiprotected the article Alex Bakharev 07:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User:John Schnell reported by User:TheRingess (Result: 24 hours )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Cardiff-by-the-Sea, Encinitas, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). John Schnell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.


Other edit wars and 3RR violations from just this past week by TheRingess:

  • First example, an ongoing edit war on the Neil Steinberg page: [113]
  • TheRingess engaging in an aggressive edit war with another editor on that editor's talk page, with TheRingess deleting the editor's contributions to their own talk page: [114] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Surfdude001 (talk • contribs) 22:25:41, August 19, 2007 (UTC).
Blocked for 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


User:Mardavich reported by User:Arcayne (Result: No 3RR violations)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

300 (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mardavich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [115]

The reverts are all the same.

After extensive debate on the article Discussion page, the decision was rendered to remove the statments of one commentator as niehter as strong or noteworthy (that they had little to actually do with the movie would be an accurate assessment). The violater has been adding it back in repeatedly, arguing that he is the most respected professor, etc. His reverts have been reversed by another editor and myself. The user is a long-time user who is well aware of 3RR, and was warned of his impending violation. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not a violation of
WP:NOR. --Mardavich
06:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that anyone used as an argument for removal, 'I don't like it'; however, if you can find it, please let me know. There are also more rules other than verifiability - reliability comes to mind, and it was the consensus of at least three other editors that the statements be removed as not being on-topic enough. However, this isn't the place for a content dispute, Unless you are reverting outright vandalism, maintaining the strident opinion as to your opinion of a source does not serve as a shield against 3RR. It is to protect the article from disruption. As the article is FA, the need to avoid that disruption is ever more important. That you have edit-warred over this is disruptive, and that you have performed 4 edits within a 24 hour period means you broke the rules. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
There was no 3 reverts in 24 hours, thus, no 3RR violation. Alex Bakharev 06:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I guess pointing out his edit-warring there isn't being taken into consideration? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Reginmund reported by User:Dohanlon (Result: Malformed report, now stale)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Children of the Century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Reginmund (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[[120]]History Page

  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • If you want any admin to consider this, you need to complete the report completely including diffs to the reverts and to the warning.
    Spartaz Humbug!
    14:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Biofoundationsoflanguage reported by User:Barryob (Result: 12 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Scotland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User:24.239.178.19 reported by User:Jaranda (Result: 12 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Phil Rizzuto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.239.178.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: 16:05
  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: 18:17

User keeps adding copyrighted text against

wat's sup
18:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User Jaranda has mistakenly combined three separate edits, involving a NY Times article and two distinct edits involving the Rizzuto poetry book as one violation.

  • "1st revert" above = NY Times article on Rizzuto's birth
  • "2nd revert" above = restoring preexisting text (poems)
  • "3rd revert" above = ditto
  • "4th revert" above = introducing completely new text
  • "5th revert" above = ditto

Simply, the same edit/rv was NOT made three times in any of the three instances. And considering that I took pains to explain my reasoning in overlong edit summaries at every stage, while requesting that User Jaranda address his/her concerns on the Discussion page, I respectfully request that the above complaint be dismissed. I did not violate the 3RR rule in actuality, or in spirit. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.239.178.19 (talk)

Any reverts count, not only the same reverts.

wat's sup
18:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That isn't so-- that distinction only applies to very slight rewrites and rephrasings us ed by people deliberately trying to evade the rule. The examples above show three COMPLETELY different blocks of text. I also feel my edit history on the Rizzuto page in the past few days demonstrates seriousness and a desire to mediate (there has been a dispute over Rizzuto's year of birth). I replaced the deleted text with the second set of poems specifically to satisfy User Jaranda's stated criteria. Again, the 3RR complaint is in error, in regards to both behavior and spirit. I hope that he/she will proceed in good faith.24.239.178.19 19:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Cowboycaleb1 reported by User:Davnel03 (Result: PP)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Ashley Massaro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Davnel03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [121]

User kept on reverting a edit that I made that included a source, so surely removing sources is vandalism. One of his versions was reverted by Nikki311, but he kept on reverting. Davnel03 20:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

48 hoursRlevse 21:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
my goof on the block, changing to Page protection since both were warring.Rlevse 22:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Count Iblis reported by The Evil Spartan (Result: Warning)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Hezbollah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Count Iblis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is complex, partial reverting, so we really need to see the version reverted to for each edit. I know it's a pain, but we need to be sure that the editor isn't simply editing. I can see that he removed terrorist/terrorism three times (13;17, 14:29, and 15:32 UTC); the revert at 15:20 UTC isn't related; and the fifth and sixth at 20:24 and 20:54 UTC are adding "accusations" to a header (so the fifth would be the version reverted to, and the sixth the revert). It might be best if I just leave a warning for him, rather than have you go through the history to pick out all the versions reverted to. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
ES, I've left a warning for him. If you want to dig up all the versions reverted to, that can be changed to a block, but it might be best to leave it like this. If he does it again, he can't say he wasn't warned about complex, partial reverting. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs)
For the record, I strongly disagree with this warning. I did seek a compromize during editing and this was not a simple edit war. Let me first address a few of the reversions quoted above.
The final version that was reached was pretty much a solution that everyone can more or less agree on, because I split the section in two parts, separating the actions Hezbollah is accused of from the things that they admit to.
In the earlier edits of today a compromize was reached with Tom Harrison. Just check the third alleged reversion by me and click on "newer edit" a few times to read the progress of editing. I don't see a revert war here at all. You'll see that Tom changed the title to "Terrorism or resistance?" and that I changed it to "Accusations of bombings, terrorism and kidnappings" (I give a detaled explanation in the edit summary and on the talk page). Note that Tom did not change the opening sentence back that I modified in the third alleged reversion.
So, no revert war at all, just constructive editing by a group of editors with different points of views. And then you are bound to see a few reversions, but what matters is the big picture. To see this more clearly, let's go back to the point were the section was first put in:

see here

Now let's see how this section evolved over time by clicking on "newer version" till we reach the last version. I reverted the first version of the section two times in the grounds that this was extremely POV. But I also read what the editor had to say when he reverted me. The third edit by me was to change a few words per
WP:WTA
, but otherwise, I left the section intact. Now if you look at all the edits then you see that during the edits the issues were discussed using the edit summaries, at least by me (also on the talk page). Ultimately this led to a section that is reasonably NPOV and more or less acceptable to both sides. Clearly, any disputes that remain can be far easier dealt with by editing from the last version than from the original version.
The warning is therefore inappropriate, because if I had edited using this very narrow interpretation of 3RR, I could have reverted 3 times, then write on the talk page about the
WP:WTA issue and then you would have had a "legal revert war", where no one does anything exept reverting until his/her 3 reverts are finished. The end result would have been much worse than what we can read now. Count Iblis
23:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I have respond to your comments on my talk page. The Evil Spartan 23:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Davnel03 reported by User:cowboycaleb1 (Result:Novio )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

WWE roster. Davne103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 21:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


This user has reverted this page 3 times. He or She reverthed the Page at these times 

20:52, 20 August 2007
20:51, 20 August 2007
20:49, 20 August 2007

User:Cowboycaleb1

No vio. only 3 reverts, the 4th one is not there. 3RR requires a 4th reversion.Rlevse 21:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User:88.108.95.228 reported by User:Sumoeagle179 (Result: Page protected)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Girl Guide and Girl Scout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 88.108.95.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

The first warning was actually at 20:44, before the 4th revert, so that's okay. However, the version reverted to is after the first revert. Do you have a prior version? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Does version reverted to mean by the violoater or someone else? Anon IP has clearly reverted 4 or more times.Sumoeagle179 21:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It can be by anyone. The point is to show that the first edit was a revert to a previous version of the article, or part thereof. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
If I follow that correctly, then that would be here or one of the other edits around that time.Sumoeagle179 21:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
That's the first revert. You need to supply a diff from before that time, otherwise it's not a revert but an edit. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, User:Gothgirlangel1981 has decided to perpetuate the edit war hereSumoeagle179 22:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
As the 3RR violation is unclear, and there are multiple people involved, I've protected the page. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User:You Can't See Me!
(Result: Page protected)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Land of Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pimpedpope (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • Diff of 3RR warning:
This message was placed between his eighth and ninth reverts: 21:33, 20 August 2007;
The message was subsequently removed by the user, also between his eighth and ninth reverts: 21:42, 20 August 2007
  • Note: I have also violated the three revert rule in attempting to deal with his reverts under the impression that they were
    vandalism
    . It turns out that his edits were simply unintentional misinformation. However, he has recieved several warnings and explanations about the subject during the course of this edit war, which leads me to question whether or not his misinformation is or isn't unintentional.
  • Comment - Full revert list.
  1. 00:23, August 20, 2007
  2. 11:35, August 20, 2007
  3. 11:43, August 20, 2007
  4. 11:49, August 20, 2007
  5. 12:05, August 20, 2007
  6. 12:31, August 20, 2007
  7. 13:04, August 20, 2007
  8. 13:15, August 20, 2007
  9. 13:23, August 20, 2007
  10. 13:44, August 20, 2007
  11. 13:49, August 20, 2007
  12. 14:10, August 20, 2007
  13. 14:21, August 20, 2007
  14. 14:33, August 20, 2007
  15. 14:43, August 20, 2007
  16. 14:48, August 20, 2007
  17. 14:57, August 20, 2007 —The preceding
    talk • contribs
    ) 22:17, August 20, 2007 (UTC).
I've protected because there are others who appear to have violated 3RR too. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Dawgknot reported by User:Digby Tantrum (Result:12 hours )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

The Spirit (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dawgknot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

User:Krsont reported by User:Misou (Result: 12 hours, page protected)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Template:ScientologySeries (edit | [[Talk:Template:ScientologySeries|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Krsont (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

User's unsourced edit has been reverted by several parties in the course of this Krsont-instigated "war".

  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [122]

Agreed, looks like 3RR was breached here. I've blocked for 12 hours and protected the template in question to encourage discussion before reversion. Thanks -- Samir 04:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


User:Jeeny reported by User:KarenAER (Result: no action)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

European people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jeeny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: complex
  • Not a full revert but partial revert. She removes the word "native" again, ignoring the scope of the article: [124]

Comment : I reported her before: [125] She undid her edir edits but was blocked nonetheless but then her block was cancelled. [126] But I warned her this time too: [127] Also note that she started editing European people after I started editing it and continued the edit war about removing/adding the maps which was in White people...KarenAER 05:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment:Those were edits. I added fact tags, reduced the image sizes, etc. You were the one reverting me, erasing the fact tags I added to unsourced statements and images. Please stop this. This is disruptive. Please. Whenever someone seems to not agree with you, you report them, instead of discussing changes on the talk pages, or ignoring them. - Jeeny Talk 06:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, her/his first edit summary, after I was making EDITS on the page was Do not edit war. I feel this is another attempt to get me blocked so edits can be made without NPOV. The White people article is locked, so this article was made to make it another white people article, in my opinion. There is mediation going on. I am more than willing to compromise, but it is very difficult when one's intellegence is insulted, false accusations of wikistalking, and edit warring, etc. And then reporting others to keep them quiet.
She/he kept telling me "enough". As if she/he as the sole owner of the artcle. I tried to engage in conversation, but it always seems to get personal. Then, me, and others tend to get defensive. I wish this to stop. She is also only picking bits and pieces. Here on my talk page, and on her talk page. I don't have time to add more diffs.
Also, the mediator posted this message on my talk page: "Thank you! By the way, as an update, KarenAER has said she will not paticipate, so I am trying to talk to her. If you'd like, you can post preliminary opinions on the discussion page. Neranei (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)". Yet, now she is willing, but only just before reporting me. She has refused other mediation attempts. I have to go to bed. - Jeeny Talk 06:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I see you added the sources to the map images. Thank you. I also self reverted the native part and the image sizing and hopefully any other changes I made. It should be how you wanted it to be now, Karen. - Jeeny Talk 07:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
You always do this. You edit war and are only cooperative after being reported. The maps were sourced, you knew that, it was discussed a lot in Talk:White people KarenAER 16:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
This is the administrators' noticeboard for three-revert rule violations. It is not a forum for general debate about article content. Both of you, please stop. Raymond Arritt 16:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Isnt her past edit warring and violations of 3RR relevant? KarenAER 17:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Dutyterms reported by User:Komdori (Result: 24 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Liancourt Rocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dutyterms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

see my below article he is a 3rr violator and he did many unjustified delete.
flipped order to S before J again? no. i do not flipped in recent artcle. [128]Dutyterms 14:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
You have been immediately reverting any change anyone else made to the article that you didn't like. See
WP:OWN. See the diffs above for the examples. --Cheers, Komdori
14:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
according to
WP:OWN, 'delete warnig article by my own will' does not exist. you delete warning article by your own will. Dutyterms
14:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Obvious violation of 3RR, and the bogus report below on the user reporting does not help your case. Blocked for 24h. Please use the discussion page after the block expires.
    ELIMINATORJR
     14:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Komdori reported by User:Dutyterms (Result: No violation)

Three-revert rule
violation on Liancourt Rocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and His user talk page.

Komdori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:28, 21 August 2007 + Liancourt Rocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

  • Previous version reverted to: [129]


he may 3rr violation at Liancourt Rocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  • 1st revert: [130] unjustified delted
  • 2nd revert: [131] unjustified delted

he 3rr violation at his page.(also, he delete 3rr violation)

  • 1st revert: [132] he delete warning his talk page
  • 2nd revert: [133] he delete warning his talk page
  • 3rd revert: [134] he delete warning his talk page
  • 4th revert: [135] he delete warning his talk page
  • 5th revert: [136] he delete warning his talk page
  • 6th revert: [137] he delete warning his talk page
  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
  • Diff of 3RR warning (Liancourt Rocks page): [138]
  • Diff of 3RR warning (his talk page): [139]

he did unjustified delte, 2times. in Liancourt Rocks page. and he delete 3rr warning in his talk page more than 3 times by his own will.(no consensus). Dutyterms 13:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing content from your own userpage is not a violation of 3RR - especially when the vandalism warnings that were removed appeared bogus. The user did not violate 3RR on the article concerned (only 2 reverts). No action to be taken here. However, the reporter has almost certainly violated 3RR on the article (see above report). This appears to be a 'revenge' report. Please stop edit-warring and use the discussion page.

ELIMINATORJR
14:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


User:Hungrywolf reported by User:Blackbeard2k7 (Result: Last warning, article reverted)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Field Commander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hungrywolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)



Diffs of warnings:

  • The user didn't specifically get a 3RR warning. However, the user was warned against reverting and edit warring several times. Some examples are shown below:

[140] User was warned to discontinue adding promotional material and spam links to the article. He reverted the warning admins edits, 3 times in a row.

[141] The user was warned here about reverting edits in bad faith, but disregarded the warning and reverted anyway.

[142] Again the user was warned about reverting and edit warring, but ignored the warning and continued to revert. The user continues to revert changes to the article.

  • I've given a last warning to Hungrywolf about this rather pointless edit war. I've reverted the article myself, explained why on the talk page, and another reversion will draw a block.
    ELIMINATORJR
     22:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Watch844 reported by User:JFD (Result: Indefinitely blocked )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Out of India theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Watch844 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 17:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

User:Anietor reported by User:Peter cohen (Result: )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Mother Teresa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Anietor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion. Warning not issued: user has been active since 18:03, 11 November 2006 ; user is aware of 3RR rule due to discussion in parallel accusation of sockpuppetry at [Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Anietor]
  • Comment A detail I forgot to mention is that two of these edits are actually rollbacks. The 2nd reverts 4 edits by three different editors, the third reverts 8 edits by the same three different editors. --Peter cohen 23:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


User:Vidor reported by User:DCGeist (Result: withdrawn)

*

Three-revert rule
violation on Perfect game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Vidor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Four reverts in under 19 hours:

  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion. Warning not issued--user active since May 2006. Advisory of violation issued on user's Talk page ([143]) and relevant article's Talk page ([144]). Subsequent communication from user offers neither rationalization nor apology for/reversion of violation ([145]).
  • Follow-up: Notice of this report given on User:Vidor's Talk page: [146].—DCGeist 22:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Final follow-up; User has reverted the violating edit ([147]). I wish to withdraw this report. I am not certain if it is proper for me to delete it, so I have crossed it out.—DCGeist 23:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Comprendo reported by User:Kevin (Result: Article semi-protected, new editor warned)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Gladys Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Comprendo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: any version without Empress of Soul


  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • As User:Comprendo is a new account, for simplicity and to avoid biting the newbies too hard I have semi-protected the article for a couple of days, and explained to Comprendo what s/he is doing wrongly.
    ELIMINATORJR
     22:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Aatomic1 reported by User:Padraig (Result: 1 week)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Birmingham pub bombings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Aatomic1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


Editor has just been warned here about continued edit warring, and has previously been blocked for a 3RR violation making the same edit (adding a list of dead) to the same article. padraig 23:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As this was his third 3rr violation (second on the same article), and since he offered a fairly flippant response to the warning placed on his talk page, I have temporarily blocked him for 1 week. Kuru talk 02:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

User:RookZERO reported by User:HubcapD (Result: Page protected)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

David Miscavige (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RookZERO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Now, I know this is not 3 reverts in 24 hours, but this guy has been dinged before for violating the 3RR rule. See [148], [149].HubcapD 01:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

HubcapD, given that you've been the main person reverting RookZERO, you're at least as close to a 3RR violation as he is. However, I have no confidence that blocking even both of you would stop the edit war there, so please take the next week to talk things out or seek any necessary

dispute resolution. Seraphimblade Talk to me
05:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, I have tried to talk to this guy regarding the edit, and he ignores me. I honestly don't know what else to do. I suppose I'll look into dispute resolution and see what remedies are available. But I made what I feel is a good edit and he gives me no reason whatsoever for reverting it. Also, if you look over the history of this guy's editing history regarding Scientology-realted articles, he has of history of acting in this manner.HubcapD 05:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure, HubcapD, you have been in a discussion with him, but of all the scientology-related articles, the David Miscavige article seems to be the most contentious and edit warring has been frequent. You have been very active on the POV front of that article.--Fahrenheit451 23:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

User:VanTucky
(Result: page protection, warning)

Three revert violation on Boerboel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Frikkers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user has been blocked three times previously for edit-warring in the same manner on the same article, and warned again by a sysop in the period he made the recent reverts. After making a single cursory article talk statement ages ago (while still not failing to make user talk comments) he has directly ignored admonishment to have a consensus-building discussion and simply continues to revert once his block is up. Just as a clarification, I realize it is almost 100% of the time completely unnacceptable for me to continue to revert Frikkers like I have, but I have continued to try and create a talk discussion that can resolve the conflict, and have continually invited Frikkers to join me there. Time reported: 05:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  1. 02:39, August 21, 2007
  2. 03:13, August 21, 2007
  3. 04:41, August 22, 2007
  4. 04:45, August 22, 2007
  5. 05:58, August 22, 2007 Note: after this reversion, Frikkers made a talk statement, thus I did not revert again.
    (talk)
    06:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
VanTucky, I really understand your frustration in dealing with this. While the most recent reversions by Frikkers certainly are contravening the spirit of 3RR (which usually is enough for a block), I see that previous blocks didn't affect his behaviour. I think the better way to deal with this is to protect the page to encourage discussion. -- Samir 06:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a good solution to me. Thank you
(talk)
07:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Yilloslime reported by User:NCdave (Result: old issue already dealt with)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Steven_Milloy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yilloslime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This was a particularly blatant violation. Each of his four edits were exact reverts, not questionable cases, and each time that's all he did, just revert, four times. What's more, he didn't just get confused about the time or forget what he'd done the day before: he did all four reverts in a span of just 127 minutes.

These are the diffs:

Yilloslime was not unaware of the rule. In fact, the previous month he had, himself, accused another editor of 3RR violation.[155]

What's more, compounding the offense, Yilloslime is one of a handful of editors who have been working to make this

biography of a living person
into a "hit piece" against the subject of the biography. As a glance at the talk page shows, various other editors (including myself, Theblog, Peroxisome, "Uncle Ed" Poor, 66.75.3.244, 88.105.242.190, 202.61.229.85, and 147.114.226.172) have objected to the inaccuracies and/or POV-bias of the article. But Yilloslime refuses to allow even a warning that the accuracy of the article is disputed by other editors.

Whatever his opinion about the merits of the article and the arguments over it, and regardless of the intensity of his dislike for Mr. Milloy, it is an indisputable fact that the accuracy and neutrality of this article have been repeatedly disputed by other editors. Yet Yilloslime repeatedly removed warning tags from the article, to hide that fact from readers of the article. That is not acting in good faith or seeking consensus.

I am an easy-going guy, and I've never before filed a 3RR complaint against anyone. I held off for a month reporting even this particularly blatant 3RR violation, even though Yilloslime (who does not have a statistics degree) has made some highly questionable accusations against Mr. Milloy, including the charge that he "cherry-picks" statistics[156]. (Note that Millow has an advanced degree in statistics, and Yilloslime has no comparable expertise.) I prefer to try to reason with other editors, and seek consensus, which I've done extensively on the Steven Milloy Talk page.[157]

But Yilloslime and his little group of Milloy-bashing allies are not content to debate the merits of the article on the Talk page, and insert their POV into the article. They are now abusing Wikipedia's administrative system to stifle discussion by banning editors who disagree with them. His allies, MastCell and Raul654, have just permanently blocked User:Peroxisome, not for any clear violation of Wikipedia rules, but for the sin of discussing the Steven Milloy article's severe POV bias on the Talk page. They are now trying to do the same thing to me, for the the same sin, and Yilloslime has chimed in supporting them. NCdave 06:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think a block is appropriate for a 3RR violation from a month ago on this article. I appreciate that you are trying to sort this situation out, but
WP:AN3 isn't really an appropriate venue. Thanks for understanding -- Samir
06:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I do think that a warning User:Yilloslime is warranted, and will do so -- Samir 06:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Upon review, it looks like this issue was already dealt with a month ago: [158] -- Samir 02:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

User:84.100.98.191 reported by User:AndyJones (Result: 24 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Rotary International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 84.100.98.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [159]


  • This IP is User:PierreLarcin who has a history of disruptive editing on this page, and is well aware of the 3RR rule. The people he is edit-warring with aren't handling the matter well either, it seems to me (although PierreLarcin can be difficult to deal with rationally). However unless they are sockpuppets of each other they haven't breached 3RR, so far as I can tell. AndyJones 12:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Postscript: since I posted the above, User:Bombastus has done a further revert, and I've put a warning here.AndyJones 16:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Fairly obvious 3RR violation.
        ELIMINATORJR
        22:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Eyrian reported by User:Edokter (Result: retracted)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 17:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


  • Diff of 3RR warning: 19:18

Eyrian keeps removing half the page. On the verge of breaking 3RR myself, I am reporting him here, as he shows no sign of stopping pushing his version. He has less then 50 edits and does not seem to understand the concept of consensus; he just keeps reverting to his preferred version. — Edokter • Talk • 17:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I count two reverts. Edokter is advised to note that I'm an admin with two years of experience and nearly 10,000 edits. --Eyrian 17:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Then Wikipedia defenitely had a glitch showing only one page on your contributions. Never the less, as an admin, you should *defenityely* know you are supposed to discuss and seek consensus first instead of edit-warring. The fact you are an admin with 10,000 edits does not in any way speak in your favor or excuse you of your behaviour. Someone disagrees with your edit? Then you are NOT supposed to keep reverting! — Edokter • Talk • 17:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
But I did discuss. Two days prior. --Eyrian 17:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
And I disagreed. After which point we should both wait for more input and leave the article as it was. Instead, you were pushing your version. In any case, let's move this back to the talk page. — Edokter • Talk • 18:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Deadriene16 reported by User:ArabicX
(Result: 2 24 hours blocks)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 17:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

This user is not responding on the article talkpage at all to discuss the edits or my objections and suggestions. He also deleted my warning on his talkpage.

I've blocked both Deadriene16 and ArabicX for 24 hours. While ArabicX only reverted 3 times, they were all within less than 5 hours. It's still edit warring, even if you stop after 3 reverts. --Tango 20:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Commodore Sloat reported by User:Isarig (Result:No block)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Southern California InFocus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME User has been blocked for 3RR numerous times before.

Clear case of 3RR gaming, 4th revert coming at 24h + less than 1 minute.

I self-reverted for now. Please note that Isarig's fourth revert came in 25 hours on the same page; his reporting me for "gaming" is clearly hypocritical. csloat 20:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
No block due to the self-reverting. I will say, though, that the issue you cite is not for this page. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Italiavivi reported by User:Ferrylodge (Result: no action )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Fred_Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (talk page). Italiavivi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)



  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Italiavivi is not new (he's edited for more than a year and has been blocked twice).

In addition to the above 3RR violation, Italiavivi completely deleted the comments of others today at a talk page here and here and here. Italiavivi has also been uncivil here (“You are a liar") and here (“telling the same lies”) and here (accusing others of “screaming”) and here (more accusations of “screaming” and “goading").Ferrylodge 20:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not a standard 3RR issue, so I've given him a warning on his talk page. I don't think a block is called for unless he does it again. --Tango 20:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
This is decidedly not a 3RR issue. I am entitled to removing uncivil remarks per
WP:TALK, including lies. This report should be completely dismissed. Italiavivi
20:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Lies are not automatically uncivil. Only blatant personal attacks should be removed, and even that is controversial. If you believe that something which has been said is untrue, then just reply to it explaining your view. --Tango 20:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree that reproducing known lies is not inherently uncivil. To repeat false allegations about another editor which one knows to be false is clearly so. Italiavivi 21:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think this is a 3RR issue. Making substantive edits to other people's comments, yes, he's doing that; Making hysterical accusations against others, and being otherwise uncivil, yes, he's doing that too; but those are not matters for this page. I don't think the 3RR rule is intended for situations like these, so I disagree with this report. Zsero 21:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hard to listen to claims of incivility coming from editors who characterize those they're in disputes with as espousing "hysteria," by the way. Italiavivi 21:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, I never said anything about Italiavivi and hysteria.Ferrylodge 21:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Which of the four items that I listed do you think was not a revert?Ferrylodge 21:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It is clear to anyone involved that this was a
WP:3RR matter, your first diff is an original contribution, not a revert (falsely characterizing the new addition of strike tags as a revert?). I have received User:Tango's admonition, and while I strongly disagree with his stance that lies are not inherently uncivil, there is nothing more to be said here. Time for you to let it go. Italiavivi
21:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Please pay attention to the warning you received from Tango.Ferrylodge 21:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Please abide by your own supposed dislike for editing/deleting others' comments. If you are unwilling to allow the entirely of our dialogue on your User_talk page, please remove all of it instead of cutting it in half and only allowing your "last word." Italiavivi 21:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Policy for user rtalk pages is not the same as policy for other talk pages.Ferrylodge 21:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, seriously, take it to your talk pages or move on. Just stop having the discussion here. Italiavivi already got a warning from Tango so it would appear this 3RR report is closed. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

User:82.33.32.141 reported by User:Rmhermen (Result: Page Semi-protected )

    • Three-revert rule
      violation on

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 82.33.32.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Rmhermen
17:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC) He is doing whole batches of small edits all to the same final result.

  • No actual 3RR here, but page semi-protected: should sort it out.
    ELIMINATORJR
     22:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

User:`Abd al-Ghafur reported by User:Nadav1 (Result: 24 hour block )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Omar Bakri Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). `Abd al-Ghafur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The user refuses to explain his many reverts, which is very frustrating. I hope a short block would make him learn to communicate. nadav (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Someguy0830 reported by User:Slakr
(Result:96H block )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 03:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Lester2 reported by User:Prester John (Result: No action )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 04:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

All reverts are the same;

special purpose account with the only purpose of edit warring on the John Howard article. This user has made less than 250 edits and has been blocked 3 times for edit warring on this article, seemingly the only one he edits. While this report exceeds the 24 hour time frame, you can see with the last two edits he is violation of the spirit of 3RR and seems determined to "game" this system and these procedures. His last two 3RR blocks for edit warring on this article attracted only 48 hour penalties. I advocate to the ruling admin that the usual policy of increasing time penalties be enforced, (especially given his block history with this article) to at least try and teach a lesson. Nothing seems to be working at the moment. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand
) 04:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I see edit warring but not a 3RR vio. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I haven't checked the content of the four edits that
WP:SPA allegation seems a bit unnecessary to be in this report, but as it's in public view, I wish to say that have spent many of the past 24 hours creating new content for Wikipedia, the latest being the a totally new article on Lyall Howard, a few minutes ago. I'm sorry to find User: Prester John has already left an uncivil remark on Talk:Lyall_Howard. Lester2
06:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I won't be reverting anything for the time being, as I want to avoid 3RR. Though I just wanted to point out that the first of those edits cited above was new content being added, and not reverted. The existing information about a 'petrol station' was not deleted, but is below the new info. Anyway, I won't change that info over the next 24 hours just to be sure. Thanks, Lester2 09:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think this really needs to be dealt with elsewhere with evidence of edit warring, disruption and gaming 3RR resented over a longer period. ?AN/I would be a better place. Lester2, your voluntary withdrawal from editing for a day is commendable. To avoid allegations of gaming 3RR you could try sticking to one revert a day (1RR) and then seeking consensus on the talk page if your edit is reverted by another user. Not pursuing edits that have been failed to obtain consensus on the talk page would reduce the load on the article no end.
    Spartaz Humbug!
    10:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Sasanoha reported by User:Endroit (Result: 24 hour block )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Tokyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sasanoha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

User:Beh-nam reported by User:DWC LR (Result: 72 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 21:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

User objects to listing

Ahmad Shah Khan, Crown Prince of Afghanistan on a disambiguation page for people named Ahmad Shah. - dwc lr
21:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Moulton reported by User:ConfuciusOrnis (Result:)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Rosalind Picard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Moulton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

There are technically more than four, but the piecemeal way he makes the reverts makes it hard to count, also edit-warring over the same issue at

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. ornis (t
) 22:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that there is an exception to 3RR in the case of
WP:BLP when there is content that is false, defamatory, and harmful to living persons. Another editor has similarly intervened and secured a lock on the biography pending resolution of multiple disputes. Moulton
03:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Addhoc
(Result: )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

South Tibet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ksyrie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


Request from Ksyrie

User:Addhoc are always blanking the page of South Tibet and redirect it to a non-identical geographic name.South Tibet is much larger than the Arunachal Pradesh.No matter how many times I put links or refs,he insisted on vandal the article.My revert is seen as Antivandal.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 23:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I have just asked for Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 23:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I have reviewed and removed the request at
WP:AIV. This is a content dispute and making 3RR violations under the guise of "antivandal" activity is both disingenuous and counterproductive to the resolution of the dispute. Trusilver
23:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
Addhoc
23:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Noroton reported by User:Cyde (Result: blocked for 24 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 00:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


Noroton only stopped revert warring once the page was protected. He was citing an interesting interpretation of the external links policy, an interpretation that many people disagree about, and he is not "entitled" to ignore 3RR.

The site that he was removing a link from has a particularly nasty attack on a Wikipedian, which was even nastier at the time of some of the reverts. This has nothing to do with trying to push his own POV or getting his own preferred version of an article. Besides, the article is protected now, so a block would be purely punitive. ElinorD (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
No, you're wrong. There was significant disagreement on both sides on whether there was an attack of any substance. The whole point about 3RR is that it cannot be violated; people edit warring always think they are immune from it and will always make up excuses, whether it's "Oh, the other guy is vandalizing" (when it's really a content dispute) or "Oh, the other guy is wrong". 3RR exists to prevent this mindless edit warring. --Cyde Weys 00:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The page is protected. What would the block prevent? Tom Harrison Talk 00:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Him edit warring again as soon as the page is unprotected and he inevitably continues removing the link? --Cyde Weys 00:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Weren't we speaking the other day[161] about blocking both parties to an edit war? Tom Harrison Talk 00:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Yup, sounds about right. --Cyde Weys 00:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I think instead of blocking everyone who removed or restored the link, the lighter weight solution would be to leave the page protected while a consensus forms. Tom Harrison Talk 00:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Everyone else who removed/restored the link aren't in violation - only one defiant user, reported here. smb 00:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
And Noroton is still at it, even now, removing the same link from a seperate page. smb 00:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to report this too. I ask for a block of at least 72 hours. This issue was decided by consensus, and Noroton is making POINT and DISRUPT violations. I also ask that Tom Harrison withdraw from this issue. No offense but his RW stances are very well known and usually affect his POV, many people feel. Look how he was one of the first administrators to come to this issue here. Some might say to protect his RW friends.

Δbutler• —The preceding signed but undated
comment was added at 00:41, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

I have blocked Noroton for 24 hours (standard given that this is his first 3RR violation). It's true that

mpe
t 00:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

      • Putting the real name and photo of an editor, along with his Wikipedia identity, on the main page of a website, is extremely inappropriate, consensus or no consensus. It's actually far worse than the invitation to edit his user page. And it's most unusual to block after a page has been protected, even in a standard, POV-driven edit war, which is always based on the offending editor trying to enforce his version of a page. This was an entirely different case. ElinorD (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
        • No, let's be honest: Until about two weeks ago THF's user name was his real name, then he changed it to his real initials. He introduced himself on his page, and named his employer. He efforted to have inserted into 25 articles work he authored under his name attacking Michael Moore. He is writing a WSJ article, which he mentions now on his User page, and tells other editor he'll let them know when it is up. In fact, his employer, AEI, knows all about the Michael Moore situation now. The cat's not out of the bag, the cat was never in the bag. This is a made up "attack" that people who dislike Moore have jumped on to foam at the mouth. The block not only was justified, a lesson and a definition of "attack site" should come out of all of this that doesn't make us look ridiculous. --David
          Shankbone
           03:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I would not have blocked had he only revert warred on the now-protected
          mpe
          t 02:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to attack site seems pretty clear that Noroton was acting properly and should be unblocked. It also might suggest that those reverting him are vulnerable to a block. And anticipating the argument that "ARBCOM does not make policy", I would direct readers to another ruling: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams 2#Arbitration rulings. - Crockspot 03:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't select arbitrary proposed principles and place them out of context, Crockspot. Would the finding of fact, "Encyclopedia Dramatica as an outing and attack site", be legitimate if one replaced "Encyclopaedia Dramatica" with "MM.com"? --Iamunknown 03:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
MM.com does not habitually "engage in the practice" of publishing private information about editors, as far as I know (though I had never seen it before). Nevertheless, at the time that Noroton was removing the links to the main page, the main page was harassing THF (and possibly still is). ElinorD (talk) 03:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Whether MM.com engaged in harassment previously is a matter of debate, but I am of the opinion that it is not now. Check for yourself: Click the first result for this Google search. They don't link to THF's user page, they aren't maintaining the "edit" links, but they instead display publicly-known information and link to the history of an article THF has edited, as if to point out a conflict of interest (I have not investigated whether or not this concern is legitimate, and so have no comment).
We have a serious question on our hands: How far are we willing to go to remove links to "attack sites", apparently to be broadly construed, at every instance a web site is hosting revealing information? Wikipedia is extremely wide known, and has a broad spectrum of discontented critics. Revealing posts, usually feeding off of familiar sites like WR or ED, are posted to more mainstream sites more often: Slashdot, now MM.com; what next, the NYTimes Wikipedia blog? Are we going to remove all of those links too?
It grieves me to see editors' right to privacy stolen from them, but this massive drama simply cannot continue every instance of an alleged "attack site". It is untenable. The proper response is not to freak out about it; create drama across several noticeboards and talk pages; remove links to the alleged "attack site", which by the defintion of ArbCom is not an attack site; delete offending posts; and revert and block bewildered newbies; the proper response to lock down a user's user and user talk page, post something to abate the curiosity of others, and simply revert, block, and ignore the vandals and trolls.
Note that my post is not addressed to you alone, Elinor. This whole MM.com incident has raised quite a few tempers and its fair share of drama; I guess that my post is part of the proceedings. --Iamunknown 04:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks#External links at that time said clearly that links to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations should be removed, and that removal was not subject to 3rr. User:Noroton was doing that in good faith, thought he was following policy, and got blocked for it, even though the page was then protected. Tom Harrison Talk 03:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not a convenient location for this discussion to continue. Please do so, if desired, to ANI, the user's talkpage, or another appropriate page. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 04:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Edwardosaido reported by User:Italiavivi (Result: 24 hours )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

2006 Lebanon War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Edwardosaido (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [162]


  • Blocked for 24 hours. --Haemo 03:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Zsero reported by User:Italiavivi (Result: No action )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Fred Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zsero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [163]

Removal of age difference between Fred Thompson and Jeri Kehn Thompson.

Editor is not a new user, but was warned regardless 14:43, 22 August 2007. Italiavivi 02:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, FTR I should point out that the warning came 7 hours after the last of these reverts, and I did not revert it again until 43 hours later, allowing time for further discussion. During those two days, Italiavivi received at least three separate warnings for his conduct (here and here). Now he makes this report, two days after the supposed infraction and after all that has passed between us during that time. I think it's fair to call that gaming the system.
If anyone's interested in the underlying dispute, see User talk:Zsero/Fred Thompson. Zsero 03:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
At this point, any block would be punitive, and not preventative since Zsero was warned after the violation, and has decided to stop. --Haemo 01:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
He did not decide to stop. He made the exact same revert the following day. Why is a user being allowed to violate
WP:3RR? Italiavivi
01:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I think he's well aware at this point that any more edit warring will get him blocked. I'm not into punishing users for things like that when they've told me here that they're going to stop edit warring. --Haemo 01:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Irpen reported by User:Alex Kov (Result: )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Kievan Rus' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: --Alex Kov 09:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [164]

All these edits were aimed to remove the template from the article. Such reverts were also noticed in the past ([170], [171]) without discussing points he dislikes at the talk page. Some other Russian-related users are also removing the template consistenly, making personal attcks in the way Warning: please don't add idiotic infoboxes: they will be deleted. ([172]) --Alex Kov 09:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Response: this is not 5 but merely 1 revert but made in several steps. Here is an url[173] that clearly shows that those were five edits in series as I initially struggled to keep some of the stuff Alex revert-wars to insert until after I realized that after the removal of the junk there is nothing left to keep.

As I realized the need of removal only gradually though removing of nonsense piece by piece from the nationalist infobox pushed by a lone user against the consensus at talk:Kievan Rus'. Once I removed several misleading items in a series of separate edits one after another, I realized that the rest of the box is out of place. See article's talk for more. --Irpen 10:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

  • It is clearly only three reverts of an original research insertion of the infobox (Pushed only by a single user Alex Kov). Irpen is my friend, so I would not act here, but the report is clearly made in error Alex Bakharev 10:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • BTW Alex Kov has four reverts on the same article Alex Bakharev 10:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • BTW Alex Bakharev is lyeing. I did only 3 edits today. --Alex Kov 10:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, Russian commrads and "friends' friends" have appeared. Accusionnts in OR sounded for severel weeks and you neither talk nor give arguments to the point of template. Only one Ghrila made spme comments today. Any way, the breaking of 3RRV is proved by diffs. --Alex Kov 10:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC).
  • (6th) evert by Irpen [174]. Its nature is the same - to delete template, that doesnt sattisfy pro-Russian editors.--Alex Kov 11:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, then, lets get the facts straight. First, I am neither "Russian" nor "comrade" but this is besides the point. Let's check the diffs. I indeed removed an infobox two times within the last 24 hours. But note that the "diffs" presented in the original complaint are of little use here. Instead of reverting I struggled to "keep" his stuff at least some of it until realizing again that this is all junk. Alex Kov so eager to achieve the block of his opponent, that he did not even bother to take time compile a report properly. Doing so would have shown that there is no 3RR at all.

  • This is my first removal stamped 19:12 (GMT), August 23, 2007 immediately followed by adding refs to the article.
  • Alex Kov reinserts the box at 9:21
  • Initially I do not remove his box. To the contrary, I try to keep whatever is possible by only removing junk from it [175], [176], [177], [178]. Only at this point I realized that there is nothing left and removed the rest at 9:30 GMT.
  • Alex Kov reverts me again in a single step 9:31 GMT
  • I then try some alternative, not just remove the box but replace it with the image I uploaded.

So, if you count this as the latter as a "revert" as well there would be three. If you say that three reverts is also too many, I would agree to that in general too. One may remain under 4RR may and still be "revert warring". The user's junk was removed during the week by at least five editors. Discussions went on at three talk pages. The user persists with nationalist POV-pushing against consensus sometimes deliberately using different IP accounts to avoid being caught.

This time, however, he clearly violated 3RR with four infobox insertions at

Also note that he reinserted the box at least a dozen times during the last seven days (even more if you look into two weeks) sometimes logged in, sometimes through 133... and 202... IP's to avoid detection. At least five different editors had to clean up the article from these intrusion.

So, there clearly was not a 3RR violation on my part. Whether I "warred" even is questionable. I could have easily waited for another user to revert as there is a clear consensus about the box' lunacy. At the same time, I am not asking to block Alex Kov either despite he is in clear violation of the spirit and the letter of 3RR. He obviously won't revert immediately and the revert war seems like not raging anymore. I don't care which version is "frozen" for the next hours as the talk page consensus clearly indicates that in the end of the day the box will not be there, at least in the current form. Hopefully, someone will spend time investigating this. As far as Alex Kov's block is concerned (he clearly violated 3RR) it is not really needed either. And please no "warning" templates too. I know that revert-warring is bad. 3 reverts may or may not be revert warring. We may disagree on these particular 3 reverts. A dozen reverts during a week especially with alterating 2 IP accounts and user's login clearly is. Anyway, I said what I had to say here and I am off now. --Irpen 11:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing the fraudulent infobox two times a day is not revert warring. This is a trivial content dispute in which Irpen fends off nationalist fringecruft pushed into namespace by a guy who has put himself on the brink of being banned by the community. I request uninvolved folks to look after
Kievan Rus for further antics on his part. --Ghirla-трёп-
11:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Ghirla, blaming all other users in nationalism because they dont share your views on history is absurd, that shadows your own vies as nationalistic. Watch tour tongue and clam down. The best thing you can do is participation in the disscusion at talk page, but you avoided this method.--Alex Kov 12:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, Wikipedia doesnt prohibit editing. It prohibits 3RR. All my edits were 3 times per day and not more. But you and your commrades made by dozens. Tell the fables I struggled to "keep" his stuff to smbody else. Everybody can see the talk page and history of

Kievan Rus article to realize that four Russian-related users were bloking all atempts to edit the article, doing edit war ingoring wihout any disscusion at the talk page. And today your 3RR violation is obvious as well as a pushing of OR-ish image (using yours and your freinds terminology) that is pasted at the begining of the article, instead of the template. --Alex Kov
12:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, your view of 3RR is even technically incorrect. It counts reverts per 24 hour-windows not the abstract "day". Now 6 different users reverted your insertion. I said all there is to it already and even more at the article's talk. I stopped editing it for now anyway. Since your violation of 3RR is clear please desist from the article and don't encourage the newly established single-purpose sock
WP:ANI shortly. --Irpen
20:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I have nothing in common with user:Zgoden. You've attacked and blocked a new-commer. Is this is a style of doing things here? I ask admins to stop this groundless attacks and calm down Irpen and his warring "friends".--Alex Kov 13:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Alex Kov reported by Alex Bakharev (Result: )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Kievan Rus' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Alex Kov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [179]


Alex Kov is obviously aware of the 3RR rule as he filled his own report just above

I want also note that Alex was reverted during last week by at least five different established editors Alex Bakharev 10:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

In one day I make only 3 edits. Thats not a vioalotion of the 3RRV. 3 edits per 1 day are available. Arent you an admin? Dont you know the rules? Or you just want to block me by habds of others to prove your false statement? It looks like that you want to revenge me for Irpen "your friend" as you described him in above, who realy broke 3RRV...--Alex Kov 11:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Alex Kov, calm down. One, you clearly reinserted the box four times withing 24 hours. That's crystal clear. Two, I am not asking to get you blocked as I explained above. You should cool off a little and stop pushing the box against consensus of as shown by the fact that at least five editors reverted you within the last week. Some of those who reverted you did not even know that those 133 and 202 IP's as well as you are one and the same person. --Irpen 11:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is achieved by discussion, but those five editors were engaged in edit warring, not dissucsion. So, you arguments are weak. Those guys, including you, tried to prevent other users from additing colectivly.--Alex Kov 12:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This report is an outrageous example of forum shopping and an attempt to twist the rules to get rid of the opponent in a context dispute. This is not a new trick for
WP:OWN, when any attempt to challenge their reign over East European topics is challenged. These attempt to turn WP into ethnic vendetta ground should not be tolerated. --Hillock65
17:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, most of this rant does not warrant any response. I hope though, that some will click at the original report, the AN discussion that ensued and a feedback left by a processing admin at my talk page. --Irpen 20:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

User:M12390 reported by User:Nate1481 (Result: Page protected )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

University of Bradford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). M12390 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


Not a new user but warned anyway, later realise an earlier warning was already present.

  • I'm just protecting the page; both users seem intent on edit warring, along with a variety of other people as well. --Haemo 01:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

User:JeffCooke4764 reported by User:Sasha Callahan (Result: no action )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Quincy, Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JeffCooke4764 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


* the intermediate edit was by JeffCooke too

Warning was given here right before fourth revert, but it was for vandalism.

JeffCooke4764 stopped editing right after the 4th revert, so no block is necessary right now. If he resumes, please let us know. - KrakatoaKatie 17:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Ssolbergj
(Result: Page protected )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

European Space Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Necessary Evil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


  • Diff of 3RR warning: 14:25
I should probably block both you for the edit war on this page, but I'll protect it instead and request you seek some dialogue on the talk page. --Haemo 04:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Syed Atif Nazir reported by User:Arrow740 (Result: Page protected and warning)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Criticism of Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Syed Atif Nazir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Diff of 3RR warning: On his talk page from a while back here.
    • article has since been fully-protected.[181]
      ITAQALLAH
      01:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Editor has been warned that 3RR was breached and page protected. No block this time because it looks like there was some talk page discussion ongoing, and I'd like to see that continue. — TKD::Talk 02:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

User:59.176.106.168 reported by User:Muchness (Result: 24 hours )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 59.176.106.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 00:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Some reverts are not straightforward; explanations provided below. This editor has been revert warring to include an unsourced section on "Team Gizka", a fan mod whose article has been listed at AFD twice (result: delete not merge) and salted. Content being added: [183]

  • Blocked for 24 hours. --Haemo 01:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Eyrian reported by User:ElminsterAumar (Result: no action)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 05:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a violation of 3RR — in addition, removing tags without due discussion or claiming that guidelines are "idiotic" is ridiculous. --Haemo 06:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
This looks to me like clear gaming by a
single purpose account. --Haemo
06:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
This is the only account I have. And
WP:WAF is an idiotic guideline that was only approved by a few people.--ElminsterAumar
06:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Also this:

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 07:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


    • Declined on both. In the second article, there were exactly three reverts. The first edit was not a revert. --B 07:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


User:MoritzB reported by User:Taharqa (Result: Page protected, warned)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Afrocentrism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MoritzB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported:15:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

They are all the same and the user is relentless in trying to push some racist POV entries into the article that no one agrees with. Yet, the user is being extremely disruptive and has clearly violated 3rr.Taharqa 15:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Due to sterile edit warring on the part of both sides, and the fact that discussion is continuing on the talk page, the best option seemed to be to protect the page while the dispute is resolved. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Bharatveer reported by User:Akhilleus (Result: 1 week )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Romila Thapar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


  • User has been blocked for 3RR before. These edits are on a BLP, and the attempt to characterize the subject as a "Marxist" when she doesn't claim to be one is arguably a BLP violation. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Blocked. Moreschi Talk 16:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Hakozen reported by Marshal Bagramyan (Result: 24 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Erzurum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hakozen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [184]


  • 1st revert: [185]
  • 2nd revert: [186]
  • 3rd revert: [187]
  • 4th revert: [188]
  • This user has been going around virtually every Armenian-related article and removing any and all references to the
    Armenian Genocide. This is one of the articles where he has violated the 3RR rule, which he is already well informed of: [189].--Marshal Bagramyan
    18:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hakozen doesn't appear to have made more than three reverts, but he's clearly edit-warring on multiple articles, which is what the rule is designed to prevent. I blocked Hakozen for 24 hours. I've also blocked User:The Myotis for 24 for the same reason.--Chaser - T 20:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Zsero reported by User:Ghostexorcist (Result: No 3RR violation)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Kaifeng Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zsero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [190]
  • 1st revert: [191] 23-Aug 19:46 UTC
  • 2nd revert: [192] 24-Aug 17:46 UTC
  • 3rd revert: [193] 24-Aug 18:06 UTC
  • 4th revert: [194] 26-Aug 01:45 UTC
  • 5th revert: [195] 26-Aug 13:30 UTC
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [196] 26-Aug 18:02 UTC

This user is currently being charged with another violation on another article.

--Ghostexorcist 18:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of editing this report to give the correct links the 2nd revert and the so-called "warning", to add the reporter's signature, and to give the dates and times of all the above. I think that makes it clear that there's not even close to a violation.
I'll also point out that the claim that I am "currently being charged with another violation" wasn't true even at the time this report was made - that complaint had been resolved nearly a full day earlier. (In that case I had in fact inadvertently broken 3RR, but the report was filed two days after this violation, by an editor who has given me ample evidence that he was acting in bad faith.)
Zsero 18:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem here is that Zsero acts like he owns the article. He continually removes content that he doesn't think should be on the page. The disputed is about whether "
links related to the subject: 1) They are all Jewish, 2) Hata clan are Japanese Jews (Asian Jews like that of Kaifeng). Even if the temporary block is not applied, I hope this has shown Zsero that he needs to cut back on the coveting of pages. --Ghostexorcist
21:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see 4 reverts in 24 hours in the diffs provided. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to argue a content dispute. Has this editor broken the 3RR? No. Then the argument or problem needs to be raised elsewhere. Try an article RFC or
Spartaz Humbug!
21:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Cmmmm reported by User:Dev920 (Result: 24 hours / unblocked )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Pope Benedict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cmmmm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)



Just did a fifth after a different user reverted, and asked him to discuss on talkpage: 22:11, August 26, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dev920 (talk • contribs) 22:21, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours to end edit war. --Haemo 03:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Erm, I neglected to notice he hadn't been warned, so I'm unblocking him. If he keeps up the edit war, then I'll block. --Haemo 03:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
He was warned in several edit summaries, as far as I know. But hey, he's stopped, so a block evidently isn't needed anymore. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Ramdrake reported by User:MoritzB (Result:Article protected)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ramdrake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake has performed these six reverts either restoring deleted material or deleting added material. In his sixth edit he used a sockpuppet.

For confirmation of sockpuppetry used to circumvent

WP:3RR see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ramdrake

Ramdrake is an experienced user familiar with

WP:3RR
but here is the warning:

  • I could launch into a similar counter-suit against user MoritzB, but I won't. What he did was obviously gaming the system in regards to
    WP:3RR violation. In any case, the article is already fully protected for a month, so further disruption is already prevented as it is. I believe I've learned my lesson.--Ramdrake
    03:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Did you also learn your lesson about not using sockpuppets to edit war and then denying using them? [197] KarenAER 03:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
KarenAER, stop this nonsense. This is disruptive to Wikipedia. There is no sockpuppet. You are instigating and canvassing others to report other users who disagree with you and others with your agenda. Like I advised you, spend time reading books, and bettering Wikipedia by adding information backed by reliable sourses, not opinion. And wasting time with this reporting, it's like running to the principal's office like we are in junior high school, with the bully accusing the bullied. - Jeeny Talk 03:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

My problem is Ramdrake's dishonesty. The IP sockpuppet was obviously him. Like User:Deskana responded to the check user request it's obvious that the IP is him, anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ramdrake

After I requested Ramdrake to undo his edit which broke

WP:3RR he did so. Then he immediately logged out and reverted the article again to the version he wanted using the IP address sockpuppet. However, when I asked Ramdrake whether the IP address belonged to him he denied that. [[198]
Apparently he still denies that he used a sockpuppet. He broke
WP:3RR
awfully with six different edits and must face sanctions for this violation and sock puppetry. MoritzB 03:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

User:SquidSwim reported by Astruc (Result: Warned)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

{{Ralph Nader}}. SquidSwim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  • 1st revert: Aug 27, 2:59 [199]
  • 2nd revert: Aug 27, 3:23 [200]
  • 3rd revert: August 27, 3:41 [201]
  • 4th revert: August 27, 3:42 [202]
  • 5th revert: August 27, 3:58 [203]

I have tried to reason with this person by communicating on her/his Talk page. This person has only edited at this one article, the Ralph Nader article. Astruc 04:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The user has not been warned so no action has been taken. You should note that you are just as guilty of edit warring as User:SquidSwim - I have warned both of you. ugen64 04:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

User:VitasV reported by User:Digby Tantrum (Result: )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Doctor Who story chronology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). VitasV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


User:Laertes d reported by User:Vonones (Result: 1 month/24h)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Laertes d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 09:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  • A ridiculous drawn-out edit war, and I suspect (WP:DUCK) the nominator violated 3RR as will by switching to IP editing. Even if he didn't, there is enough in this history for an edit-warring block. 24h block for the nominator, and 1 month for Laertes d, who has an escalating block log for exactly this reason.
    ELIMINATORJR
     15:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

User:83.115.152.229 reported by User:Pieter Kuiper (Result: 24 hour block)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Rydberg formula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 83.115.152.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [215]

The user 83.115.152.229 seems to introduce the same "Note" with theories <quote>not admitted by current physicists</quote> on a daily basis. /Pieter Kuiper 10:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Deus Ex reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result: 24 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Nicholas Knatchbull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Deus Ex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 17:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

User:Lwachowski reported by User:IPSOS (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lwachowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 18:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    • User has been blocked for 24 hours. ugen64 18:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

User:75.183.186.223 reported by User:Chrishomingtang (Result:moot)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 75.183.186.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • There needs to be a version reverted to, or else the first edit is not a revert. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I think this version is the one.
my talk
22:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Report is now moot because the IP has been blocked due to another report below. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Barneca
(Result:24 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Blaqk Audio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 87.122.22.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [216]


  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [225]

Additional note: Obviously same user as

barneca (talk
) 22:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Barneca
(Result:24h)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Blaqk Audio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Xr 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [226]


  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [236]

User:TharkunColl reported by User:G2bambino (Result: 72 hours )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TharkunColl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 23:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


This user is well aware of 3RR rules, and indeed seemed to prompt me to report him based on his statement with his final revert: "Rv. Go for it, Bambi." --G2bambino 23:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

And so is User:G2bambino fully aware of them, and broke them himself by exactly the same amount. Worse, he made a massive revision to the article without discussing it first on the talk page, which is why I reverted. This user has been pushing a nationalist agenda for at least 18 months now, and has vandalised many, many articles. He has also, incidentally, used the IRA anti-British ethnic slur "brutish" to refer to myself on a number of occasions. This sort of pro-terrorist racism should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. TharkunColl 23:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow. I wasn't going to bother with the above comment initially, but the latter addition requires something be said.
  1. I'm sure the reviewing admin can count.
  2. I'm sure the reviewing admin can see the difference between a revert and and edit.
  3. I used "brutish" as an adjective to describe your reverts - i.e. lacking in tact and rational explanation - not towards you personally. I suppose I should take offence to the inference that I'm pro-terrorist and racist, but I'll let it slide, for now. --G2bambino 23:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Look up "brutish", I think you'll find it means something rather different to what you claim to think it does. The real brutes are the IRA murderers and their supporters. Please stop spewing your POV through all these articles. TharkunColl 00:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

78.86.0.134 reported by Adrian M. H. (Result: 31 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Docklands Light Railway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 78.86.0.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added links for some recent reverts... five in 15 minutes. He might even be correct but has managed to annoy many other editors. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
It is up to approximately 14 now. Various editors have reverted his reversions. His last edit (at the time of writing this) was the addition of a vandalistic comment. Adrian M. H. 01:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Blocked 31 hours by Academic Challenger (talk · contribs). - auburnpilot talk 02:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Lukeeli reported by User:OverlordQ (Result:article deleted)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Battlefield Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lukeeli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • As the article has been deleted, there's no more need for action.

User:Mr. Neutron
(Result: )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Capricornis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 03:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The user has been pushing a POV version of the article, completely replacing the existing text with blatant copyvios from various sites, mixed with original research in essay style. Was warned multiple times on his talk page and the article talk.

Mr. Neutron
03:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not seeing how the second edit is a revert; please explain. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Second edit (05:46) is revert to the previous version.
Mr. Neutron
. At the very least, the phrase "The Bulgarian flag and the name Makedonia is shown." is removed in all instances. 16:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


-- response by capricornis -- I might be new to wikipedia, and have not engaged in as many wars as Mr. Neutron, so I don't know how to abuse the system as well as he does, but I can read the rules well, and I have not broken any of them. I changed a blurb, not an article,

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
), which originally contained very little information about the actual event into a well-written, relevant piece of information, which takes no sides, while the original Mr. Neutron's article seems to have been more concerned about proving 'Bulgarianism' than talking about the event itself. The note on the flag and the flag itself I removed because nowhere it is shown how that image relates to the event, except in the caption, which could have been anything.

I have repeateadly tried to talk sense with Mr.Neutron, but he has refused any communication, to the extent that he immediatelly undoes any talks I leave on his personal talk page (check his history)

I am open to constructive discussion and consensus.

thank you

Capricornis 17:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

On multiple instances I explained the importance of the following, which were broken in various degrees:
Mr. Neutron
17:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

--- capricornis ---

No you did not explain anything. You immediately reverted all changes. Look up the wikipedia definition of BLURB. The previous article was absolutely inadequate, and told next to nothing about the actual event. "Dozens of editors" comes down to mostly you, anyone can check the history of the article.

The text is much better sources than the previous blurb, which had only a bunch of mostly irrelevant sources quoted at the end. Most of those sources were about the alleged bulgarian identity of the inhabitants, and had next to nothing about the actual event - the uprising. The current text is absolutely sources from web sites and books, and the sources are quoted next to each section, so anyone can check the validity of the information. I will add more sources as I have time, since I have a real job and life to attend to. I started adding internal links, but after a day of research, I was too tired to finish it. Instead of deleting the complete article, you could have helped me by adding internal links yourself.

The judgement about the article being in an essay form, I will leave to someone else, as you are definitely not qualified to make it. It is much more objective and neutral than the previous one, which seemed only gear on proving 'Bulgarianism'. The picture with the flag was not properly sourced, for all anyone knows, it could be your own drawing.

There was next to no existing information in the previous article. I replaced it with a much better starting point. I already wrote to you that you are welcome to add to the new version, which again, is way better starting point than the previous one.

You seem to have taken this very personally, as "my" article against "your" article, and seem to forget that the point of wikipedia is not self-glorification, but making the best possible, objective, neutral information available to the greatest number of people.

And please do not undo my comments on you talk page, they are no trolling or offensive, but polite and sensible conversation, which should be there for the admins on this site to see (I did not, and have no intention of, undoing your comments on my talk page).

thank you, Capricornis 18:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This place is not for content discussions. It is a fact you broke the 3RR rule, for which you were reported.
Mr. Neutron
18:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


No sir, you are wrong yet again. YOU are the one who broke the 3RR rule FIRST on this article. Get it? I wrote the article, you reverted, then I reverted, you, I, you, I. Do the math, you have done the 3 reverts before me, and have even saved me the trouble of reporting you, since you have done it yourself.

btw, you started all the content discussion above, I just replied to your allegations. If this is not a place for content discussions, then don't start one.

cheers, Capricornis 18:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I see Mr. Neutron has started yet another edit war on the Yane Sandanski article. Edit warring seems to be his favorite passtime. Isn't there a mechanism to protect wikipedia against users like this? If someone has lots of spare time that doesn't mean that they should be right, only by the virtue of adding more volume into the discussion? -cheers Capricornis 19:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Crossmr reported by User:Njyoder
(Result:no action)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Crossmr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 04:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


The user is aware of 3RR rules and despite this decided to continually revert to push a POV. They were attempting to keep the entire criticism section of the article one vague sentence and stated that even that was generous. -Nathan J. Yoder 04:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not willing to block mainly because the reporter is also edit warring, even if not technically breaking 3RR. Crossmr's most recent edit seems to be an effort at compromise; let's hope more discussion can help fix this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • [Edited to add this since you made it about content: the user crossmr is reverting any content anyone adds to the criticism section. I had to revert once to back up another editor just to get a _tag_ to stick. crossmr has made no attempt at compromise and even when I attempted to rephrase the section to his liking he deleted all of the addition instead of modifying it. He literally has said that there should be no criticism section at all and that a single vague sentence is his 'compromise.' ]
What difference does it make if I'm "edit warring"? I didn't know people were allowed to get away with a clear 3RR violation if the reporter is in a content dispute. You're essentially giving crosssmr a free ticket to violate 3RR (to "win" as it were) to counter the views of multiple others disagree with crossmr's (one person's) view. [Edit the second: I see the one edit you're referring to. That's hardly much of a compromise. Basically, he changed the one vague sentence to become a more specific sentence. This was after him repeatedly deleting it for the vague version. Do we need to wait for a second incident after I try to add a second sentence?] crossmr keeps trying to revert the 'Criticism' section to be exactly one sentence regardless of what others have tried to add (not just myself and even I was just trying to revert to a slightly modified form of a version someone else added). They are working against consensus and not really acting in good faith. Please don't mark this no action before discussing this with me. -Nathan J. Yoder 04:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Zephyr99 reported by User:Check-Six (Result:12h for both)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

D. B. Cooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zephyr99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Please provide diffs rather than oldids. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Done - please consider post-haste Check-Six 05:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Both reporter and reported are guilty of violating 3RR. Do you want me to block you both or block neither of you? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:14, 29 August 2007
  • I counter that my revertions were manual, requesting soucres, and of a NPOV nature, unlike the accused, who has instituted an "auto post" to prevent any edits or revertions to the section, are unsourced or cited, and is pushing a POV. All I ask is an admin warning for the accused. Check-Six 15:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, seeing that you have just continued the edit war, I think the only solution is to block both. See you in 12 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:ILike2BeAnonymous reported by User:Heqwm

At the Bowling for Columbine arrticle, ILike2BeAnonymous made reverts at the following times: 23:54, 26 August 2007 01:53, 27 August 2007 02:00, 27 August 2007 03:48, 27 August 2007. Heqwm 06:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
  • Diff of 3RR warning: 20:37, 27 August 2007
    • The 4th edit you mentioned was not a revert. Therefore the user did not violate the 3 revert rule. ugen64 06:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

How in the world is the last edit not a revert? The second paragraph in the WAWW criticism section after the edit-that-is-somehow-not-a-revert is exactly the same as the second paragraph in the WAWW criticism section after ILike2BeAnonymous's 02:00, 27 August 2007 revert.

23:54 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bowling_for_Columbine&oldid=153840715 1:53 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bowling_for_Columbine&oldid=153859577 2:00 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bowling_for_Columbine&oldid=153860693 3:48 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bowling_for_Columbine&oldid=153879048 Heqwm 17:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  • These are oldids. We're looking for diffs, i.e., links that show the change from one revision to another. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

As the reverts were not always consecutive with the edits that they reverted, I don't see the value of diffs.Heqwm 21:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Rickvaughn reported by User:Darrenhusted (Result:24h)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

The Simpsons Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rickvaughn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User has also tried to delete this report. Darrenhusted 15:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 due to extensive edit warring. Darrenhusted and Gran12 are also warned not to edit war themselves. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Paddy3118 reported by User:205.228.73.12 (Result:warnings)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Duck typing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Paddy3118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • The reporter is just as guilty as the reported user. As the reporter is currently hopping IPs, a block is likely to be ineffective. Reported user has not been warned, so I will do this. I warn the reporter that if he/she continues to hop IPs and edit war, I'll semi-protect the article. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:75.183.186.223 reported by User:Nat (Result:24h)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 75.183.186.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 17:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Oh, huzzah, another Nat! We aren't too common. :-) Anyway, 24 hour block for the IP for edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
haha..well it actually me User:Nat.tang...but I usurpt my current name..:P nattang 18:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:`Abd al-Ghafur reported by User:JediLofty (Result: 72h)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Abu Izzadeen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). `Abd al-Ghafur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This user seems to exist only to revert articles! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 17:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
blocked for 72 hours for repeated edit warring and absolutely no discussion. Sasquatch t|c 20:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Giovanni Giove reported by User:Dr.Gonzo (Result: )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 18:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

I've just reverted the edits of a banned user. The problem has been already reported to the moderator user:Isotope23, see [238]. To delete the edits of a banned user is not a violation of the 3RR. Dr.Gonzo has been properly informed.--Giovanni Giove 18:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Only one of those edits was by a confirmed banned user. Others were not. --Dr.Gonzo 19:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't speak for the first 2 reverts (which it was stated were reverts of
talk · contribs) editing from an IP.--Isotope23 talk
19:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Can we get a confirmation on that? I don't feel comfortable with this especially since Giovanni Giove has a history of disruptive edit warring.. --Dr.Gonzo 19:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
We have already confirmation. And I have no history of destruptive edit warring. I am destruptive only for some of legends that in Croatia as theached as "history". I had 4 blocks. The 1st time I was a new user, the 2nd and 3rd were (recognized) errors of the admins. So I have ONE events, it was my mistake!. All the 4 events were ALWAYS caused by Afrika paprika.Giovanni Giove 21:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to hear that from an admin. --Dr.Gonzo 22:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
All I'll add is that I am sure enough that I rangeblocked the IPs... and I don't rangeblock lightly.--Isotope23 talk 23:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, the IP whois query indicates those IPs are in the T-com Croatia range, by far the largest Internet provider in Croatia, but what worries me is that there are 3 different IP's from that range in less than an hour (see [239], [240] and [241]) which would go against your conclusion, unless you think Afrika paprika disconnected and reconnected after every edit? (even then he may not always receive a different IP address) --Dr.Gonzo 00:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to add it is evident from
DIREKTOR
01:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
His contributions are already under microscope I hope in
Wikipedia: Requests for arbitration - "3.4. Dalmatia" section. His activities at this article are just a small part of his numerous activities of the same kind (vandalism?) everywhere else. In fact he's only edit-warring. See his contributions. Thanks. Zenanarh
17:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:VitasV reported by User:Wryspy (Result: 48 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Doctor Who story chronology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). VitasV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


We have to go into the history of VitasV's talk page because VitasV has blanked the page and removed warnings/block notices even though told not to do that.

I'm usually not one to get upset over a user blanking their talk page; it's usually pretty easy to flip through the history to find the previous warnings. Thanks for the direct links, though. Kuru talk 03:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Sixstring1965 reported by User:Arcayne (Result:no vio)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

John Lennon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User:Sixstring1965 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [243]

The user is an established editor; however, he was warned of their impending 3RR here.

The edits either reinstate large, uncited pasages, removes cn tags without providing citation and reverts corrections to MOS (section titling), essentially being highly disruptive. As well, the user makes personal attacks and accusations. And the same sort of behavior occurs in the May Pang article, where the user is sitting on 3 reverts (actually, it might be more, but I figure the above is apretty clear indicator as to what is going on). All in all, a fairly unleasant individual. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverts 1, 2, 3 and 4 are consecutive edits, as are 6 and 7, so each of these is really only one revert. So we've hit three reverts, not four. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:24.247.215.55 reported by User:JetLover (Result: 24 hour block)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

ARTICLE_NAME (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). NAME_OF_USER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [251]


  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [258]
The IP has been blocked for 24 hours. ugen64 04:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Commator reported by User:Rainwarrior (Result: )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Commator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

(Not sure if user qualifies as "new"; he has been making edits for half a year or so.)

This has been a part of a usually slower back and forth reversion between myself and Commator over an external link to his website. The discussion between the two of us is at Talk:Konstantin Tsiolkovsky#Tributes Section. A ban might send a bit of a message here, but a comment on the talk page from a third person would do a lot more to help this problem. - Rainwarrior 07:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There has been some talk page discussion concerning this. I've added my thoughts, and warned against edit warring. I'm fine with letting things unfold on talk. We should keep an eye on the edit warring though (it continued a little yesterday). -Andrew c [talk] 14:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Biofoundationsoflanguage reported by User:BigDunc (Result: 48 hour block )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 12:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Not new user and is aware of 3RR.BigDunc 12:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to break it and could not self-revert my last edit because that had already been done by BigDunc. The breach was accidental and not malicious. Sorry. Biofoundationsoflanguage 13:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
User(s) blocked. - 48 hour block. This revert-warring has been going on for weeks now and a number of editors have been caught in it - Alison ☺ 15:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Movieguy999 reported by User:EEMeltonIV (Result: 24 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Movieguy999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 14:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This user has not made the fourth revert to be in violation of 3RR's general definition. However, his edit history shows that he consistently reverts several Star Wars movie articles to a version that fits his preference while ignoring consensus reached on these featured articles' talk pages. I've listed one movie here, but he's made similar reverts to

Star Wars III. --EEMeltonIV
14:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Movieguy999 has made three reverts recently on

Star Wars III. He has been a user since mid-August of this year. Greg Jones II
16:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


User(s) blocked. for 24 hours. --Hemlock Martinis 18:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Traditional unionist reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result: 48 hours )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Traditional unionist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 15:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


User(s) blocked. - blocked for 48 hours for blatant 3RR violation. ONiH, you're on your last chance on that one, too - Alison ☺ 15:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Gantuya eng reported by User:HongQiGong (Result: 24 hour block)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gantuya eng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User blocked for 24 hours. ugen64 22:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:SquidSwim reported by User:Astruc (Result: 24 hour block)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

{{Ralph Nader}}. SquidSwim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Time reported: 17:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Note as well that SquidSwim was warned earlier not to revert this page (see here). I ceased doing so. SquidSwim has continued reverting. Please note as well that this editor only edits the Ralph Nader article, which leads me to think he/she isn't truly interested in the Wikipedia project, but it only this topic. Astruc 17:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User blocked for 24 hours. In addition I have protected the page, because there are loads of IPs and other users who have waded into this edit war and there have been very few constructive recent edits not related to this edit war. ugen64 21:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:205.154.39.10 reported by User:Satori Son (Result: No action)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Granada Hills High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 205.154.39.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 20:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)



The IP has made only 3 reverts in 24 hours, and so he has not technically violated the 3 revert rule. However, these edits all seem to be vandalism so I gave him a final warning for that. ugen64 22:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that we should tolerate someone gaming the system with 5 reverts in 24½ hours, but I understand your position. I'll continue to monitor. Thanks, Satori Son 00:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Jacurek reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result:24 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 22:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • Diff of 1st 3RR warning: [269]
  • Diff of 2nd 3RR warning: [270]
  • Diff of 3rd 3RR warning: [271]

User:Jacurek is a new user, and I feel that she/he was given exceptional leeway and more-than-adequate warning — both on her/his User page and in edit summaries — about 3RR. Even after I left a final warning at 21:54 that I would report her/his next reversion unless a reliable source was provided, User:Jacurek made further reversions at 21:59 and 22:01. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

After Jacurek has been given a warning, 154.20.141.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has taken on the task of revert warring (anon now blocked).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Skaraoke reported by User:CJCurrie (Result:warned)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Skaraoke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): 03:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: n/a
  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [277]. His response ([278], [279]) suggests a limited familiarity with the concept of the 3RR. It may also be noteworthy that he threatened me with a 3RR report here, after I reverted his changes twice. (I have not made any other adjustments to this article in the last 24 hours.)

User:Skaraoke appears to be a new user, and I'm not inclined to press for a block under these circumstances. He should, however, be informed that his actions are contrary to policy. CJCurrie 03:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm going ahead and following your suggestion, even though I think a block would be justified here. I've watchlisted the article and will be watching for further reverts. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Nothingagainst reported by User:216.21.150.44 (Result:No action)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

List of doom metal bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nothingagainst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment User seems to have taken

ownership of the article and deletes any new edit back to his own version of the article. 216.21.150.44
10:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You warned the user, then proceeded directly to file the report. However, in the 3 minutes between the warning and this report, the editor did not revert again. Furthermore, the user hasn't reverted since the warning. On top of that, I can sympathize with Nothingagainst . When an anonymous editor removes content and doesn't use the talk page, it can be interpreted as a type of vandalism (which is why we have stuff like {{uw-delete1}}. Also, the anon editors all originate from the same server, and they equally violated 3RR as Nothingagainst. At least Nothingagainst has tried to find sources to support their version (which is funny because none of the bands on the page currently are sourced). If the edit war continues, we may have to protect the page to force the editors to go to talk, but I'm going to take no action for now.-Andrew c [talk] 14:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sceptre reported by Rambutan (Result: page protected)

On User talk:Rambutan/Archive4 - about eight times, just peep at the history. Also see this for the basis of the dispute. Sceptre's and my current talkpages are also interesting reading!--Rambutan (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... read
WP:BAN: "Other users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users. Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for that content by so doing." Will (talk
) 17:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Page protected. Both of you, please act like the seasoned contributors that you are. ~ Riana ⁂ 17:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

User:ILike2BeAnonymous reported by User:Dreamafter (Result: No further revert after warning )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Oakland, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ILike2BeAnonymous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [280]

User:ILike2BeAnonymous has added a few constructive edits after this.


  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [286]
  • Warning appears to be after ther last revert, revert two is clearly dealing with vandalism and this report was submitted 13 hours after the revert war ended. Unacceptable I'm tempted to block the reporter for wasting admin time but I'll settle for asking them not to present such a poorly formed report again.
    Spartaz Humbug!
    20:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Cholga reported by User:Dreamafter (Result: 31 hours )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 17:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

User:ILike2BeAnonymous has added a few constructive edits after this.


  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [295]
    • You warned them 13 hours after their last revert and only moments by making this report. Another pointless report. The only reason I'm blocking the user is because they have come right off a disruption block.
      Spartaz Humbug!
      20:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Mr._Neutron reported by User:MatriX
(Result: Page Protected )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 17:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not a new user and he/she has been blocked 2 times so far (see his block log). He is frequently involved in edit warring in Macedonia related articles (see, for example the following history page: [296]) where he is involved in edit warring with other users, for example: Capricornis:[297], [298],[299] etc MatriX 17:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Note those reverts are dealing with simple vandalism - deletions of categories, deletion of sourced passsages of the article, etc. Not to mention that actual contributions are wrongly given as reverts. Note disruptive edit warring of User:Matrix, who is deleting sourced information, refusing discussion on the talk page etc. The page is currently targeted by a group of users with the goal to push their nationalistic POV, while erasing valid sources. The article has already been offered for protection until proper discussion can be established.
Mr. Neutron
18:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Note that all sourced info on the
WP:RFC on this page: [301] where this user and several others are claimed to have repeatedly destroyed the article replacing it completely with Bulgarian propaganda. MatriX
18:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Ilinden-Preobrazhenie article is irrelevant here. The sources are properly linked and valid. They are not from promacedonia.com.
Mr. Neutron
18:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
My name keeps popping around wikipedia only after a week of involvement, wow! :) Nevertheless, yes Mr. Neutron, the
Ilinden Uprising article is relevant here because it shows a pattern of your disruptive behavior. You quote nationalistic websites, well known Bulgarian propaganda and push irrelevant and biased sources as 'sourced' material. There should be a mechanism in wikipedia dealing with users like you for good, not just 24 hours block. Lets hope the admins here have time to look into your history (including the items on your talk page that YOU undid and archived to hide them), and see the extent of your warring and disruptiveness, and do something about it. - best regards Capricornis
19:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


User:24.13.244.119 reported by User:Ronnotel (Result: 24 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.13.244.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 19:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the procedure when a user returns from a 3RR block only to revert the exact same content, when the topic has already been addressed? That is what has happened in this case. -- Sfmammamia 05:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Brendan.lloyd reported by User:Prester John (Result: Page protected)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

David Hicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Brendan.lloyd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

All reverts are the same

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [302]

Brendan Lloyd breaks 3RR to continually reinsert his POV replacement "lead" in a long established article and doesn't seem to acknowledge arguments on the talk page.

  • I've protected the page. I see only 3 reverts here by User:Brendan.lloyd; interestingly, I see 4 reverts in the past 24 hours by the reporter, User:Prester John. However, rather than blocking either party, I've protected the page to cool off the edit war and encourage discussion. If edit-warring resumes after the protection is lifted, I'd likely have a lower threshold for handing out blocks to all involved parties. MastCell Talk 19:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It should be noted that User:Prester John was recently blocked himself for edit warring on this same article, recently had his block removed and has again been involved in edit warring in this instance.Lester2 04:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR and User:Zenanarh reported by User:Giovanni Giove
(Result: no violation)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

User:DIREKTOR and User:Zenanarh
}}: Time reported: 21:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Insertion by [user:Clap]:[303]

The two users act together in several articles imposing POV with edit wars.--Giovanni Giove 21:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Moderator involved in the problem Isotope23 (he can confirm the accuse, the 2 user play together)--Giovanni Giove 21:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Completely untrue, I edited, not merely reverted. The user
DIREKTOR
21:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

User:75.183.174.149 reported by User:Chrishomingtang (Result: 31 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Chinese Civil War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 75.183.174.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [308]


  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

User:Gantuya eng reported by User:HongQiGong (Result: 48 hrs)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gantuya eng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


  • Editor had previously violated 3RR on the same revert and was blocked for 24 hours on 2007-08-29T22:14:06. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 48 hours as a repeat offender. Crum375 04:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


User:Hungrywolf reported by User:Blackbeard2K7 (Result:no action)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Field Commander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hungrywolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


I dont understand how this user has sweet talked his way out of a perfectly legitimate block.[309] The user clearly violated 3RR and has been causing disruption for weeks. This is not the first time he has done it, and he has also resorted to personal attacks and false accusations all over the place against me, I can't even keep track anymore, reverting my edits on my own talk page with comments like "let everyone see what u are" and "Why are you shy of showing people what a person u r". He has never responded to any of the questions asked of him. All he ever does is cry wolf and repeat his false accusations over and over, in several different pages. He should be reprimanded for his actions since he is a repeat offender. See[310]. Additionally, if you look at Hungrywolf (talk · contribs) his contributions even after the block was lifted, he is now claiming that he has personal information about me that he is willing to offer other users, and is continuing to "admin shop" and make petitions against me.Blackbeard2k7 13:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • As both sides are edit warring, I'm not willing to block only one. As for the personal information: this is a more serious issue, but without some diffs, I can't really verify if this is the case (also more appropriate for
    WP:ANI, anyway). Heimstern Läufer (talk)
    03:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Watchdogb reported by User:Snowolfd4 (Result:article protected)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Watchdogb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • The user repeatedly adds unsourced negative material to the article. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 16:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Some if not all of content in question is common knowledge to anyone from sri lanka and watchdogb upheld these facts. Since this accuser had claimed this stuff is fake, I have added reputable citations dismissing these claims. I don't think anyone can claim the stuff is uncited now. Sinhala freedom 20:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Also the page has been protected. Sinhala freedom 14:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, so no blocks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Dreaded Walrus reported by User:Aladdin Zane (Result: No action)

User [Dreaded_Walrus] violated the 3RR on the [Elvis Presley] page in a period of less than an hour. Over a few different edits i had made.Aladdin Zane 18:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... See my response here. As I said there, I haven't broken 3RR. I don't understand why you decided to bring it here anyway. I assume you read the guidelines on
3RR? --Dreaded Walrus t c
18:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I see 3 reverts, not more than three. And next time please follow the correct format for 3RR reports. Thanks. --Tango 20:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:TDC (Result:24h, 1 week for reporter)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Mark Lane (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • User is gaming the 3RR by making 4 reverts in just over 25 hours. User is a likely sockpupet of an unidentified IP who was involved in an arbcom case, and is well aware of the 3RR rule, and is clearly manipulating it here.
    • After going through the history of the article carefully, it seems clear to me that both parties here are equally guilty of edit warring, so I am blocking both for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
      • After a look at the block log, I see that TDC has a history of this and has been sanctioned by ArbCom on this matter in the past. 1 week instead. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

User:AlexCovarrubias reported by User:67.71.251.74 (Result: 2 Blocks, 1 month and 24 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Subregion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). AlexCovarrubias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:02 1 Sep/07

The offending user added gibberish to this article, not making much sense. After my duly labeled corrections, this editor afterward reverted four times in the span of minutes, each time labeling edits as 'rvv' despite my summaries to the contrary (see 2nd dif). Apparently, this editor has a lengthy history of edit warring and blocking. This warrants some punishment for both parties, since I also had to revert his reverts. 67.71.251.74 01:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW: I was reported by this editor as a vandal, only to be dismissed for similar reasons. [311] 67.71.251.74 04:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you two not work this out? I mean, you claim his material is "gibberish" when it's clearly not, and he claims yours is vandalism, when it's clearly not. At least try to discuss this before edit warring. --Haemo 06:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. However, please note that erasing valid and verifiable information is vandalism, or maybe I'm wrong, last time I checked it was considered vandalism, especially from an "anonimous IP" user. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 18:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
You are rather out of line: if you didn't read the above vandal report, even the admin that dismissed it thought that the reverted "edits consisted of rewording confusingly phrased and misspelled content." Read: gibberish. I do not edit to help others with their English. 67.71.251.74 16:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I might add that anonimously erasing valid and verifiable content is vandalism. Also, sadly, the "anonimous IP user" seem to be in reality another user (sockpuppetry), or how an anon user learnt so fast about WP policies and even how to "report 3RR" violations? Why don't he just login with his main account and report? He says he "deserves" to be blocked... on an anon IP address? This fact only proves to be a registered user trying to avoid scrutinity from admins when he admits that "he does not help other with their english". The user in question is avoiding another of his multiple blocks for edit-warring and/or use of profanity and uncivil manners (as you can read in the above messages left by him). It is easy to notice when sockpuppetry is going on. I first thought it was just a vandal, but then I realized it was not. This "anon user" is obviously passionately interested in the topic of subregions and geographical arrangements. Please take a look at Talk:Metropolis. I suspect he is User:Corticopia (please check his contrib. and block list). I beg for the attention of an admin. regarding Corticopia and his multiple accounts (and IP anon accounts). I have been following the case very closely since 2006, as he edits in almost every article I edit and I have detected the trend. I can provide with the proofs and the investigation I have made. Thank you. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 18:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism has to be malicious. The edits you reverted were clearly not malicious, so were not vandalism. This is a content dispute, and the 3RR applies. Seeing as you have already been blocked repeatedly for 3RR violations, and should therefore know better, I am blocking you for a month. I am also blocking the IP address for 24 hours, since your edits were also not vandalism. --Tango 20:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

User:68.49.28.218 reported by User:Strothra (Result: 24 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Princeton University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.49.28.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


False information was added to the article, and I removed it. An edit war ensued, and so I created a section on the talk page for the article with an explanation of my revision in the hopes of reaching a consensus. No one has made any comments there. Instead, User:Strothra constantly reverts my correction without any explanation on the talk page. I'm following good wiki procedure. User:Strothra should have the warning, not me.68.49.28.218 22:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read
WP:3RR. A lack of responses on the talk page is not carte blanche to flout the rules. dcandeto
04:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Please read
WP:DR. I've tried to start discussion on the talk page and have offered reasons for my revert. You have given no input or support for your revert, and I have offered reasons why it is inaccurate. I'm the only one following the rules here. 68.49.28.218
19:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
dcandeto 04:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I also went ahead and fixed my initial mistake. --Strothra 20:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    • This report is about to become two days old and the anon IP is still reverting the article. Does someone want to take action soon? --Strothra 00:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. Kuru talk 00:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the attention! :). --Strothra 01:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:219.90.223.197 reported by User:Cyrus XIII (Result: 24 hrs)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Skin (Japanese band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 219.90.223.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit:

  • Blocked for 24 hours. Crum375 21:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody
(Result: No action)

His contributions make think this might be a sock, but I'll

Anynobody
05:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You say yourself, he has only reverted 3 times. And next time, use the correct format for reports. --Tango 20:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did, which is why I was warning him/her not to go past that point as one more would put them over the line. It seems to have worked because the editor backed off for a while. Sorry you wasted your time on this, I had planned to take it down once the 24 hours passed but forgot.

Anynobody
07:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:68.84.10.219 reported by User:Masem (Result: 24 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Survivor: China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.84.10.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

(Edit by User:Maxamegalon2000:

  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

The editor apparently returned and was subsequently blocked by another admin. Kuru talk 00:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Blueshirts reported by User:Hornplease (Result: 48 hrs)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Radhabinod Pal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Blueshirts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


Not a new user. I wouldn't normally report it, as I am guilty on this occasion of a revert with the edit summary "yes it is", which is embarrassing, but a look at his userpage indicates that he has just been blocked. When warned that he was violating 3RR, he replied that he didn't care, as it was blatant vandalism. That is, I think, unacceptable. Hornplease 18:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

this user removed a sourced section with absolutely no discussion on the talk page and I reverted it. Then we had a discussion during which the user kept on erasing the section, and then accusing me of 3RR? Blueshirts 19:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
It was explained at length on two talkpages how this was a misrepresentation. The reference was retained, the misrepresentation removed. I did not violate 3RR, and never have; regardless of my beliefs about edits, I would have reverted if I had. Contempt for the concern, as demonstrated on the user's talkpage, is what is worrying. I have nothing further to add, as this page is cluttered already.Hornplease 20:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 48 hours as a repeat offender. Crum375 21:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Mpublius reported by User:Famspear (Result:18h)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Tom Cryer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mpublius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [316]

Famspear 19:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Majorly reported by User:Hankwang (Result: No action)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

User talk:Mdebow (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Mdebow|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Majorly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: n/a - I don't want to be part of this edit war

Majorly is an admin: certainly well aware of the 3RR. The reverts consist of replacement of a user talk page full of warnings and an indefblock with a welcome template, with the argument that these warnings are

biting the newcomer. The user was warned for spamming, first as an IP, who then created an account in order to continue spamming. Han-Kwang (t
) 19:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I will certainly have a word with Majorly about this, but I don't think it warrants any action. The warnings issued were over the top - the article(s) he created don't look like spam to me, so removing the unnecessary warnings does seem appropriate. Edit warring over it is inappropriate though, by both sides. --Tango 20:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

User:John Foxe reported by User:74s181 (Result: No action)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

First Vision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). John Foxe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Diff of the article from John Foxe's last edit (10:52, 31 August 2007) before I began editing yesterday evening, and his last edit (15:13, 1 September 2007) after reverting today. 74s181 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Diff of the article from my last edit (14:34, 1 September 2007) this afternoon, and John Foxe's last edit (15:13, 1 September 2007) after reverting today. 74s181 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that if John Foxe had used a revert tool to do a full revert, this would have only been one revert. He's been reported before, so now he games the system by doing incremental reverts. However, in this particular case each edit represents a revert of a particular section. That is, I made multiple edits to multiple sections, he reverted each section, one at a time, all within a 30 minute time period. I'm identifying the revert of each individual section as a separate revert. 74s181 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The next one is a bit more complicated, I was still editing when John Foxe began reverting my previous edits. Although I don't like it, one of John Foxe's edits is actually a good edit, but the one following it is another revert. 74s181 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

John Foxe is not a new user, and these reverts were over and done with before I even knew what was happening. However, John Foxe has previously been reported for 3rr violation with warnings on his talk page (14:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC), 23:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)), with the result that the article was protected twice. More recently, I posted informal warnings on his talk page for inappropriate reverts (08:54, 21 August 2007, 20:24, 24 August 2007), John Foxe deleted them. 74s181 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

  • These are not reverts. If you edit sequentially, and keep making changes, uninterrupted by someone else, all your edits are counted as a single edit for 3RR purposes. No action. Crum375 02:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Freecyprus reported by User:Calton (Result: 24 hour block)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Freecyprus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 01:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  • User bound and determined to flood
    List of Greek companies‎ with red links, including those of articles which have already been speedy deleted (see history. Has been blocked once already for edit-warring over flooding the list with spam and external links, and unblocked under a promise to stop, but this is essentially more of the same. --Calton | Talk
    01:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Technically, he has not violated the 3 revert rule since he was unblocked (he was blocked for violating the 3 revert rule and the relevant edits were made less than 24 hours ago, so if you ignore the block he has violated the 3 revert rule anyway - but I am being generous here). However, the reason he was unblocked is because he was supposedly discussing his edits, yet his pattern of editing has not changed since that unblock. Either way I believe this case falls under the "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive" clause. ugen64 04:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

User:219.90.148.152 reported by User:Kaypoh (Result: page protected)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Skin (Japanese band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 219.90.148.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Brendan.lloyd reported by User:Prester John (Result: 24 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

John Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Brendan.lloyd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

All reverts are the same....

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [317]

Despite being reverted by multiple admins, user insists on claiming a false consensus to add totally slanderous material about the article subjects father.

24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Prester John escalated an edit war by revert-baiting in spite of prior consensus. My reverts were not slanderous, no evidence of admin reverts was ever presented, Prester John himself is the one claiming false consensus (per Howard talkpage discussions about copra plantations) and my so-called first "revert" is actually an original/initial edit by me. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 07:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

User:IPSOS reported by User:Melsaran (Result:No violation)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Wikipedia:Hatnote (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Hatnote|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). IPSOS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that he has said that he will continue reverting because he views me as a "vandal": [318]

Note that that comment is not about this, but about the removal of useful hatnotes on specific articles. This is clearly a bad faith report. The first edit reported is simply not a revert. It is the implementation of a clear consensus on the talk page, one that Melsaran is against and for which he is willing to edit war against consensus and misuse the 3RR policy to attempt to override that consensus. IPSOS (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Removals of content are by definition reverts, your first edit was clearly a revert. And if you say that I'm a vandal and that you will continue reverting me, I assume that you will also do so on other pages we disagree about. And I don't "misuse" 3RR to override consensus, I even agreed to a compromise (adding exceptions), which you blatantly reverted as well.
talk
) 14:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
See also [319]; I don't think that there is a consensus, so discuss it on the talk page instead of edit warring.
talk
) 14:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe an editor's first edit to a page, which is claimed as reverting to an article state from 20 months ago, is considered a revert within the meaning of 3RR. Hence, no violation, or even if it were considered a technical violation, not one requiring any action. I see that there is now discussion and a content RfC on the talkpage, which obviously is preferable to continued reverting by either side. Please also avoid name-calling; for example, a good-faith disagreement over whether a hatnote should or should not be included in an article is not "vandalism" by either side. Newyorkbrad 17:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Kiwisoup reported by User:Kariteh (Result: 24 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Picross DS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kiwisoup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Nomadent reported by User:Rrburke (Result: 24 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Santa Cruz, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nomadent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


New user attempting to insert spam links about self and related organization. Persists in spite of warnings. --Rrburke(talk) 17:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Dev920 reported by User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (Result:Page protected )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Jake Gyllenhaal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dev920 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


The issue here is a phrase in the lead "gay cowboy (movie)". A number of editor have pointed out that that characterization is a poor one, albeit having been used in the press (hence Dev920's desire for ambiguous scare quotes). After a number of minor revisions of a compromise phrase a week ago, Dev920 decided yesterday to enter into an edit war to insert his/her favorite "cute phrase" in the lead.

After every such reversion, I or other editors discussed mentioning that phrase later in the article, with proper citation to sources. I then added such during the editing. But Dev920 only wants that phrase in lead, and her/his edits to this article are exclusively for that purpose. Btw, the previous version indicated is itself one of Dev920's several edits of exactly the same thing from last week; back then s/he also made this change a number of times.

Btw. I myself have not violated 3RR on this. I made 3—but not 4—changes to the compromise language, and always with intervening talk page discussion (either on article, or Dev920's talk, or my talk). LotLE×talk 17:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No block. There's a heck of a load of parties edit warring, and instead of blocking them all (many seem to be forgetting that 3RR is not a license to three reverts, and I could block a large number of people including the filer of this request), I've protected the page for a month and directed all parties to the talk page and
WP:BLOCK). I'm sure all people involved would agree that protecting the page for a month is a much easier, less stressful and generally more beneficial way to stop the reverting than blocking half-a-dozen established Wikipedians. Daniel
07:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
But you protect the wrong version!! Just kidding :) Good move but a month seems long, maybe a week would do the trick? Cheers --Tom 14:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I apologise for breaking 3RR. As you can see from the times of the diffs, I had clearly reverted once before going to bed and did not remember my first revert the next morning. Btw, I hope that any admins who are going to become involved in this note the aggressive tone of Lotus towards me and their evident desire to have me blocked out of revenge rather than for the sake of the article. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:RookZERO reported by User:Justanother (Result: 1 week)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Dianazene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RookZERO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

RookZERO is reverting to reinsert this text and this reference.
Dianazene also plays a large role in [. . .] the Narconon program, where it is similarly claimed that the large quantities of niacin in the compound, combined with the heat in a sauna, can "purify" the body by allowing it to "handle radiation" [. . .]<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Narconon/detoxbookpt2.htm | title = What is the Narconon programme? - The New Life Detoxification Program Picture Book | author = Narconon Exposed}}</ref>

RookZERO is once again reverting well-cited and correct material to POV-push the insertion of incorrect and poorly-cited material. He has five previous blocks for similar activity (the block for "Abusing multiple accounts" was mislabeled - it was for 3RR). He is 4RR in the Dianazene article and is also edit-warring and reverting in Church of Scientology (3RR update, 4RR against multiple editors) and L. Ron Hubbard (3RR against multiple editors). --Justanother 20:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for one week to prevent further warring; several previous blocks and multiple warnings led me to extend the block to the week long duration. Welcome review for this action. Kuru talk 00:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Hardouin reported by User:ThePromenader (Result: no violation)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Economy of Paris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hardouin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • Comment - A multi-repeat offender, User:Hardouin is this time using either another account or person to out-revert to "his version" - note that recent member User:Keizuko arrived the same day to the same page where the edit-warring was happening, only to revert to User:Hardouin's version to the letter. May I also note that User:Hardouin has ignored all evident fact, reference and factual discussion in his reverts to only make personal attacks - after reverting yet again. THEPROMENADER 21:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused, "recent member" User:Keizuko has been editing for almost a year, including several edits to that same article. Unless you can be a little more specific in your accusation, I'm not seeing a specific 3rr here. Kuru talk 02:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Odd, isn't it? That same user has made a few minor edits to the article, even including edits that counter
sockpuppetry in Wikipedia's books, and even then, it's a disruptive "gaming of the system" to the extreme. THEPROMENADER
06:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:76.116.99.168 reported by User:Metros (Result: Note to user)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

article | history | links | watch | logs). 76.116.99.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 23:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • Comment This might fall under the coverage of
    WP:BLP reverts on the part of myself and User:Malevious who have reverted this IP user now 2 and 3 times respectively. The only source for this rumor of her nude photos is the National Enquirer which is not even close to a reliable source in my opinion. Metros
    23:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

User:210.56.80.46 reported by User:Gscshoyru (Result: 24 hours)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Morocco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 210.56.80.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [324]


  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [329]
Warned at 23:30. Reverted for the fourth time at 23:34. Seems pretty clear cut; 24 hours. Daniel 07:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:`Abd al-Ghafur reported by User:nadav1 (Result:Blocked 1 week )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Omar Bakri Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). `Abd al-Ghafur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: 10:53, 1 September 2007
  • Perhaps hasn't violated the letter of 3rr this time, but account continues to be used for reverts only without any explanations. Has been blocked twice but still refuses to discuss edits. No other contributions. nadav (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Anynobody
(Result: No action, warned)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Dianazene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Justanother (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I happened to notice

WP:RSN he is involved in with on another article I was curious to see if his following of the 3RR was a studious for himself as it was for RookZERO
. It was not,

Added:29 Aug 03:28,
Rem:Revision as of 13:06, 29 August 2007 Revert #1

Added:Revision as of 17:14, 29 August 2007
Rem:Revision as of 17:17, 29 August 2007 Revert #2

Added:Revision as of 20:35, 29 August 2007
Rem:Revision as of 20:43, 29 August 2007 Revert #3, removed source he had also removed with prior revert of entire paragraph.

Same diff:Added:Revision as of 20:30, 29 August 2007
Rem:Revision as of 20:34, 29 August 2007 Revert #4 entire paragraph again.

Anynobody
08:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Most certainly no action. Blocking now, five days after the event, would be a text-book definition of "punitive, not preventative" (
WP:BLOCK). Daniel
08:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Who says he needs to be blocked, I was thinking of a warning.

Anynobody
08:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave him a note. However, this page is for requesting administrator intervention (ie. blocks) for 3RR. Anyone can leave someone else a friendly note :) Daniel 08:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You'd think so, but I'm actually not supposed to. See

Anynobody
08:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
(PS It's a funny coincidence you happened to be the one responding to this though.)
Anynobody
08:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I was aware of the existance of this, however the case hasn't closed and no temporary injunctions had been placed on you, so you are/were free to communicate with Justanother until such a time as the case closes. I don't understand how it's a 'coincidence' - I try to answer as many reports as possible on this page, as seen from the handful above in the last hour or so. Daniel 08:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply anything sinister by funny coincidence, it's just funny that you were being discussed indirectly and here you are. As for warning him myself, I'm not sure what they are defining as harassment, better to keep at a distance for a little while. (Don't get me wrong, I'd of rather done this myself but at least this way there's proof I wasn't seeing something that wasn't there. Plus I figure it's safer to assume the worst and act like it'll pass.)

Anynobody
08:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Good friend100 reported by User:LactoseTI (Result: Indefinitely Blocked)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Liancourt Rocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Good friend100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


  • Fresh off his summer vacation, he is back and violating 3RR on the same article he was blocked six times in a month's time for violating 3RR on just before the vacation (up to a week at a time)...
I'm not fresh off my summer vacation, I wasn't thinking about wikipedia until now. And you word your parting comment to the admins as if I've been doing this my whole time on Wikipedia. I'm not "back again" to simply edit war, and if you think that because I'm opposing you, your wrong.
Please stop wikistalking me. I asked you before and I ask you again. You watch every move I make and edit them or simply revert them. Now your following my edit history and the moment I breach 3RR, you immediately report me. Good friend100 15:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
You violated it (again) on an article I made a bunch of edits on around the same period. You were sometimes reverting me. It's not stalking--how could I not notice? —LactoseTIT 15:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Its wikistalking because whenever I make an edit, you change it or revert it. And I'm not simply talking about Liancourt Rocks. I feel that it is wikistalking because its certainly distressing that I can't do anything here unless you like it. And considering my request to you (which you seemed to have ignored), its clear to me that your motives are simply to follow me around. Good friend100 15:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This was the seventh block for 3rr violations. Enough is enough.
Spartaz Humbug!
19:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:129.120.244.214 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: 48 hours )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Hulk (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --129.120.244.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Tenebrae
18:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: 69.181.174.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a [330] identical to that of the other user reported, and it's the user's first edit. IP switching to get around an impending 3RR block? Gscshoyru 18:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: At Talk:Hulk User:69.181.174.116 has at least claimed not to be a sock puppet. Worth at least taking into account. --mordicai. 20:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't considered the 3RR. I blocked the ip for vandalising AN3.

Spartaz Humbug!
20:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Lee5435 reported by User:Sephiroth BCR (Result: No Violation)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lee5435 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 22:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [340]
My bad. I meant to remove this report after I conversed with the user in question, and he expressed ignorance at what he was violating, but I forgot to. Thanks in any case. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Denaar reported by User:Cyrus XIII (Result:no action 31 hours )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Visual kei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Denaar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  • The 3RR offender has been around since March 2006 and has also previously made accusations of 3RR "pushing", so no warning was issued, as an awareness of the rule seems obvious.

Cyrus was 3RRing the same article using his sock-puppet - this is a content debate and I have clearly shown the resources which they seek to remove. Actually, I've never been warned about 3RR before (check my talk page). Denaar 00:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As I am the only other editor present on the page, I do believe I am the so-called "sock puppet". I think I've made it clear though that I am indeed, only myself, and in general, not influenced by Cyrus, I merely agree with him on keeping strict policies to this issue. If what I'm doing is against any policy, I will gladly accept any consequences. I do, however, try my hardest to strictly abide by all policies. --Jacob 00:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you even know, what
sock-puppetry is? Because sock puppets usually don't sport far more elaborate user pages than the primary account. Oh wait, maybe I'm the sock-puppet? That is, with four times the edit count of the then main account. Not to mention patently schizophrenic arguments between those accounts on other people's talk pages. - Cyrus XIII
00:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
As for breaking 3RR - I didn't. I did not revert the page but did a new edit to satisfy the questions raised about the "word phrasing". The main concern was not the content, but my phrasing of that content, therefore, I changed the phraseing to something you would accept.
The message posted on my talk page was cleary written by Cyrus - it was in his style (little bulleted numbers), using his syntax (not that of a 15 year old boy). Look at the Skin (band) talk page, their comments (telling a newbie to get off wikipedia) are the same.
I addressed the content issues on the talk page, and you refused to talk - this is the second time you have sent Jacob to "leave me messages" on my talk page. I have jumped through every hoop you have set so far - but I wonder why I have to jump through "your" hoops instead of just Wikipedia's guidelines. I provided resources - over 13. However, I did not add a single resource this time, and instead used the resources that you validated as acceptable to fufil your most recent request "what does visual kei sound like". I was moved to come back after sourcing two bands - one that said they were "lumped in with visual kei only because they way they looked" and another that was described as "not sounding like typical visual kei." If bands don't sound like visual kei, then obviously visual kei has a sound. I went looking in your own articles - and it says right in them what it sounds like. Denaar 00:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, exact edits are here: [341] [342]

Denaar 01:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So my individual identity is being questioned, because
  1. I use numbers
  2. I write articulately
  3. I happen to work in the same field as Cyrus
Is that correct? I insist that you look at the past edits in the field of
Dir en grey, where Cyrus and I had disagreement, before I took a day to sit down and read all the Wikipedia policies that pertain to that sort of material. Please, if you feel threatened, do not drag me down with you. I'm sure Wikipedia knows my IP address, showing that I and Cyrus are indeed two different people. --Jacob
01:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I am showing that you two have a pattern of working together to do reverts without talking about them. And yes, I don't believe for a minute the message left on my talk page was written by you - it has Cyrus's syntax all over it. Neither of you have addressed any concerns I have brought up about this content issue - and I've met both of your "demands". Denaar 01:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, given your strong beliefs in that respect, your should probably head over to
WP:SSP, file a report and in the meantime leave it to an administrator to review this 3RR violation. - Cyrus XIII
01:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait, that is very clearly not a revert - I just adjusted the syntax of article again, but have not added "Genre" back into the article - I took that to the talk page. It was a copy edit to clean up language, nothing more, after your 3rd revert in 24 hours [343] [344] [345]. Actually I came to go ask Krakatoa if this type of edit was ok - since it isn't regarding the original content we were discussing. :) I still think the term "visuals-conscious phenomena" isn't clear language - "Phenomena is an observed event or, quite literally, something that is seen." To me it does not clearly explain anything at all, and you can re-write the wording to something more clear as I stated in my edit summary. Denaar 17:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  • And another one (18:59, September 4, 2007), dubbed "copy edit" in the edit summary, even though it contains a fair amount of statement altering rephrasing. - Cyrus XIII 17:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Denaar blocked for 31 hours. - KrakatoaKatie 17:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Arawiki reported by User:MezzoMezzo (Result: user warned)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Arawiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 18:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a fairly simple issue to me. The guy's been around since last November and seems to know the site policies at least somewhat; I have repeatedly asked this user to go to the talk page in my edit summaries and the results of that may be seen here. He has displayed much of the same behavior on the article for

Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz, to the point where another editor on the talk page thought he was a sock for an earlier individual known for trolling that specific page. I also highly suspect that User:Arawiki is using 87.101.244.8 (talk) as a sock, as they both have been doing the exact same reverts of my edits on several articles; a checkuser may be in order. Any help that may be lent in this situation would be much appreciated, please advise. MezzoMezzo
18:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the straightforward violation shown above, Arawiki, counting his IP, has also broken 3RR on
Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz.Proabivouac
00:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Dreadstar
(Result: 24hrs )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Translation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 172.177.248.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
  • Diff of 3RR warning: 03:28, 4 September 2007

Anon user has been engaging in an edit war since approximately mid August, adding content that is disputed by many other editors. The content being added by anon is poorly written, contains linkspam and contains copyrighted content. Anon refuses to discuss in a civil manner on the talk page, saying the other editors are "antagonists", accusing them of "vandalizing" and being "rogues", and comments like "Things were being over-dumbed down, this was childish."

Dreadstar †
18:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: Anon continues his revert war: 15:59, 4 September 2007. Asking for "reverse burden of proof" on his contested edits.
Dreadstar †
20:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The same user apparently hops IP addresses periodically, this is the same content being posted in the same manner:

A range of IP address may need to be blocked: Here are earlier IP addresses used for the same purpose:

Apparently, this editor was blocked or banned from the German Wikipedia for similar behavior: [346].

Dreadstar †
08:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Anon continues today:

If there is a problem with this report, please let me know.

Dreadstar †
16:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Voyevoda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 20:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That editor keeps reverting other editors copyediting changes to insert a claim of dubious reliability; in his 4th revert for reasons unknown he restores an incorrect interlink (both issues were explained on talk, but Voyevoda has yet to post there). Such revert warring is hardly constructive, and is destabilizing the article under GAC review.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Good that I caught this at my watch list. No opinion about reverts, would need to check, but the claim about "dubious" info is bogus. The editor attempts to insert the well-referenced fact that some happen to not know or not like and insist on removal. --Irpen 21:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Now started checking. The "first" so called "revert" is an edit, not a revert at all. Will be back with more. --Irpen 21:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The first edit is a revert (15:21, September 4, 2007) restoring disputed fragments "The wide-scale pillaging of the Polish troops caused a massive uprising among Kievan citizens...However, he managed to kidnap the Kievan treasury... As Gallus has it, the war started when Boleslaus was refused Predslava's hand, but this testimony is not given credit by most historians." introduced in the 15:14, September 4, 2007 edit by that user and removed by Olessi's. And yes, we are not discussing doubious sources here, but simply dealing with a case of 3RR (or rather 6RR).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


So called "second and third" are indeed reverts. The fourth one is not a revert in any way. Click on the diff for itself. The editor merely formatted the ref. Gimme a sec to check the rest. --Irpen 21:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In the forth one the editor restored an erroneus link (discussed on talk) for unknown reason. Restoring information is a revert.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
More, the so called "fifth revert": the editor re-references the facts from the source the other side objects to to another source.
The info was still removed by his opponent who was clearly revert warring just to remove the info based on any possible pretense. Last time the info was removed because of the opponent's "not liking the source". This time because Voevoda failed to give a page number. So, in so called "sixth revert" Voevoda merely add the page number to the book. It is dishonest to call this a revert.
A side note, Piotrus, I understand that having your opponent blocked to "win" the content dispute is tempting. Besides, it is not new. But at least present "reports" non-misleadingly. Preferably use times in GMT, that's one. Two: do not list mere edits, like your so called "revert 1" and, especially, "revert 4". Finally, even if you go by your local time zone, the so called "*4th revert: 16:38, September 4, 2007" is a bogus listing. The editor did not make any edits at XX:38 on any occasion. --Irpen 22:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Rereferencing the facts with a different source, while restoring them at the same time is a revert. Whatever the reasons for removal of his additions were, him restoring it 5-6 times is an obvious violation of 3rr, and it doesn't matter if the restorations change a few words, use a different ref or add a page number.
And Irpen, I find your accusations that I want to block dispute opponents laughable. Who else is to see a 3rr violation if not one of the editors involved in editing the page? The point is that editors must learn that 3rr violations are a 'no-no', or otherwise we would all be revert warring with no end in sigh.
PS. I still find it particulary inconstructive that Voyevoda has not used talk of the article to argue for his edits; that he simply reverts others (and their copyediting) is a sign of a quite disruptive user, uniterested in any sort of cooperation or consensus.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for twenty-four hours, per evidence in history (and here, I suppose). -- tariqabjotu 23:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Ankush135 reported by User:Akhilleus (Result: already blocked indef)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Romila Thapar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ankush135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


This is a particularly lame revert war which concerns the presence of a "POV" tag. In some of these edits Ankush135 is reverting an IP sock of a banned user, which may be a mitigating factor. Ankush is aware of the 3RR [347], [348]. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ankush135 has already been blocked indefinitely. No further action required.--Chaser - T 17:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Francis Tyers reported by User:Andranikpasha (Result:No apparent violation)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Khojaly Massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
).

Aren't you jumping the gun a bit mate? -
·
09:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
note: moved to bottom of the page per request at top by myself. -
·
09:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
further notes:
  1. I haven't broken the 3RR
  2. My editing has not been disruptive, and
  3. My edits have been explained on the talk page and are in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
-
·
09:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I protected the article. Try to solve the problem on the talk page. bogdan 10:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Is is not better to protect it in the variant before a large number of reversions in content disputes? Especially if only the part of reverts (related to the links) is explained in the talk page! Andranikpasha 10:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually everything is explained on talk. You should provide reliable sources to support your claims. And I don't see any violation of 3RR here. Grandmaster 10:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
A 3RR usually needs four reverts. -- Avi 18:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered reported by User:Jaakobou (Result:No apparent violation)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Battle of Jenin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Diff of 3RR warning: user has been warned before and even blocked for 3RR on same article.[349]

PalestineRemembered ignored the related talk subsections repeatedly and in general is complicit in longstanding soapbox behavior. with this instance, he's ignored the related talk and broke 3RR to continually reinsert a "this article is totally disputed" tag (and some unrelated article and/or weasel terms). p.s this article is experiancing a large portion of improper behavior and i invite anyone to give it a serious look. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There are three editors who think the article has gross, systemic POV-issues, and three who do not. A disputed" tag is obviously appropriate. The "weasel phrase" Jaakobou is referring to is "prima facie". Human rights organizations found "no evidence of massacre in Jenin but strong prima facie evidence of Israeli war crimes." These are their words. Jaakobou likes the first finding but dislikes the second, so he's cropping the material accordingly and edit-warring to maintain the whitewash. PR's edit here is wholly uncontroversial.--G-Dett 12:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Uncontroversial or not, he still broke the rules and knows better. 3rr is easy to avoid and he failed, again, to withdraw from a heated situation as he should have. Kyaa the Catlord 12:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

While both PR and Jaakobou should be given timeouts and sent to opposite corners of the sandbox, based on their long-term bickering that has spread to their talk pages, my talk page,

WP:CSN, and WP:Kitchen Sink, there does not seem to be a 3RR violation here. The first edit listed is the 09:43, 4 September 2007 one. Where is the "prior version reverted to" edit? It happens that there is one ID155267214 15:38, September 2, 2007. So, let us agree that ID 155596585 is a revert. However, ID155676259
does not revert to add the tag, it is a removal of content. Therefore, there are only three reverts here.

Now, I believe while I may believe that both PR and Jaakabou have some serious issues when it comes to editing without rancor, without POV, and without attacks, there is no direct violation of 3RR. And while "gaming" the system often results in protective measures being taken even without direct violations, this is less "gaming" and more a result of the ongoinf issues that PR and others have with certain topics. Dispute resolution is the route that needs to be taken here. -- Avi 18:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe
WP:CSN case that suggested PR would be completely banned from the community (Avi suggested mentorship instead of a ban). I'm not sure on how to regard his dismissal of this 3RR (and previous issues also) and i do wish to take this issue for a serious/further review.. some help would be appreciated. JaakobouChalk Talk
19:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, while I offered as such, PR has not accepted. PR's case should really should be brought back to

WP:CSN, as the mentorship I suggested has not been instituted, and similar to Isarig, it what prevented a longer ban, but that is irrelevant to this case. It would be improper and unethical to use 3RR as an excuse to block someone when they have not committed the 3RR. Perhaps PR should be blocked, but not for 3RR. -- Avi
19:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

So, Jaakobou, please clarify, are you accusing me of an impropriety? If so,

WP:ANI is the appropriate venue, not here. I did not find a 3RR violation here, and that is why I made the decision I did. I suggest that both you and PR enroll in dispute resolution before the community gets exasperated by the two of y'alls back-and-forth. -- Avi
19:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Avi's response here for these reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaser (talk • contribs) 21:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Damn, that bot is fast.--Chaser - T 21:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI. PalestineRemembered
17:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yay or nay, discussion about removal of your editing privileges was placed on hold subject to your undergoing
mentorship. It has been some time now; have you a mentor yet? -- Avi
17:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Caomhan27 reported by User:Mucky Duck
(Result: 24h)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Atlantic Isles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Camonham27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 12:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Caomhan27 persists in deleting fully sourced and referenced information about more common uses of the term. He has ignored the 3RR warning and has deleted all such warnings from his talk page. Mucky Duck 12:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: The reverts also include removing a request for citation; and removing my insertion of the word "some" to tone down a PoV statement, without backing with a reference. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

User: Adalme reported by User:BigDunc (Result: 24 hour block)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Adalme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
): Time reported: 13:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion. Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

User blocked for 24 hours. ugen64 20:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Clydey reported by User:Lawrence Cohen (Result: page protected)

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Lawrence Cohen
16:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


See here for many more: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Clydey&namespace=0&year=&month=-1

  • Necessary for newer users:

A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion. Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly. Both users aware/warned/acknowledged on article talk page, not new users.

See below. Tom Harrison Talk 19:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

User:JimmyMac82 reported by User:Lawrence Cohen (Result:page protected )

  • Three-revert rule
    violation on

Lawrence Cohen
16:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)



See here for many more: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=JimmyMac82&namespace=0&year=&month=-1

  • Necessary for newer users:

A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion. Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly. Both users aware/warned/acknowledged on article talk page, not new users.

I've protected the page. Any more reverting and it's blocks for everyone. Tom Harrison Talk 19:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive55&oldid=1142494881"