Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive60

User:Perspicacite

(Result:24 hours for Perspicacite)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

• Previous version reverted to: 16:40 7 November

• 1st revert: 03:31 8 November
• 2nd revert: 07:56 8 November
• 3rd revert: 10:00 8 November
• 4th revert: 10:09 8 November

• Diff of 3RR warning: 10:06 8 November

Alice.S followed me from a dispute on

In no case did I revert Perspicacite.

In each case I made constructive and incremental edits, saving the material introduced by Perspicacite and other editors - as these diferentials prove:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rhodesia&diff=170057113&oldid=170026911

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rhodesia&diff=170068739&oldid=170057113

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rhodesia&diff=170069550&oldid=170068739

I never reverted to a version of the article previously edited by me but, by contrast, and as Perspicacite well knows (since he has self reverted himself after the 4th simple revert), he has breached 3RR today!

Here are the relevant diffs as pointed out on his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Perspicacite&oldid=170071315

(Perspicacite routinely and immediately removes any comments or warnings he does not like from his talk page)

She is, again, lying. I self-reverted my last edit because I began editing after she made her fourth reversion, which I had not realized. The edit therefore became pointless because she had again restored the anon's vandalism.

Perspicacite

10:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In summary, I believe that

• Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.
• Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
• If I am not sure whether an edit is appropriate, I discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
• If you feel that an edit is unsatisfactory, you should strive to improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.
  Alice.S
  10:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• • No violation.
    Perspicacite for 24 hours for tendentious editing and making querulous complaints. Sam Blacketer
    14:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Legacy7 a.k.a. User:70.46.67.98 reported by User:LaMenta3 (Result: No proven violation)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

• Previous version reverted to: 22:57, 4 November 2007

• 1st revert: 23:26, 7 November 2007
• 2nd revert: 23:41, 7 November 2007
• 3rd revert: 11:54, 8 November 2007
• 4th revert: 13:16, 8 November 2007
• 5th revert: 15:32, 8 November 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: 15:11, 8 November 2007 (Creation of talk page)

This user has been reverting both logged in and not logged in on

Three reverts by a user and two by an IP. There has to be four or more reverts by the same user to constitute a violation as we do not have any proof that the IP and the user are the same person. However, you can list this at WP:RFCU. Stifle (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Stlemur

(Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

• Previous version reverted to: 02:07, 9 November 2007

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

• 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: [6]

The user is pushing a dubious statement about the ethnic background of the Greek army and misrepresenting a source to do so. Acknowledges they're edit warring, refuses to take a break.

Has violated 3RR directly with this account, and also seems to be claiming edits made by User:209.215.160.115 and User:209.215.160.106. User account and IPs blocked for 24 hours (only other recents anon edits from the IPs have been related to this edit war). TigerShark 23:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:146.96.22.175 reported by User:72.79.57.24 (Result: 31h)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Goguryeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 146.96.22.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 2007-11-08T20:21:09

• 1st revert: 2007-11-08T20:27:10
• 2nd revert: 2007-11-08T21:01:56
• 3rd revert: 2007-11-08T21:02:56
• 4th revert: 2007-11-08T21:20:43

The anon not only violates the 3RR rule but also vandalizes this article with deleting anything related to Korea and putting irrelevant information into it. He keeps continuing his vandalism on Gogurye related articles. Special:Contributions/146.96.22.175, [7] [8] [9] [10] Please make him stop doing the disruptive behaviors. 72.79.57.24 02:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Academic Challenger already got him. east.718 at 04:36, 11/9/2007

User:B9 hummingbird hovering reported by User:Axlq (Result:24 hours)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

• Previous version reverted to: [11]

• 1st revert: 23:09 2007-11-08
• 2nd revert: 03:53 2007-11-09
• WP:POINT violation (retaliatory massive deletion of content): 04:42 2007-11-09
• 3rd revert: 05:00 2007-11-09
• 4th revert: 05:33 2007-11-09 including re-deletion of content

• Diff of 3RR warning: 05:28 2007-11-08

User insists on adding dubious terminology (apparently cited in one book but unverifiable in any search) to describe the subject of the article. The dispute between two users attracted a 3rd opinion, who agreed that the term doesn't belong. In retaliation, user stated on talk page that he would delete all unsourced statements in the article (including non-controversial statements relevant to the topic). Axlq 05:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Clear violation and some unhelpful talk page comments. This is his first block although he has some warnings for other infractions on editing behaviour. I have blocked for 24 hours. Sam Blacketer 20:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Gatoclass reported by User:Ledenierhomme (Result:No violation)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Genocides_in_history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gatoclass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Fri Nov 9 13:56:30 2007

• Previous version reverted to: 3:55, 9 November 2007 VersionTime

• 1st revert: [12]
• 2nd revert: [13]
• 3rd revert: [14]

The user has also now inserted a POV template, despite the sources quoted being perfectly reliable according to the standards set out in the article (the main source is published by Cambridge University Press). Clear POV agenda here. All reverts/undos within a period of less than 2 hours. - Ledenierhomme 14:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• No violation as Gatoclass has at most three reverts (and that is questionable). It seems that Ledenierhomme is the user who is most going against consensus on this article and more talk page discussion of his additions (and a third party confirmation of the sources) would be a very good idea. Sam Blacketer 20:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

66.139.221.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reported by User:GreenJoe (result: 8 hours)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

• Previous version reverted to: 12:45, 9 November 2007 VersionTime

• 1st revert: [15]
• 2nd revert: [16]
• 3rd revert: [17]
• 4th revert: [18]

• 3RR warnings diff: [19]

He barely starts to discuss after he is twice warned about 3RR, and he still reverted. J 16:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• I explained the edits, and you keep reverting it to a version that has the same information twice (once in the first paragraph, once in the trivia section), and includes irrelevant links and unclear and odd claims ("Drinkwater means something in Dutch"). GreenJoe has been reverting with no explanation and nothing on the discussion page, I explained each of my edits individually and I think they are valid. 66.139.221.106 16:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That doesn't give you license to keep making them and breaking the rules. J 17:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • What exactly gives someone license to help fix an article? Have you actually read the version you are reverting to? "The article could be improved by integrating relevant items and removing inappropriate ones.". I integrated a relevant item into the first paragraph, and I removed some really pointless bits of trivia. BTW, why are you so angry? You posted on my talk page that I will be blocked from posting soon, do you have that power or is that just wishful thinking? 66.139.221.106 17:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• First offence, 8 hours. Stifle (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Ledenierhomme reported by User:Gatoclass (Result: 59 hours)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Genocides in history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ledenierhomme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 17:43, 7 November 2007 (See "United States of America" and "Cromwell in Ireland" sections, both of which were added by Ledenierhomme to make a
  WP:POINT
  before his last block two days ago and which sections he restored as soon as he returned to the page today).

(NOTE: First two reversions are essentially a continuation of the edit war Ledenierhomme was blocked for two days ago, which he immediately resumed again upon returning to the article - see his previous 3RR entry on this page above).

• 1st revert: 07:28, 9 November 2007
• 2nd revert: 07:29, 9 November 2007
• 3rd revert: 08:33, 9 November 2007
• 4th revert: 13:24, 9 November 2007
• 5th revert:13:44, 9 November 2007
• 6th revert:13:55, 9 November 2007

(Note re the last two edits that my objections regarding the repeated insertion of these sections were not only on the basis of lack of

• Diff of 3RR warning: 17:04, 7 November 2007

VIOLATION SUMMARY:

After being blocked for 31 hours for "severe edit warring" only two days ago, Ledenierhomme returned to the page today and immediately reinserted the same two sections he had previously been blocked for edit warring over, without any attempt to first establish consensus. He then proceeded to edit war over these sections again, as well as edit warring once again with User Philip Baird Shearer.

While I was offering Ledenierhomme an olive branch on the talk page of the article, it transpires that he has been over here falsely accusing me of edit warring at the same time. Ledenierhomme is, I'm afraid, routinely supercilious and condescending to other editors, as his edit summaries and comments on the article talk page demonstrate. The only change of attitude his last block appears to have encouraged is a desire to get even, as his false 3RR report above demonstrates. His last comment on the talk page indicates a resolve to continue with his disruptive campaign of

• The first two are just the one revert, but that's still five. Coming straight off a 3RR block into another revert war is exceptionally bad form and Ledenierhomme is getting a 59-hour block. I'm also going to look into other users' behaviour on this article. Stifle (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User:IntelligentVoter reported by User:Elonka (Result:48 hours)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Frank Lasee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). IntelligentVoter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 17:48, November 9, 2007

• 1st revert: 17:48, November 9, 2007
• 2nd revert: 19:02, November 9, 2007
• 3rd revert: 19:16, November 9, 2007
• 4th revert: 19:30, November 9, 2007
• 5th revert: 19:39, November 9, 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 19:30, November 9, 2007

User is edit-warring to insert poorly-sourced negative information into the biography of a living person, Frank Lasee. Repeated warnings have not been effective in stopping the behavior. Elonka 19:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed, 3RR and a BLP violation. I have blocked for 48 hours. Sam Blacketer 20:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Well, I was going to come to the same conclusion on the 3RR, although it's debatable whether it contravenes BLP. Stifle (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This one falls into the 'poorly sourced' category; the source is an opinion column which reports the claim third hand: "The judge noted court officials witnessed Lasee punching his lawyer while in court". In other words, it was the court officials who claimed to see it; they told the Judge, the Judge said something about it, and Susan Lampert Smith happened to take a note of what the Judge said. She also noted Lasee's denial and insistence that all he had done was poke his lawyer to get his attention, which IntelligentVoter did not include. Sam Blacketer 20:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed, and thanks for taking a look. BTW, it appears that IntelligentVoter was a sockpuppet of MoreGunsInSchools (talk · contribs). The block has been increased to indefinite by SQL (talk · contribs). I agree with the analysis. --Elonka 02:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Charles

(Result: Blocked, 31 hours each)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Princess Marie of Hanover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). UpDown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 14:12, November 9, 2007

• 1st revert: 15:04, November 9, 2007
• 2nd revert: 15:18, November 9, 2007
• 3rd revert: 15:42, November 9, 2007
• 4th revert: 15:44, November 9, 2007

The user UpDown reverted my reinstatement of the Afd notice on the basis of a close when all parties ignored this article and only payed attention to the main article nominated. Indeed, no one even referenced it. Given that I am new at Afd, I thought this was an acceptable process and only desired to get the attention of someone more experienced, rather than someone who harrassed me on my talk page after I made it clear that I did not want to speak with him, and someone who I feel took it upon himself to make these changes according to his own POV. I redirected the article on the previous advice of an administrator and it was reverted by this user. Charles 20:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The revert are about different things mind. I have reported Charles Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for his attitude towards me today. Anyway, one AfD, one decision which could apply to article concerned. The user should have waited until an admin came in. I was removing a closed AfD, thats policy! The user then decided to ignore the AfD, and merge without any discussion. --UpDown 20:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Note, my understanding is that the Afd was closed incorrectly and I was going on my instinct as to what to do as I was unsure of any process for dealing with it. I posted on the closing user's talk page about the matter and was "greeted" with UD's pushy attitude among his reverts and on my talk page. Charles 21:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been an integral part of this climax. If there are questions, please do not hesitate. Regards, Rudget _zŋ 20:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Anthøny

21:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This needs closer examination.

I agree. Although I would not like to see to tend to one side over another, it does seem that both contributed evenly to the constant reverts. Rudget _zŋ 21:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• I also agree and note that
  three revert rule. Sam Blacketer
  21:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• I just realised. Rudget _zŋ 22:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Lulu Margarida reported by User:Dalillama (Result: Blocked, 1 day)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Marília Pêra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lulu Margarida (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 09:19, 17 October 2007

• 1st revert: 15:46, 8 November 2007
• 2nd revert: 07:36, 9 November 2007
• 3rd revert: 13:31, 9 November 2007
• 4th revert: 14:23, 9 November 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 14:17, 9 November 2007

Recent 3RR warnings from other users: 16:01, 7 November 2007

I tried to expand a paragraph to include more information from a source she provided for a particular assertion. She first reverted without explanation ("undo"), reverted again when I asked for an explanation, reverted again when I proposed that I go and ask for a third-opinion and reverted a fourth-time after I proposed a compromise edit to stop her from feeling she had to revert. I asked her to stop, she did not. She has a bad habit of reverting and pressing undo, even when edits include spelling and formatting corrections, and of not using edit summaries or explaining reverts.

A bit of background on this user: she has been banned from the Portuguese Wikipedia under the username Filomeninha for personal attacks, and is the subject of an RfC/U here under her previous username. This user has come close to breaking or has broken the 3RR a few times before (see RfC and the recent warning above), but I did not report it because I did not want to inflame a situation which was already filled with personal attacks with a report that could be interpreted by her as being personal. Unfortunately her recent behavior has been incredibly disruptive to other users as well, which turns whatever reasons I had for not reporting her into complicity for her actions.

She has admitted to POV-pushing, so I get the feeling that she has

User:Staticz reported by User:Apostrophe (Result:article protected)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

• Previous version reverted to: 14:38, 8 November 2007

• 1st revert: 22:11, 9 November 2007
• 2nd revert: 23:44, 9 November 2007
• 3rd revert: 01:28, 10 November 2007
• 4th revert: 01:42, 10 November 2007

Edit warring over translation of name in a Japanese-only game. ' 03:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Apostrophe, I've asked a few times to discuss it out on the talk page instead of constant reverting, but nothing ever was discussed there after. I asked Urutapu to answer my question there, too, but it never happened either. I waited around a week and a half, but nothing was ever discussed, so I decided to revert it back. I figured if nothing at all happened, no one would give any answers to my questions (purposely ignoring). I believe it should still be discussed on the discussion page, instead of only editing summaries (which you've been doing). Staticz 03:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Article protected due to edit war by multiple parties. Both sides need to stop edit warring and discuss this matter. Apostrophe may not have broken 3RR, but was nonetheless edit warring. Staticz needs to stop, too. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikiblastfromthewikipast reported by User:GSlicer (Result:indef for vand)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Objections to evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wikiblastfromthewikipast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 2007-11-07T14:15:17

• 1st revert: 2007-11-10T10:55:38
• 2nd revert: 2007-11-10T12:06:17
• 3rd revert: 2007-11-10T13:41:24
• 4th revert: 2007-11-10T13:53:10
• Diff of 3RR warning: 2007-11-10T13:45:50

Basically User:Wikiblastfromthewikipast added pov text to the article (e.g., saying most scientists are secular humanists, saying objections to evolution are rejected based on "atheist" standards, "theology of evolution", etc) which was reverted several times. In addition, they've added an irrelevant essay to the talk page which I've had to revert twice now. GSlicer (t • c) 04:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• The user has been blocked indefinitely as vandalism-only account by EVula (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Not technically correct, as the above edits weren't exactly vandalism, but other edits were and do strongly suggest this account was made only to disrupt. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

User:200.26.151.10 reported by User:Atari400 (Result:24 hours )

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Catherine Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 200.26.151.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 09:37, 8 November 2007

• 1st revert: 00:37, 10 November 2007
• 2nd revert: 14:35, 10 November 2007
• 3rd revert: 15:41, 10 November 2007
• 4th revert: 15:47, 10 November 2007

An editor shows a real disregard for either discussion or 3RR. Most likely not a new editor, and using a floating IP address. Atari400 16:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)\

Blocked 24 hours. Maxim 20:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

User:75.51.184.223 reported by User:Hu12 (Result:24 hours)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

• Previous version reverted to: 16:44, 9 November 2007

• 1st revert: 00:17, 10 November 2007
• 2nd revert: 03:36, 10 November 2007
• 3rd revert: 18:47, 10 November 2007
• 4th revert: 19:26, 10 November 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 19:04, 10 November 2007

IP

Blocked for 24 hours. Maxim 20:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Frightwolf reported by User:TJ Spyke

(Result: 24 hours)

• Previous version reverted to: [20]

• 1st revert: 21:04, 9 November 2007
• 2nd revert: 21:09, 9 November 2007
• 3rd revert: 21:23 9 November 2007
• 4th revert: 22:10 9 November 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 21:29 9 November 2007

User continues adding a criticism section full of weasel words and unreliable sources (sites like YouTube, which is not allowed since YouTube does not have permission to allow WWE's copyrighted video on their site). User was engaged in this same edit war a couple of weeks ago. TJ Spyke 23:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• 24 hours. By the way, Spyke, your sig really sucks on my set up. Perhaps you could slip into something more reader friendly? Thanks.
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  23:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

User:GundamsRus reported by User:MalikCarr (Result:48 hours )

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Image:Rengo2.jpeg, Image:Zaft2.jpeg. GundamsRus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 02:31

Image:Rengo2.jpeg

• 1st revert: 05:14
• 2nd revert: 07:55
• 3rd revert: 10:37
• 4th revert: 15:19
• 5th revert: 21:25
• 6th revert: 00:25

Image:Zaft2.jpeg

• 1st revert: 05:11
• 2nd revert: 07:52
• 3rd revert: 10:38
• 4th revert: 15:20
• 5th revert: 21:24
• 6th revert: 00:26

• 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: Unnecessary, user has been warned of 3RRV multiple times before.

Sockpuppet account GundamsRus (talk · contribs) is continuing to revert a contested fair use rationale. Original editor who posted it has not explained or discussed the matter, and when reverted, has complained of vandalism (which were appropriately ignored here). GundamsRus has taken up the flag of keeping the bogus template on the image as part of an ongoing WP:POINT effort that has been discussed at length elsewhere. Trying to discuss edits with this user has proven utterly worthless before; has only ceased edit warring on article mainspace when blocked for vandalism or other 3RRV. MalikCarr 01:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

my reverts over the period of today are to reverse the vandalistic reversions of

WP:NFCC#8 - the information provided by the image are aptly covered by the text and the use of the image is in vio of copyright rule.207.69.137.42

04:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no issues to address - the template is utterly bogus, and the original editor who pasted it there hasn't engaged in any discussion otherwise - furthermore, to suggest that that image could be replaced by text (nevermind WP:INFOBOX concerns) could be more or less applied to any image. Your policy interpretation is far off, as it often is. Finally, if this recent diatribe doesn't establish you as (A) a sockpuppet, and (B) having never had a shred of good faith or civility in the first place, I don't know what does. MalikCarr 06:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

So... Your argument is - WP copyright guidelines won't let me use copyright images in the way I want to so I can ignore them and the templates designed to help articles conform to the guidelines???GundamsRus 15:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours. Such edit-warring is not tolerated. Maxim 15:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

User:The Placebo Effect reported by User:The Placebo Effect (Result: Blocked 24h, then unblocked)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Pokémon Diamond and Pearl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The Placebo Effect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 09:05, 10 November 2007

• 1st revert: 20:36, 10 November 2007
• 2nd revert: 22:54, 10 November 2007
• 3rd revert: 23:34, 10 November 2007
• 4th revert: 00:30, 11 November 2007

Even though I was reverting a user who was continuosly making edits against consensus, I violated 3RR. I can not undo the change because edits have been made since then. Because I am an Admin, I would block my self, but feel somone else should do it. The Placebo Effect 02:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I blocked Placebo for 24 hours. The editor she was warring with has been blocked for a week as this is his fourth edit-warring block in what appears to be as many weeks. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What's the point? Normally if someone reports themselves they have no intention of reverting further. It would have been better to not block her but just make her promise to stop. --Deskana (talk) 03:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That was a rather unnecessary block done in good faith. I've unblocked, as blocks are preventative, and if a user reports themselves, it's more of a promise to stop. Maxim 15:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Nanshu reported by User:coasilve (Result:no action yet)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Dongyi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nanshu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

• 1st revert: [21]
• 2nd revert: [22]
• 3rd revert: [23]
• 4th revert: [24]

This user actually has repeated this revert numerous times. The above are just the latest four. Coasilve 03:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• This isn't technically a 3RR vio, since these reverts do not fall into a twenty-four hour period. Still, we have a long-term edit war, and both Nanshu and coasilve are participating. Both users need to cease and take this to the talk page, and also stop referring to each others' edits as "vandalism" during a content dispute. I'm going to watchlist this article and will have block users if they continue to revert. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Heimstern, it's too bad if you equate me with ill-mannered guys. I've made efforts to build consensus through discussion ([25], [26]). This is how Wikipedia works, and in fact worked well as long as involved Wikipedians joined the discussion. But what should I do if opponents seemingly have no intention of building consensus through discussion and attempt to accomplish their aim by overwhelming reverts instead? Note that Coasilve is a newcomer. So he/she might be a naive performer of the be-bold policy. But judging from their behavior, the others are intentional. Of course, I'm fully aware that revert-wars are harmful. After realizing that we were in a deadlock, I sought admin helps about user behavior (not content disputes) ([27], [28]), but no progress has been made.

Anyway, Dongyi is a special case. The revision in concern contains a fair-use image. A bot works very hard to delete unused fair-use images ([29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]). I refrained from reverting until shortly before the deadlines ([35], [36], [37]), but it didn't help. The bot will come again to delete the image since Coasilve reverted yet again ([38]). I ask for permission to keep the image on an interim version. --Nanshu 09:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Snocrates reported by User:HLT

(Result: 24 hours)

• • 07:10, 11 November 2007 [39]
  • 05:54, 11 November 2007 [40]
  • 05:44, 11 November 2007 [41]
  • 22:40, 10 November 2007 [42]

• Comments: I posted a notification to the editor's :talk page as outlined here. The editor insists that her/his interpretation of a category's definition is the correct one, and that it must be applied to this article until I initiate a CFD that "overturns" the "accepted definition". However, nowhere on the category's page [[Category:German-Czech people]] or discussion page Category talk:German-Czech people is its scope defined. The editor claims that I "refuse" to start a CFD (edit summary of last revert reads "should stay pending defn in CFD, which editor refuses to start"), yet s/he has not started a CFD to establish that the category should include her/his definition her/himself.

Both users blocked for 24 hours by Mercury (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). — madman bum and angel 06:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Beh-nam reported by User:thegreyanomaly (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

• Previous version reverted to: 16:41, 11 November 2007

22:44, 11 November 2007

• 1st revert: 22:49, 11 November 2007
• 2nd revert: 23:13, 11 November 2007
• 3rd revert: 03:41, 12 November 2007
• 4th revert: 04:36, 12 November 2007

Beh-nam kept trying to implement Afghanistani/Afghani as a demonym for the people of Afghanistan. This view was slashed in discussion. He tried to claim that Afghani is a proper demonym, citing this http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/afghani?view=uk afghani

/afgaani/

 • noun (pl. afghanis) the basic monetary unit of Afghanistan, equal to 100 puls.

 — ORIGIN Pashto.

clearly this DOES NOT indicate Afghani as a proper term, though four times he cited it to try to get Afghani (and Afghanistani) ont to the page

Thegreyanomaly 04:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

For Afghanistani, I provided a source from here. For the one you mentioned above, I did not read it carefully. But I can easily provide other sources that use Afghani. I'm the one providing sources showing that these terms are also used, you're the removing them, thus it's you that's edit warring and not me. -- Behnam 05:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No such thing was agreed in the discussion. It was agreed that if a source can be provided to prove their usage then they can be used. I provided the source for Afghanistani, and for Afghani I provided it on my 4th edit, although I did not read it carefully enough, here's another one. I'm using the discussion page you're not, you're not even on the discussion page! You just came out of no where and rv'ing without any explanation! It's you thats edit warring and not cooperating. -- Behnam 06:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Af·ghan·i (āf-gān'ē, -gä'nē) Pronunciation Key

adj. Of or relating to Afghanistan; Afghan.

n. pl. Af·ghan·is A native or inhabitant of Afghanistan; an Afghan.

[Pashto afghānī, from afghān, Afghan.]

(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. -- Behnam 06:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless.

User:Jenny Midol and User:Hairdye100 reported by User:NeilN (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Odeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jenny Midol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Hairdye100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 23:38, 11 November 2007

• 1st revert: 23:49, 11 November 2007
• 2nd revert: 23:38, 11 November 2007
• 3rd revert: 23:11, 11 November 2007
• 4th revert: 22:48, 11 November 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 23:05, 11 November 2007

(23:48, 11 November 2007)

Both editors warned - both continued to revert. Tried to mediate on talk page but User:Jenny Midol ignored. NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Both users blocked for twenty-four hours. — madman bum and angel 06:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

User:82.26.98.80 reported by User:HelloAnnyong (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

World War Z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 82.26.98.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 04:27, November 12, 2007

• 1st revert: 04:29, November 12, 2007
• 2nd revert: 04:30, November 12, 2007
• 3rd revert: 04:31, November 12, 2007
• 4th revert: 04:33, November 12, 2007
• 5th revert: 04:33, November 12, 2007
• 6th revert: 04:39, November 12, 2007
• 7th revert: 05:12, November 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: 04:50, November 12, 2007

The user attempted to solve an edit discussion on the page by heavily removing sections of the text. There was already a

User:68.58.71.152 reported by User:Tiptoety (Result: No action)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Criticism of Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.58.71.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 03:35, 12 November 2007

• 1st revert: 02:08, 12 November 2007
• 2nd revert: 02:27, 12 November 2007
• 3rd revert: 02:40, 12 November 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: 03:04, 12 November 2007
• User may be using Biblical1 to edit war as well. Tiptoety 06:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No action yet taken. The user has reverted only three times. Furthermore, the 3RR warning was placed after all reported reversions. — madman bum and angel 06:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

User:71.239.133.107 reported by User:Jeff G. (Result:No violation)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

User talk:71.239.133.107. 71.239.133.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 06:51

• 1st revert: 07:50
• 2nd revert: 08:20
• 3rd revert: 08:25
• 4th revert: 08:35

• 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: 08:34

Violation of

• The three revert rule does not apply in respect of a user editing their own user space. There is no violation here; if you think the user is vandalising then he can be reported on
  WP:AIV. Sam Blacketer
  12:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That rule does not apply to "reverts done by a user within his or her own user page, user subpages". "User talk page" does not qualify for that exception, or the exception would read "reverts done by a user within his or her own user space". Also, this user consistently stated "I will undo your edit without even reading it", a violation of "The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user" at
    talk|contribs
    ) 22:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Am I misinterpreting
      talk|contribs
      ) 16:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
      • A more appropriate venue for this question is
        here. Sam Blacketer (talk
        ) 17:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the pointer, I have posted there at
          talk|contribs
          ) 20:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That rule does now apply in respect to all user space, as the exception for "reverts done by a user within his or her own user page, user subpages" was just removed.   —
    talk|contribs
    ) 21:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    • This exception has been present since 14 June 2005 and is not appropriate to be removed without discussion. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
      • When was the last time the exception applied to an IP Address edit warring in the user talk page associated with that IP Address? Thanks!   —
        talk|contribs
        ) 23:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
        • They tend not to be reported but the last was here on 28 September. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Simon D M reported by User:Sfacets (Result:No violation)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Sahaja Yoga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Simon D M (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 11:09, 12 November 2007

• 1st revert: 11:09, 12 November 2007
• 2nd revert: 12:08, 12 November 2007
• 3rd revert: 13:52, 12 November 2007
• 4th revert: 13:59, 12 November 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: Not a new user.

User is persistently and disruptively safeguarding his/her version of the article, this without consensus, despite requests to wait for other user's input. Sfacets 14:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Clearly no violation. Simon D M has only a single revert; the other edits are different attempts to improve the page and not attempts to undo the work of others. It is a pity that this page has yet again been the source of editing disputes and I am thinking whether some measure of protection may be necessary. Sam Blacketer 14:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think some measure of protection would be a good idea. --Simon D M 18:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the page for a couple of days to allow discussion over contestd edits. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You protected the page? In this case it can be argued that it is an endorsement of the current version - especially since you protected the page after simon made more than 3 reverts (on top of those mentioned above) Sfacets 21:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Protection isn't an endorsement of any version. However as it happens it's protected on your latest edit. This complaint makes it clear you think there is an edit war going on. Failing a block for 3RR violaiton the next best solutoin for edit warring is page protection. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Instead of complaining about the block, let's use the time to resolve the outstanding issues on the talk page. --Simon D M 13:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Yamla reported by User:Juice Loose (Result: SP account blocked indef)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

David Schwimmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yamla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:30, 12 November 2007

User continues to edit-war in a content dispute with other users in regards to an image taken by Naama which was uploaded on Commons[43]

• Previous version reverted to: 16:21, 12 November 2007

• 1st revert: 16:21, 12 November 2007
• 2nd revert: 16:37, 12 November 2007
• 3rd revert: 17:02, 12 November 2007
• 4th revert: 17:19, 12 November 2007
• 5th revert: 17:22, 12 November 2007

This report was made by banned sockpuppeteer,

WP:3RR to revert simple vandalism. --Yamla

17:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It is also not vandalism to revert edits by banned users. See

WP:BAN, 5.3. The last two reverts given above fall into that category. --Yamla

17:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Juice Loose indef-blocked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

User:THYAST reported by User:Orangemike (Result: No action)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

User talk:THYAST (edit | [[Talk:User talk:THYAST|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). THYAST (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly reverts to recreate a vaniscruftspam article; has been duly warned and offered help in creating a sandbox. Orange Mike 20:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen a user talk page noted here. He seems to have stopped reverting it for the moment. I'll close this for now. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Reginmund reported by User:Ssilvers (Result:72 hours)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Gilbert and Sullivan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Reginmund (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [44]

• 1st revert: [45] 16:25, 12 November 2007
• 2nd revert: [46] 17:01, 12 November 2007
• 3rd revert: [47] 17:06, 12 November 2007
• 4th revert: [48] 17:11, 12 November 2007

A short explanation of the incident:

User:Reginmund also violated the 3-revert rule on 28 October 2007, concerning his view that there ought to be a distinguish tag on the article. After that, the reversion was discussed on the Gilbert and Sullivan talk page and on User:Reginmund's talk page, and no consensus was reached to keep the distinguish tag. Today, User:Reginmund just went ahead and edit-warred again over the same issue. Ssilvers 22:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Moreschi has given Reginmund a well deserved 72 hours to think over whether it's worth revert-warring over a {{distinguish}} tag. Sam Blacketer 00:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Cberlet reported by User:Marvin Diode (Result: Page Protected)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Lyndon LaRouche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cberlet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [49]

• 1st revert: 03:46, 12 November 2007
• 2nd revert: 13:49, 12 November 2007
• 3rd revert: 16:31, 12 November 2007
• 4th revert: 22:32, 12 November 2007

A short explanation of the incident. Marvin Diode 22:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Cberlet reverted to delete the following passage: ...claims that certain photos of

Please be aware that you have reverted Cberlet's edits multiple times as well; try to discuss your conflicts on the talk page in the future. I have protected the page for 1 week. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I obeyed the 3RR rule, and Cberlet violated it. And how often are there 3RR violations without an edit dispute? --Marvin Diode 15:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Artisol2345 reported by User:Mitchazenia (Result: Blocked)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

• Previous version reverted to: 00:04, November 5, 2007

• 1st revert: [50]
• 2nd revert: [51]
• 3rd revert: [52]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [53]

Long story short, User:Aristo2345 keeps creating articles from redirects under an IP (72.130.41.48). The articles are unnecessary and keeps reverting. This was discussed in an IRC channel (#wikipedia-en-roads) and later found that Aristo2345 has sockpuppets for himself. These include User:Mo42, User:Alittlegoo and User:YORKABE. User:Rschen7754 has blocked all the accounts except for the IP (72.130.41.48) for sockpuppetry. The disputed article is at AfD under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 76 in Nebraska. The user there is voting under different usernames/IPs to keep.^Mitch32^contribs 23:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(Note:This is my first 3RR request, so I may have screwed up somewhere.)

Attempts have been made to block the offending users. -- tariqabjotu 08:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Skyring reported by User:Timeshift9 (Result: No violation)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

John Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Skyring (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 09:07, November 13, 2007

• 1st revert: 09:07, November 13, 2007
• 2nd revert: 09:24, November 13, 2007
• 3rd revert: 09:29, November 13, 2007

A drive-by (User:John) removed the flagcruft from the infobox. Skyring re-added it, and I removed it stating Well I actually agree with him. Australia is already linked. None of the previous PMs have a flag in their infobox. could be considered NPOV. 2 want it gone now, so take it to discussion for consensus. Well he reverts that, stating that as he isn't a regular John Howard article editor, that somehow his voting right of 1 as a wikipedian doesn't count. Then another revert despite leaving comment on the article talk page by me. Timeshift 00:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Timeshift has a history of mindless reverting, such as his recent odd behaviour on a talk page where he got into an edit war over the comments of other users. After looking at the discussion, I'm satisfied we don't need the flag. I note that Timeshift's summary above is inaccurate. --Pete 00:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

While I disagree with Skyring's reverts, he has not violated 3RR. 3 reverts are allowed, it is the 4th which would be a violation.

Peter Ballard

01:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Three edits do NOT constitute a violation of 3RR. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Sparrowman980 reported by User:Huaiwei (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

• Previous version reverted to: 05:47, 7 November 2007

• 1st revert: 14:41, 12 November 2007
• 2nd revert: 06:40, 13 November 2007
• 3rd revert: 12:35, 13 November 2007
• 4th revert: 13:39, 13 November 2007

Despite reporting on the reasoning behind a spate of reverts in the talkpage[54] and an RFC[55], User:Sparrowman980 has been habitually reverting this article by insisting on including the Qantas entry with disputed figures within the relevant statistical tables. Content disagreements were clearly spelled out in the edit history, as well as in the above talkpage, but he has chosen to ignore the later whilst reverting. This is not the first time has has been engaging revert wars over this one sticking point, albeit it was with other editors. He appears prepared to revert war with anyone who dares take down that single entry he clings dearly to.--Huaiwei 06:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for twenty-four hours per the evidence above, but your presumptuous characterization of Sparrow's actions are not going to solve anything. -- tariqabjotu 08:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User:IrishLass0128

(Result: warning)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

List of Las Vegas episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Robinepowell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [56]

• 1st revert: [57]
• 2nd revert: [58]
• 3rd revert: [59]
• 4th revert: [60]
• 5th revert: [61]