Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive58

User:DonaldDuck reported by User:Biophys (Result: Page protected)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Putinism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DonaldDuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 16:17, 9 October 2007
• 2nd revert: 16:50, 9 October 2007
• 3rd revert: 01:39, 10 October 2007
• 4th revert: 02:02, 10 October 2007
• 5th revert 02:53, 10 October 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 16:55, 9 October 2007

Deletion of sourced material and insertion of OR by User:DonaldDuck who also operates under IP address 217.117.80.2 (see also [1]). I tried to explain him WP policies but it did not help [2] Biophys 02:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. He blamed me of RR warring: [3] although I tried to extend/improve article in spite of his efforts to remove sourced views.Biophys 02:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Biophys have broken 3 revert rule first

1 2 3 4. Im' trying to improve the article and reorganise it into proper sections, while Biophys is in edit war. Biophys keeps inserting in the article material totally irrelevant to the topic of Putinism, such as some quotes on the Soviet security services history, etc DonaldDuck 03:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC).

Not at all. As one can easily see, only "1" and "4" in these diffs are reverts, as I indicated in the edit summaries. "2" and "3" versions are completely different - even with different subheadings in the article.Biophys 04:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

My diffs, which your reported as reverts are also substantially different. Nemtsov's definition of Putinism is added, subsections, paragraph about usage of "Putinism" as a pejorative political term.DonaldDuck 04:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Left and right parts in all four diffs provided by me are identical.Biophys 05:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, in "2" and "3" you have just combined your reverts with some other minor edits to avoid formal breaking of 3RR rule. And doctored my diffs by skipping intermediate revisions.DonaldDuck 05:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

DonalDuck is completely out of control. He just made another RR violation in the same article: 02:53, 10 October 2007 Biophys 05:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, don't skip all my [other edits], providing referenced sources in support of my version of the article structure.DonaldDuck 05:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

One more disguised revert by Biophys diffDonaldDuck 06:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted myself back. Does it help?Biophys 15:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Not really. I'm not entirely sure which of you have violated 3RR here, and I can't really be bothered to work it out. Page protected. Stifle (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

User:GHcool reported by User:Pedro Gonnet (Result: Stale)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

• Previous version reverted to: 20:20, 9 October 2007

• 1st revert: 17:34, 7 October 2007
• 2nd revert: 18:51, 7 October 2007
• 3rd revert: 19:25, 7 October 2007
• 4th revert: 20:40, 7 October 2007
• 5th revert: 20:46, 7 October 2007
• 6th revert: 21:11, 7 October 2007
• 7th revert: 05:38, 8 October 2007
• 8th revert: 18:06, 8 October 2007

• This user has not been warned for this incident, but he is an experienced and regular Wikipedia editor and knows
  WP:3RR
  , and therefore does not qualify as a "New user".

These edits involve the addition by

• 3RR blocks are for preventing sterile edit wars, not for punishment. As such, reporting reverts from two or three days ago generally won't draw any action as there is nothing left to prevent. Also, the "previous version reverted to" needs to be timestamped before the reverts, otherwise it doesn't really make sense. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Whig reported by User:Skinwalker (Result: Blocked 12 hours)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Whig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 10:02, 9 October 2007

• 1st revert: 18:05, 9 October 2007
• 2nd revert: 18:37, 9 October 2007
• 3rd revert: 19:23, 9 October 2007
• 4th revert: 21:30, 9 October 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 13:32, 7 October 2007

This user is insisting on adding a POV tag to the article without enumerating his specific concerns on the talk page. Requests for his reasons have led to filibustering and borderline personal attacks. On previous days he has gamed 3RR by reverting thrice and then waiting 24 hours (see TimVickers' report from 7 October 2007 above). Whig is being extremely disruptive and I would appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could look into the situation. Thanks, Skinwalker 12:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The user has been blocked for 12 hours. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Cobra982 reported by User:Neon_white (Result: Page protected)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Mazinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cobra982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 15:23, 9 October 2007
• 2nd revert: 22:55, 9 October 2007
• 3rd revert: 11:20, 10 October 2007

Adds the same paragraph of unsourced, poorly written

I only see 3 reverts, and only 2 of them are of the same material. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

See the history. All three are reverts. Nishkid64 (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the point Wikidudeman was making was that there needs to be four reverts before there is an actionable violation. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have fully protected the page due to edit warring. Nishkid64 (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

User:RucasHost reported by User:ConfuciusOrnis (Result: Protected)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Richard Dawkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RucasHost (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 05:12, 10 October 2007

• 1st revert: 05:37, 10 October 2007
• 2nd revert: 05:48, 10 October 2007
• 3rd revert: 16:31, 10 October 2007 ( there are a large number of interveneing edits here, but this is just a reinsertion of the same material, rephrased to be even less NPOV)
• 4th revert: 16:34, 10 October 2007 (I'm not sure what snalwibma did there, either way, rucashost reverted to the blp violating version, rather than discussing the matter. )
• 5th revert 16:46, 10 October 2007
• 6th revert 16:48, 10 October 2007
• 7th revert 16:50, 10 October 2007
• 8th revert 16:53, 10 October 2007
• 9th revert 17:00, 10 October 2007
• 10th revert 17:05, 10 October 2007
• 11th revert 17:08, 10 October 2007
• 12th revert 17:08, 10 October 2007
• The user has been warned about 3RR on multiple occasions.

This is a

• I support ConfuciusOrnis here. RucasHost's edits are clear breaches of 3RR and BLP. Please stop him if you can! Snalwibma 17:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The article has been protected. Frankly, the level of revert-warring on that article was embarrassing. I can't believe you had the audacity to come here and ask for someone to "stop him" when you were just as bad. -- tariqabjotu 17:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? One edit warrior against talk page consensus, and five other regular editors... I think you should take that comment back and apologise frankly.  – ornis⚙ 17:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm strongly inclined to agree with CO here. 5 editors reverting one editor doesn't make them just as bad. It makes the one editor engage in 3RR 4 times over. JoshuaZ 18:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
      • As am I. Five editors trying to protect consensus are just as bad as one editor hell-bent on ignoring consensus? Right. •Jim62sch• 19:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    • (to all) Uh... am I the only person here who passed Thread Etiquette 101? Unless otherwise noted, an indentation in from a previous comment is presumed to mean a response to that comment. Unsurprisingly, Confucius did not indent his comment properly (I know you were talking to me). I did that and even quoted the person to whom I was responding. Geez. I don't care what is or is not consensus here; Snalwibma made seven reverts in just over half an hour (and two of those edits came within a minute of each other). There's no excuse for that. If someone is being disruptive on an article, you can request protection or make a 3RR report (the latter of which ConfuciusOrnis did). You don't just continuing reverting into oblivion. Sorry, folks, I'm not submitting to any ridiculous demand for an apology or retraction.
      WP:3RR does not exempt people who are "protect[ing] consensus"; anybody can just say that. The best (and perhaps only?) protection for those who are truly protecting consensus is the support from that consensus pool. At one point, that was the case without question; RucasHost could easily be blocked for a 3RR violation whereas the rest of the editors could not under any interpretation. But in the forty minutes or so prior to the protection, the article became the site of a dueling match between RuneHost and Snalwibma. That was embarrassing and I couldn't care less whether you disagree with me on that. Next time, before you formulate your sarcastic criticisms, you should actually read what is said (and to whom, dammit). -- tariqabjotu
      20:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Doh! You almost had a good point. Rucas was engaging in more tha edit-warring, he was engaging in vandalism (yes, that would be what one person repeately reinserting his POV edits against consensus would be called). No 3RRR vio for rving vandalism. Sorry, you were so close, and yet, well... BTW, Rucas was blocked for 12RR. •Jim62sch• 21:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
        • He was not engaging in vandalism. Wikipedia:Vandalism specifically notes that "stubbornness" is not vandalism. -- tariqabjotu 21:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
          • • Stubborness does not explain 12RR -- by the time you get to the point where you've been told repeatedly that you are violating consensus, anything after about 4RR becomes vandalism. Nonetheless, what Ornis notes below is also a valid reason for rv'ing Rucas' edits, while offering no defence for Rucas' actions. •Jim62sch• 17:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Wp:blp#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material makes for interesting reading. I already made a note of this in my original report, but since you seem to have missed that, I will point out again, that rucashost's edits were not only disruptive, not only clearly against consensus, but they were a violation of BLP. As such, per the policy, they not only may be, they must be removed aggressively, and 3RR simply does not apply to that removal. In fact, even without a 3RR violation, BLP violation is grounds for blocking. Since this is going to be archived I'll repost on your talk page.  – ornis⚙
            21:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
            • I did not miss that at all. The question of whether this is a BLP case can go either way; the blocking admin apparently decided this was not really a BLP case (hence the protection instead of a block). I am inclined to agree with his assessment; the statement is not "unsourced" or "poorly sourced". -- tariqabjotu 21:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
              • So why do you suppose he reverted rucas' change then. In amy case, your interpretation of policy is sadly at odds with the consensus of those who actually spend time editing the article.  – ornis⚙ 21:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
                • I have not commented on the idea of whether the controversial piece should be in the article (and I don't intend to). I have only commented on the use of
                  WP:BLP as a reason to support that it not be, since BLP relates to whether 3RR can simply be ignored. -- tariqabjotu
                  22:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Stew_jones reported by User:Robwingfield (Result: 6 hours)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

• Previous version reverted to: 16:18, 9 October 2007

• 1st revert: 16:54, 9 October 2007
• 2nd revert: 20:22, 9 October 2007
• 3rd revert: 23:02, 9 October 2007
• 4th revert: 17:05, 10 October 2007
• 5th revert: 18:24, 10 October 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.

• Diff of 3RR warning: 18:00, 10 October 2007

The user has a history of formatting articles to his own manual of style. I have attempted to persuade him to adhere to the correct MoS, but he gets abusive and reverts. On this occasion, I gained support from other users to avoid breaking 3RR myself. I would hope that any block given here would go some way to persuading the user to treat WP as a community project, and adhere to the correct styles... robwingfield ^«T•C» 19:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• First offence, 6 hours. Stifle (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Anyeverybody reported by User:Misou (Result: 6 hours)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

L. Ron Hubbard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Anyeverybody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [4]

• 1st revert: 11 Oct 4:02 [5]
• 2nd revert: 11 Oct 4:36 [6]
• 3rd revert: 11 Oct 4:57 [7]
• 4th revert: 11 Oct 5:10 [8]

He is reverting the same thing 2-3 times per day since 8 Oct 2007, today, 11 Oct it was 4RR. Before this started he had some arguments on the article, see talk page.

• Diff of 3RR warning: [9]

Misou 05:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit I find it humorous that you'd warn and report on the same edit. It'd be like an armed sentry shooting an intruder while at the same time saying, "Stop or I'll shoot".

Anynobody

05:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 11 Oct 4:02 [10] Was an addition of cited material, not a revert.
• 2nd revert: 11 Oct 4:36 [11] Was me replacing the material which was removed, and adding another source + more citations to current sources.

Moreover the 4-5 other Wikipedians Misou mentions are a bit overstated. The neutral editors involved

Anynobody

05:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

6 hours. I'll note that I'm highly unimpressed with the "discussion" that's been going on, and that applies to both sides here. Please tone down the flaming. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Anynobody

(Result: 12 hours )

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

L. Ron Hubbard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Misou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: Any version which does not have a section called Personality.

*1st revert: 04:45, 10 October 2007

• 2nd revert: 04:51, 11 October 2007
• 3rd revert: 05:05, 11 October 2007
• 4th revert: 05:11, 11 October 2007

A new section was started by me, and supported by others, using first one source then two others with several citations. The sources depict a spoiled jerk, at least those we've found so far. Though

• • Well, looks like we've finally tried the dispute resolution method, as an RfC has been initiated for the article. Can we just stick with this and avoid the messy subject of blocks altogether? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 12 hours. JoshuaZ 15:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Halibutt reported by User:M.K (Result: Old violation, no reason to block)

• Three-revert rule violation on Karolina Proniewska
  ([[Special:EditPage/Karolina Proniewska

|edit]] | [[Talk:Karolina Proniewska |talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/Karolina Proniewska |history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/Karolina Proniewska |protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/Karolina Proniewska |delete]] | links | watch | logs | views). Halibutt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [12]

• 1st revert: 2007-10-09T06:52:08 (among other restored and OR claim it is to be noted that in some modern Lithuanian works her name is Lithuanized as Pranauskaite as in;)
• 2nd revert: 2007-10-09T08:44:48 (among other restored and OR claim it is to be noted that in some modern Lithuanian works her name is Lithuanized as Pranauskaite as in;)
• 3rd revert: 2007-10-09T09:43:57 (restored it is to be noted that in some modern Lithuanian works her name is Lithuanized as Praniauskaitė; as in:)
• 4th revert: 2007-10-09T11:09:13 (it is to be noted that in some modern Lithuanian works her name is Lithuanized as Praniauskaitė; as in: reverted link to
  Samogitian noble family
  as well.)

User:Halibutt was blocked for 3RR violation several times already, so contributor is familiar with policy. Currently he conducted edit warring on the same article for several days with completely unacceptable edit summaries (please not he also accused established editor of vandalism as well). And 3RR policy states: An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. M.K. 14:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I brought this case again as it originally was not solved and particular contributor seem to start wage reverts again [13]. M.K. 15:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have blocked the user for 24 hours per
  WP:3RR. Nishkid64 (talk
  ) 16:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: User seized editing the article 24 hours ago. Uninvolved editor should simply warn him to stop revert warring. No point to block him to stop the war as war have already ended as the user stopped editing. A stern warning to stay away from an article for, say, another 24 hours and that he may be blocked if he resumes edit warring would have been sufficient IMO. Users with a long record of contributions tend to be more aggravated with blocks and in general, blocks should be avoided if things can be accomplished with other means. --Irpen 16:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Nishkid, thanks you for unblocking the user. This incident is a fresh illustration that the poor maintenance of the board makes it virtually useless. :( . --Irpen 17:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Sceptre reported by User:Grande13 (Result: Page protected)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

List of Family Guy episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Grande13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: October 11 2007
• 2nd revert: 2:10 October 11 2007
• 3rd revert: 11:42 October 11 2007
• 4th revert: 14:26 October 11 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.

• Diff of 3RR warning: Unneeded; user already filed a 3RR report against me (see above)

User insists on adding doing things the way they perceive is correct, which is under discussion.Grande13 14:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Three reverts, not four. #1 was an accidental revert to the wrong diff. Also improperly formatted report. Will ^(talk) 19:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, you're not even using reliable sources in your edits, so you don't have any case other to grind an axe.

WP:V is non-negotionable. Will ^(talk

) 19:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

ok, fine, even ignoring one of those is still a 3RR violation.Grande13 19:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts. Will ^(talk) 19:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

copyright database is a reliable source, as well as there have been numerous reverts in the past few days on your part. Many more than 3. Grande13 19:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm pot. You're rather black for a kettle. Will ^(talk) 19:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Page protected. Don't edit war. --Haemo 19:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:TDC (Result:No violation)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Winter Soldier Investigation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 16:15, February 7, 2007

• 1st revert: 06:02, October 11, 2007
• 2nd revert: 11:08, October 11, 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:34, October 11, 2007
• 4th revert: 14:38, October 11, 2007

User has a long history of edit warring on this and several other articles, including sanctions on the very article from Arbcom. Contimues to remove the key adjective “allegations” from the introduction and in various other parts of the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• There are only three reverts here; it is stretching things too far to call the first edit a revert to a version back in February. The user's Arbitration Committee-imposed probation has expired. I will be cautioning him to cool down but he has not violated the three revert rule. Sam Blacketer 20:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• The above evaluation of the situation by
  WP:3RR, and isn't continuing to revert. Just setting the record straight before this report is archived. Xenophrenic
  22:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Grande13 reported by User:Sceptre (Result:Page protected)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

List of Family Guy episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Grande13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 04:40 11 October 2007

• 1st revert: 17:27 11 October 2007 (while an IP, user contribs confirm a strong link to Grande)
• 2nd revert: 20:25 11 October 2007
• 3rd revert: 20:48 11 October 2007
• 4th revert: 20:57 11 October 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.

• Diff of 3RR warning: Unneeded - see above.

Reverting immediately after release of 3RR block on same article. Will ^(talk) 20:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

the last one isnt a revert. So i do not have more than 3. Grande13 20:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

ha, and i just noticed the first one isn't me. If you look over the history of the page there are other members, some with usernames, and some with IP that have reverted your edits as well. I dont have access to a computer from 8am to 2pm central time anyways. Nice try though. Grande13 20:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:DUCK applies (and if you are at school 8am to 2am, I see no reason why you can't use a computer at lunchtime). Will ^(talk

) 20:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

who said I was at school? I work at for Board of Trade and our computers dont have access to the internet for legal reasons. So 2 of those still arent valid. I like how you keep making assumptions though. Grande13 20:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Still, there's plenty of reasons how you can get on the internet. Mobile phones? Internet cafes? Will ^(talk) 20:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess if you really go out of your way it can be done...but then anyone else can do that as well. There is no way it can or should be assumed that was me. Heck, it could have even been you doing that action attempting to get me 3RR. Grande13 20:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not that pathetic. Will ^(talk) 20:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

either im I. Im just saying it could have easily been you or anyone else compared to me. And im saying its even more unlikely it was me as i was stuck at a desk all day. Grande13 20:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Stale report; see above for the same revert war as seen from the other side. Sam Blacketer 12:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

unnamed user from 83.42.211.143reported by

User:harrypotter

(Result: page protected)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Precarity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 83.42.211.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:00 11 October

• Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Precarity&oldid=163698106 00:38, 11 October 2007]

• 1st revert: 00:38, 11 October 2007
• 2nd revert: 07:53, 11 October 2007
• 3rd revert: 09:59, 11 October 2007

This IP Address is in Barcelona, as is 88.6.171.168. Bearing in mind that that the user at this address also has only made changes on the precarity and related pages, I regard it as extremely likely that the same fingers are behind the keyboard.

• Diff of 3RR warning: 04:31, 5 October 2007

There has been a certain disagreement about this page going on for a while. Despite refrenced sourcesas to Catholic origins of the term, material has been repeteatedly removed. Those removing the material appear to have little other engagement with wikipedia. Perhaps page protection which prevents un-logged in people from making edits might help here?

• I have semi-protected the page. It seems this user is under a dynamic IP, and a block would not be that helpful. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Isarig reported by User:RolandR (Result:Stale)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Jajah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Isarig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 15:47, 11 October 2007
• 2nd revert: 18:19, 11 October 2007

NB This user is on mentorship, with a strict 1RR rule, as a result of a discussion on the former Community Sanctions Noticeboard [14]. He has twice added the same spam link -- on one occasion, accepting that it is spam, and defending his action [15]RolandR 20:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This claim is false, as is evidenced by the lack of a "previous version reverted to" link. The second "revert" is nothing of the sort, and does not introduce the same link - it is a complete rewrite of the section, adding new information and basing it on 2 new, mainstream sources, thus addressing whatever issues existed with the original text. RolndR has been extensively edit warring on this article (and blocked for it) , and is now trying to wikilawyer his way into winning a content dispute. Isarig 23:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is trying to wikilawyer, it is Isarig, who claims that twice reverting my removal of a spam link is "a complete rewrite". Isarig, who is no longer allowed to edit Middle East articles, appears to be stalking me to other articles in order to provoke edit wars there.RolandR 23:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

False claim here. Those two edits are nowhere near the same. Advise submitter to rethink his submission. Kyaa the Catlord 00:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I twice removed a spam link; Isarig twice replaced it. The

3RR rule states quite clearly "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time". RolandR

00:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You twice removed a link to TechCrunch, which you claim is a spam link, but I did not replace it twice. Rather, the 2nd time, I rewrote the whole paragraph, focusing it on the controversy rather than the product features, and used 3 mainstream sources, Forbes and PC World, for it. Please stop trying to gain the upper hand in your personal crusade against jajah by resorting to technicalities and wikilawyering of the worst kind. Isarig 00:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time". RolandR 01:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Is the community sanction noticeboard enforceable? Stifle (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This report is now stale but I think that users suspected of reverting in violation of mentorship, probation, parole, or revert limitation imposed on them specifically should not be reported here; try the
    Administrators' Noticeboard instead. Sam Blacketer
    12:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed. I don't think this is the right place for that. Stifle (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

86.148.176.95 reported by Canada Jack (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Carl_Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 86.148.176.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 20:29, 11 October 2007

• 1st revert: 19:23, 11 October 2007
• 2nd revert: 20:14, 11 October 2007
• 3rd revert: 20:17, 11 October 2007
• 4th revert: 20:29, 11 October 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.

• Diff of 3RR warning: 20:26, 11 October 2007

This person has been inserting a line into a biography about Carl Lewis from various IP addresses since about October 7th. Since the insertion (drug allegations) was covered later in the article and the issue, once reported, was not followed up, it was my judgement and this was agreed upon by at least on other member that it did not warrant mention in the intro. I invited this person to discuss the rationale for this change as this had been the consensus in the article to that point. To this time, these requests have been ignored. A check on the person's contributions on the latest IP reveals he or she seems bent on inserting the Lewis drug allegations where warranted - on Ben Johnson's page, on the 1988 Olympic final page, etc.

Today, seeing that we had reverted to the original intro, he or she re-inserted the same text yet again, and has re-inserted despite my warning on the talk page that I will move to block or otherwise make this cease, and my final warning on my last revert that this was the final warning and I will act to block. Within three minutes, the person made the change and his still not supplied a rationale for their edits nor engaged me or anyone else I am aware of in discussion.Canada Jack 20:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll endorse this. This same IP has been visiting various sprinting athletes pages adding poorly sourced or unsourced information regarding 'tarnished' images due to drug use. I've warned the user RE:3RR and reverted changes as per

WP:BLP.--Yankees76

22:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• The user was blocked by
  vandalism. Nishkid64 (talk
  ) 04:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Paki.tv reported by User:Prester John (Result: no action taken)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

• 1st revert: 16:39 Oct 11
• 2nd revert: 20:02 Oct 11
• 3rd revert: 20:36 Oct 11
• 4th revert: 20:52 Oct 11

• Diff of 3RR warning: 3RR warning

User:Paki.tv is having a busy afternoon POV pushing on multiple articles with the intent of disparaging Australians. Notice the first revert. He totally reverses the meaning of the paragraph without adding any citation. After discussion on the talkpage he continues this for the another two reverts. After being warned, (and his subsequent acknowledgement), he reverts for the fourth time with his misrepresentation of a reference. He seems to be arguing that a speech by the Prime Minister complaining about the "chattering classes" is evidence of the claim he is making. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 04:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not a comment on the validity of the edits, nor am I suggesting it is not edit warring, but it seems to me that the first diff provided above by Prester John was not a revert but the initial change. Prester John and paki.tv have then reverted each other 3 times each. I.e., both seem to be sitting on 3RR with neither technically making a 4th revert. Up to the admins - i agree it is edit warring even if not a technical 3RR violation by either - my apologies to all if I am wrong. --Merbabu 04:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The speech in question demonstrates the ongoing problem that Australia has with its

Invasion Day and the First Fleet and it is he who is deleting without discussion. Paki.tv —Preceding signed but undated

comment was added at 04:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• The user has not yet violated
  WP:3RR because there are not yet four reverts within 24 hours nor is there any severely disruptive behavior. If edit warring continues, I will either block any 3RR violators or protect the page. Nishkid64 (talk
  ) 04:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the revert wars have just resumed, despite the warning from 'Nishkid64' (above). It's not 3RR, but the same editors reverting each others' content are causing problems around Wikipedia. I fear that these edit warriors will cause the page to be locked, like they have just done on the

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Paki.tv_reported_by_User:Prester_John_.28Result:_24h_-_Blocked.29, which makes it 3 articles these editors are waring on. It's becoming very disruptive. Regards, --Lester

04:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:A Link to the Past reported by User:Sesshomaru (Result:1 week)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

• Previous version reverted to: 05:01, 12 October 2007 (I'm not sure what this is asking but I hope I did it right)

• 1st revert: 02:40, 11 October 2007
• 2nd revert: 15:03, 11 October 2007
• 3rd revert: 23:04, 11 October 2007
• 4th revert: 04:54, 12 October 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 3RR warning

User has been blocked repeatedly for doing things like these in the past. He refuses to stop warring and leaves almost incivil comments in his edit summaries. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Clear case and one week block in line with previous escalating blocks. Removing warnings not to edit war on the grounds that the warnings constitute vandalism is not acceptable. Sam Blacketer 08:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:69.143.232.238 reported by User:ForeignerFromTheEast (Result:48 hours)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Radoviš (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.143.232.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 19:51, 10 October 2007
• 1st revert: 05:49, 11 October 2007
• 2nd revert: 06:05, 11 October 2007
• 3rd revert: 23:07, 11 October 2007
• 4th revert: 05:14, 12 October 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 23:21, 11 October 2007

The anon user has been repeatedly inserting various redirects/red links which do not link to the article in question (Samuil of Bulgaria). Has continued to do the same on other articles. ForeignerFromTheEast 06:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Was warned and continued reverting; insulting and vaguely nationalistic edit summaries; the content of the revert being over whether to change a direct link into a link to a redirected page. I have blocked 69.143.232.238 for 48 hours. Sam Blacketer 10:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:HumayunMirzajr reported by User:Ragib (Result: no action taken)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Mir Jafar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). HumayunMirzajr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 08:33, 7 October 2007

• 1st revert: 13:43, 11 October 2007
• 2nd revert: 02:27, 12 October 2007
• 3rd revert: 02:31, 12 October 2007
• 4th revert: 02:32, 12 October 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.

• The user has been present since February 2007, so this is not a new user.

The user keeps removing referenced information from the article Mir Jafar, without any explanation. User has been requested to refrain from doing this. User continues to remove the referenced information despite warnings. Ragib 08:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have fully protected the page. HumayunMirzajr did not make any reverts after your warning (he reverted 17 seconds after your warning), so I'll assume that was the first time he heard about 3RR. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I have unprotected the page. It seems the two users are now in discussion. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Geoeg reported by User:dicklyon (Result: Both blocked for 6 hours)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Petr Vaníček (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Geoeg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 21:08, 10 October 2007

• 1st revert: 07:12, 9:16, 11 October 2007
• 2nd revert: 14:54, 11 October 2007
• 3rd revert: 16:13, 11 October 2007
• 4th revert: 16:49, 11 October 2007
• 5th revert: 08:26, 12 October 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 20:42, 11 October 2007

Oops, I just noticed that my warning was respect to his reverts on the other article,

WP:OWNership and pushing the POV that one person should get more credit than others, per his COI. He has more than 5 UNDOs of my edits in 24 hours, including this one and this one after the warning, even as I attempted various ways to build on his latest but move toward a more neutral presentation. Dicklyon

18:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, at least you're honest. 6 hours each as you've both violated the 3RR. Stifle (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Jester7777 reported by Opinoso - Result: Protected

Jester7777, once again, reverted over 3 times. I already denunced him for 4 times revertion in 4 October 2007, but he was not blocked, neither an administrator talked to him. Today, he did the same vandalism in the article Nelly Furtado.

• 1st revert: 00:24, 12 October 2007
• 2nd revert: 16:32, 12 October 2007
• 3rd revert: 16:37 12 October 2007
• 4th revert: 16:57, 12 October 2007

Opinoso 18:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Page protected by User:Yamla. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't he blocked and not even receved anything at his talk page? This is the second time he does this kind of vandalism.Opinoso 21:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Because blocking for 3RR violations is to prevent sterile edit wars, not for punishment. The edit war is prevented by the protection, so there is no reason to block. I will warn Jester7777 about 3RR; there's nothing stopping you from doing so either. Stifle (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:TDC (Result:Under investigation)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Winter Soldier Investigation‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: Complicated, see below

• 1st revert: 11:08, October 11, 2007 Removal of allegations and allegedly that was added in prior version.

• 2nd revert: 14:34, October 11, 2007

• 3rd revert: 18:34, October 11, 2007 Reverted “Most media reviews have regarded the film highly, as a "powerful" and "emotional" record of the era.” this edit, back to previous text [16]
• 4th revert: 13:27, October 12, 2007 removal of “When the event began, Lane returned to participate in the media event, acting as its "general council” added in this edit

Although, this might be a bit difficult to follow, Xenophrenic has managed to remove, in one way or another, every contribution made to the article over the past 48 hours, and in the process reverted in whole or part, the contributions of other editors. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please see similar request 11 entries above this one. The diffs above do not show a violation of
  WP:3RR. As advised by Sam Blacketer on this same issue, "It is perfectly good editing practice to ask politely what they meant and to revert if you do not receive a reply," which is what I did. TDC is misrepresenting the situation, edit warring, misrepresenting his edits in Edit Summaries, and now appears to be attempting to get blocks issued instead of collaborating on article improvement. Xenophrenic
  20:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Since I made the report yesterday, you have made several more edits, and yes, according to the links posted above, you have violated 3RR, but someone elese will make that final determination. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Postdoc reported by User:wbfergus (Result: blocked 24 hours )

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Korean War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Postdoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 13:20, October 12, 2007 (I think I'm reporting this correctly)

• 1st revert: 11:41, October 12, 2007
• 2nd revert: 12:48, October 12, 2007
• 3rd revert: 13:04, October 12, 2007
• 4th revert: 13:20, October 12, 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.

• Diff of 3RR warning: 12:23, October 12, 2007

A short explanation of the incident. Postdoc seems to have a grudge against HanzoHatorri for some reason, at least that's what i get from his edit comment. The edit he is reverting doesn't even appear to be from Hanzo, but I think John Smith's. wbfergus ^Talk 20:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Users: Xxxaintlovegrand, Xxxaintlovegrandxxx, HDS, A7X 6661 18V, 70.101.166.119, reported by IP4240207xx 21:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC) (Result: indef block for sockpuppetry)

• Edit War
  violations over birth year on:

Xxxaintlovegrand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

HDS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

70.101.166.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A7X 6661 18V (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

James Stephen Hart action = history

1. (cur) (last) 21:29, 12 October 2007 A7X 6661 18V (Talk | contribs) (1,967 bytes) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 21:20, 12 October 2007 Xxxaintlovegrand (Talk | contribs) (1,967 bytes) (Undid revision 164089463 by HDS (talk)) (undo)
3. (cur) (last) 17:38, 12 October 2007 HDS (Talk | contribs) (1,967 bytes) (Undid revision 163961819 by Xxxaintlovegrand (talk)) (undo)
4. (cur) (last) 02:45, 12 October 2007 Xxxaintlovegrand (Talk | contribs) (1,967 bytes) (undo)
5. (cur) (last) 01:26, 12 October 2007 70.101.166.119 (Talk) (1,967 bytes) (undo)
6. (cur) (last) 22:27, 10 October 2007 Xxxaintlovegrand (Talk | contribs) (1,967 bytes) (undo)
7. (cur) (last) 01:36, 5 October 2007 Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Talk | contribs) m (1,968 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Xxxaintlovegrand. using TW) (undo)
8. (cur) (last) 01:33, 5 October 2007 Xxxaintlovegrand (Talk | contribs) (1,968 bytes) (undo)
9. (cur) (last) 01:33, 4 October 2007 HDS (Talk | contribs) (1,968 bytes) (Undid revision 162134078 by Xxxaintlovegrand (talk)) (undo)
10. (cur) (last) 00:13, 4 October 2007 Xxxaintlovegrand (Talk | contribs) (1,968 bytes) (undo)
11. (cur) (last) 16:38, 3 October 2007 Lacaid (Talk | contribs) (1,968 bytes) (Removing vandalism) (undo)
12. (cur) (last) 23:12, 2 October 2007 Xxxaintlovegrand (Talk | contribs) (1,968 bytes) (undo)

Please lock article until BIRTH YEAR can be resolved.

Xxxaintlovegrand blocked 1 week for vandalism and 3RR. This appears to be a vandal-only account. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

In addition, there seems to be some SOCKPUPPETRY going on:

• Xxxaintlovegrandxxx (talk · contribs)
• Xxxaintlovegrand (talk · contribs)

Ah...didn't realize the socks were out...both will now get indef'ed. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Cosc reported by User:DAJF (Result: 48 hours)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Tokyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cosc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 01:36, 13 October 2007

• 1st revert: 02:07, 13 October 2007
• 2nd revert: 02:25, 13 October 2007
• 3rd revert: 04:34, 13 October 2007

The user stopped at 3 edits on this occasion, and therefore has not technically broken the 3 revert rule, but this is exactly the same edit/reversion pattern which has been continuing since September and for which the user received a 24-hour block on

• 3RR isn't a right, and this guy was blocked on Oct 7th. 48hrs for gaming as well as potential vio of copyright. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Jedi Master MIK reported by User:Arrow740 (Result: Both blocked 12h)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Satanic Verses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jedi Master MIK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

In this diff: 10:10, 29 July 2007, I added the sourced "Rubin explains that the name of Ibn 'Abbas must have been part of the original isnad, and that his name was removed so that the incident could be deprived of its sahih isnad and discredited.^[1]" He removed it four times:

• 1st revert: 18:06, 11 October 2007
• 2nd revert: 16:47, 12 October 2007
• 3rd revert: 19:57, 12 October 2007
• 4th revert: 00:35, 13 October 2007
• 5th revert: 00:45, 13 October 2007

I included the first revert for the whole history. Note how patently disruptive this editing is. He is removing sourced, highly reliable material simply because he doesn't like it, and has made up an excuse. Other, more experienced users

• Both participants in this edit war are blocked for 12 h. Sandstein 15:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Paki.tv reported by User:Prester John (Result: 24h - Blocked)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Penal transportation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Paki.tv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 18:41 Oct12

All diffs are the same;

• 1st revert: 18:41 Oct12
• 2nd revert: 19:04 Oct 12
• 3rd revert: 19:11 Oct 12
• 4th revert: 19:20 Oct 12

• Diff of 3RR warning: 3RR warning

It's not evident that paki.tv breached 3RR. Please explain if I am wrong, but from what I can see, his "1st revert" listed above is merely adding new material, after which Prester John removed 3 times in response to paki.tv's 3 reverts of Presters Removal. But, this is only 3 reverts by each of the two parties. This is exactly the same scenario as yesterday where PJ has reported paki.tv. here. If this is a block for edit warring, then the block should apply to both as they both have now three reverts. --Merbabu 07:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with

Pacific solution article, resulting in that article being blocked for all editors. If a complainant asks for another editor to be blocked for an offense he is himself committing, shouldn't the complainant be treated equally and also be blocked?--Lester

03:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Prester John's previous ANi report may also be of interest: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive299#Persistent_disruptive_editing_of_David_Hicks_by_User:Prester_John. Regards, Lester 04:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Harry Mudd reported by User:Diego (Result:48 hours)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

James Randi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Harry Mudd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 16:24, 12 October 2007

16:24, 12 October 2007

• 1st revert: 17:44, 12 October 2007
• 2nd revert: 12:25, 13 October 2007
• 3rd revert: 13:38, 13 October 2007
• 4th revert: 15:27, 13 October 2007

• User is not new and was warned on the talk page that he has no support for his edits (neither from other editors nor from Wikipedia policies and guidelines). (see Talk:James Randi#Removed link to Randi's forums)
• The edit summaries reverting his edits make it clear that they are not appropriate (see History
• User:Harry Mudd's edit summaries also clearly indicate that he does not care that he is editing against the consensus on the talk page.
• This user claims (in his edit summaries) to be removing a "link", but is actually deleting a non-contentious statement and the reference supporting that statement. This has been pointed out to him on the talk page and he has responded. User:Harry Mudd has not actually challenged the factual accuracy of the statement he is removing, he is admittedly trying to prove a
  WP:POINT (see Talk:James Randi#Removed information in the million dollar challenge. Again, this is not a content dispute. It is simply disruptive editing to prove a point. He has been uncivil, engaged in personal attacks, and refused to acknowledge the viewpoint of several other editors. If he makes any more edits before this is acted upon, please lock article at 16:24, 12 October 2007. Thank you. — DIEGO ^talk
  16:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hours by Maxim. Sam Blacketer 21:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Geoeg reported by User:dicklyon (Result:48 hours)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Petr Vaníček (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Geoeg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 08:26, 12 October 2007

• 1st revert: 19:49, 12 October 2007
• 2nd revert: 05:34, 13 October 2007
• 3rd revert: 05:36, 13 October 2007
• 4th revert: 10:18, 13 October 2007
• 5th revert: 10:18, 14:19, 13 October 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 13:01, 13 October 2007

We were both blocked 6 hours for this yesterday; this time I stopped short of violation, and warned him to do the same. But he kept on. As an editor with clear COI as documented on Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User_Geoeg, he should not be removing COI and NOTE tags. Dicklyon 22:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Coming straight off a block and reverting is outstandingly bad conduct. 48 hours. Dicklyon is not to be blocked for his moderation; I would caution him not to readd the tags, as other editors can make that call. Sam Blacketer 22:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Ned Scott reported by User:86.29.39.5 (Result:24 hours for anon )

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ned Scott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 22:46, 13 October 2007

• 1st revert: 22:57, 13 October 2007
• 2nd revert: 23:13, 13 October 2007
• 3rd revert: 23:26, 13 October 2007
• 4th revert: 23:31, 13 October 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.

• Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

Ned keeps removing my good faith comment, branding me as a troll. He's knowingly broken the 3RR rule, something he's very familiar with. 86.29.39.5 23:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You've been trolling on AN/I and baiting Scott. Please reconsider this, and feel free to return tomorrow to constructive editing. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Derek.cashman reported by User:Neutralhomer (Result: No block)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Flagstaff, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Derek.cashman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 01:17, 8 October 2007

• 1st revert: 02:55, 13 October 2007
• 2nd revert: 14:56, 13 October 2007
• 3rd revert: 15:58, 13 October 2007
• 4th revert: 19:54, 13 October 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.

• Diff of 3RR warning: 03:30, 13 October 2007 - This 3RR warning was for Richmond, Virginia, but the user should have gotten the message either way.

The user continues to remove fields (not being used) in City Infoboxes, demanding they be removed, removing them to the point of vandalism, violating

The first revert is a stretch. Bots aren't actually people; I don't believe a human editing the mechanical changes by a bot ought to be considered reverting. -- tariqabjotu 02:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Princefigs reported by User:Kesac (Result:24 hours)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on