Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive70

• Three-revert rule violation on Papoose (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Debo7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 13:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [1]

• 1st revert: 31 March 2008
• 2nd revert: 31 March 2008
• 3rd revert: 1 April 2008
• 4th revert: 1 April 2008
• 5th revert: 1 April 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 1 April 2008
• Diff of 3RR warning: 27 March 2008
• Diff of 3RR warning: 26 March 2008

• Diff of BLP warning: 31 March 2008
• Diff of BLP warning: 27 March 2008
• Diff of BLP warning: 27 March 2008
• Diff of BLP warning: 27 March 2008
• Diff of BLP warning: 26 March 2008 & backup.
• Diff of BLP warning: 26 March 2008
• Diff of BLP warning: 26 March 2008
• Diff of BLP warning: 25 March 2008
• Diff of BLP warning: 19 March 2008
• Diff of BLP warning: 19 March 2008
• Diff of BLP warning: 19 March 2008
• Diff of BLP warning: 19 March 2008

• Diff of 3O request notice: 28 March 2008
• 3O response/BLP warning: 2 April 2008

Against concensus and multiple #RR and BLP warning, editor continues to return poorly sourced, contentious material.

) 13:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• No four reverts are within the one 24-hour period, however Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for BLP violations. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Coconut99 99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 18:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 16:55, 24 March 2008

• 1st revert: 00:08, 2 April 2008

John first reverted my change. After this revert, I tried to come up with a compromise with his text still in. Coconut99 99 (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• 2nd revert: 00:19, 2 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 00:22, 2 April 2008

The above two reverts have been resolved in a compromised text which the original person who blanked it agreed. Coconut99 99 (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• 4th revert: 17:07, 2 April 2008

The person who blanked it cited the reason to have reference (but he really should have used citation flag instead). I added the reference and put the text back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coconut99 99 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• 5th revert: 18:22, 2 April 2008

The person who blanked it did not give any reason. Then the feud went to discussion. Subsequent reverts have been made. There is a stalemate at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coconut99 99 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• 6th revert: 18:27, 2 April 2008
• 7th revert: 18:39, 2 April 2008

John reverted my text (a lot and with citations) without going through a discussion with me first. I believe that citing statements by an organization or an individual that contains no facts is POV. I didn't blank any text (in fact, John blanked my mine) and only added background information on Dalai Lama. I've made the point in discussion saying those are relevant since Dalai Lama is a slave master, and his talk of human rights were simply hypocrites. IMO, if those background information weren't there, then words from Dalai and his organization (which I think highly unreliable, if I may use John's way of thinking) should be removed as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coconut99 99 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Diff of 3RR warning: 18:44, 2 April 2008

I warned Coconut that he had broken the rules and asked him to revert. However, he responded in a hostile manner and indicated that he did not think the rules applied to him - he refused to undo his last reversion. He has been around since May 2006 so shouldn't need a warning.

Coconut has been adding highly biased and POV material to the article, labelling allegations as facts and often inserting irrelevant material in order to distract from the article's focus on human rights in China - eg. he tries to blame foreign countries for backing the Dalai Lama. In many ways these edits can be regarded as vandalism, but I have not repeatedly removed them to avoid an edit war.

Sadly Coconut has proved resistant to reasoned discussion. He makes comments like we have to prove things are "fake" example here, even though it is obvious to anyone that is highly difficult, if not completely impossible. I and others have argued for a neutral position, but he clearly wants to assert a biased, POV version to suit his own views. His repeated reverting is in clear breach of the 3RR. He knows that and will not stop, so sadly I fear he needs a block. John Smith's (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Coconut, that is not a defence at all. You kept reverting. Even if you do not remove text, if you keep adding disputed material that is a reversion. You have been here for nearly two years - you know the rules. John Smith's (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

John, you call my cited text allegations when you couldn't come up with facts supporting your statement. I've provided all my text with citations. What about you? You've been in here for so many years and still doesn't know that. Remember to hold the same standard for your own text and others. Coconut99 99 (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Coconut, you know full well that a citation doesn't make something true. There are plenty of sources out there that dispute what you have said - clearly they cannot both be true. If text is disputed, it is disputed. If you keep reinserting it, that is a reversion. You know you should not make more than 3 reversions a day on any one article - you broke the rules. John Smith's (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• 24 hours. As a side note, "The Dalai Lama, in the past funded by CIA and with ties to Nazis, originally pushed for independence for Tibet ..." is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Please see
  WP:COATRACK. --B (talk
  ) 22:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 152.2.100.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 22:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 19:02, 2 April 2008

• 1st revert: 20:20, 2 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 20:51, 2 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 21:06, 2 April 2008
• 4th revert: 22:10, 2 April 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 21:14, 2 April 2008

User has been edit warring to his/her preferred version without commenting on talk page. 3RR warning was given by Kevin Baas (talk · contribs). I'd place the block myself (recommend 24 hour standard block), but I've been involved on this article previously. - auburnpilot talk 22:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. --B (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 05:45 05:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [2] 02:06, 29 March 2008

• 1st revert: 05:11 30 March Adds " classified as a developed country..." which was deleted by Krawndawg 06:04, 29 March 2008
• 2nd revert: 05:30 30 March Deletes "though
  IMF and World Bank..." which was added by Krawndawg at 05:25, 30 March 2008
• 3rd revert: 05:34 30 March Deletes "though
  IMF and World Bank..." which was added by Krawndawg 05:33, 30 March 2008
• 4th revert: 05:39 30 March Deletes "though
  IMF and World Bank..." which was added by Krawndawg at 05:36, 30 March 2008
  .

• Diff of 3RR warning: User was just recently blocked for 3rr [3]

I've added information to the above report. Coppertwig (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically this user is preventing insertion of sourced NPOV material that he doesn't like. The article says the CIA lists Turkey as a "developed" country, so I insisted that we either need to remove that, or also add that the World Bank and IMF list it as "developing". He didn't seem to like either of those options so decided an edit war was the right course of action. Krawndawg (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Decision: The reported user does appear to have violated 3RR and has already been blocked twice in the last 3 days, I have blocked them for a week for repeated violations. The reporting user has also violated 3RR on the same article, and seems sufficiently aware of 3RR to report here, so I have blocked them for 24 hours. TigerShark (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Two questions. First, why was I blocked for "violating 3rr" when I only made three reverts? 3rr says you'll be blocked on the 4th edit, which is why I didn't revert a 4th time. Second, why wasn't I given the ability to contest that block? Krawndawg (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Counting two consecutive edits as one edit, you had four edits between 06:00 29 March and 06:00 30 March (UTC). Which of those do you not consider to be a revert? If it's the first one, note that deleting information can always technically count as a revert, since someone at some time in the past must have added that information.

Arguing that you shouldn't have been blocked because you only had 3 reverts is always a very weak argument, per

WP:Edit war policy, Wikipedia:Gaming the system guideline and Heimstern's essay

on editwarring. One reason the argument is very weak is that it seems to indicate a feeling that doing 3 reverts is perfectly acceptable, and thus tends to fail to convince anyone reviewing your block that you'll make efforts to avoid editwarring.

It's not clear to me that you didn't have an opportunity to contest the block. Usually blocked users can still edit their own talk pages. Your talk page doesn't seem to have been protected, so as far as I know you could have edited it and put {{unblock|Your reason here}} to contest the block. I'm not aware of any reason why you couldn't have done that, although maybe you know of some reason I'm not aware of. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy and Wikipedia:Appealing a block. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware that an initial edit is counted as a revert. The 3RR article doesn't say so. Also, I didn't know about the unblock template, and it's not mentioned on the blocking policy article. How was I supposed to know about that? What's so hard about just posting it on my talk page along with the block? Anyhow it doesn't matter any more, I'll be more careful about edit warring in the future. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Krawndawg (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Funkynusayri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 06:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [4]

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

harrasment and not respecting the consensus[12] 209.59.33.32 (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Warned - It's customary to warn users before reporting them here. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: After the posting of this report, users Alyam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Al Ameer son (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seem to me to have both violated 3RR on the same article. They're continuing essentially the same editwar as the abovementioned usernames, over whether to include an image of Gamal Abdel Nasser. I've posted warnings to both of them. (non-admin opinion) --Coppertwig (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

): Time reported: 02:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

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

1. 02:24, 3 April 2008 (edit summary: "/* Schedule */ Rm'd a whole bunch of unsourced info")
2. 02:27, 3 April 2008 (edit summary: "/* Line-Up */ Rm'd unverified info")
3. 02:28, 3 April 2008 (edit summary: "The reference links don't back up what's here, removed truly unsourced")
4. 02:34, 3 April 2008 (edit summary: "Look at the listed reference, it doesn't reflect what is here. This article should really be deleted since it violates
   WP:CRYSTAL
   ")
5. 02:49, 3 April 2008 (edit summary: "Rm'd unreliable source. NBC official isn't releasing that source, wiki is not about rumors or gossip and Futon Critic is not reliable sourcing")

• Diff of warning: here

—≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't reverted since the "warning" but I am nominating the article for deletion based on the fact that it's speculation and rumor, based on very little fact. And the "listed edits" aren't accurate either. If you look at the listed source, it doesn't reflect what was added. Additionally, some of the listed the edits are repetative, with no other edits in between which means NO REVERT. Look at the times, they were all consecutive, not reverts. 24, 27, 28, 34 ~ all basically at the same time, not warring, just editing with edit conflicts at best but not a violation of 3RR.KellyAna (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You've been blocked for 3RR before. There is no entitlement to revert until warned and since you are aware of the rule, that's not an issue. (I haven't looked at diffs yet, just responding to the comment about warning.) --B (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There was also a previous warning here ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Not blocked - back-to-back edits are generally considered a single revert, not multiple reverts. So there are only three reverts here and in any event, KellyAna appears to have stopped. If he/she reverts again, please reopen this case. It is also worth noting that the bulk of the material being removed was unsourced - even in non-BLPs, Wikipedia requires content to be sourced and the onus is on the person seeking to readd the material to demonstrate that it is verifiable. --B (talk) 05:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure: Material that is unsourced, needs to be sourced. If an editor wants to challenge material which is not controversial, placing a {{

fact}} in the areas that need work is the correct procedure, to allow other editors to look for sources. If we are going to start deleting long portions of articles because these are unsourced, without giving a chance to others to look for them, we are not building an encyclopedia. In any case, blocks are not punitive and the user has stopped. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

05:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't advocate the wholesale removal of every sentence that doesn't have an inline citation (that, as you correctly point out, would be very disruptive), but if I may be permitted an argument ad Jimbonem, at

Wikipedia:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material Jimbo says, "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." So even though explicit revert exemptions only apply to BLPs, it's still a really good idea (tm) to have a cite if you are going to add it back. (B's corollary to Jimbo's law.)--B (talk

) 05:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the exception was made for BLPs for obvious reasons. This, is an article about a TV station program schedule. :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Jawaharlal Nehru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Relata refero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 02:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [13]

• 1st revert: [14] Clear revert of non-vandalism (changed date).
• 2nd revert: [15] Revert of sourced pertinent information (but that's beside the point).
• 3rd revert: [16] Ditto
• 4th revert: [17] Ditto

• Diff of 3RR warning: [18] and his response denying violating 3RR and refusing to self revert once given the chance [19].

Without getting into the actual content dispute, Relata refero has exhibited

) 02:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• One of the reverts was removal of vandalism, so no block is required. Having said that, I would encourage Relata and Agha to seek
  WP:BRD until the dispute is resolved. Edit-warring accomplished nothing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
  03:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

78.129.175.207

Reverted 3 edits on the Family Force 5 article. I reverted his last revert, so it would make mine 3RR as well, and I'll admit to it.

• First: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Family_Force_5&diff=202671480&oldid=202645527
• Second:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Family_Force_5&diff=202677732&oldid=202677137
• Third:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Family_Force_5&diff=202681263&oldid=202679518

Neglects WP:COMMON, editorial judgement, and is gaming the system. May be a sockpuppet of two other contributers within the article, but I have filed no checkuser request out of good faith. He's reverted the edits against a consensus from before. He kept deleting band interviews that sourced their label as "Christian" and then tried to state they were not reliable. He may be a troll, however, I am unsure as to it. IronCrow (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Valid content dispute. See below for another, also malformed, report. Relata refero (disp.) 11:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Link to the other report.--Coppertwig (talk

) 11:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete

diffs. Stifle (talk

) 11:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on David Lammy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lucy-marie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 03:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 21:14, April 2, 2008

• 1nd revert: 23:38, April 2, 2008
• 2rd revert: 00:38, April 3, 2008
• 3th revert: 01:54, April 3, 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 01:15, 3 April 2008

(I made the warning verbally in Talk - I didn't realise I had to put code on her talk page(?) (and I hoped we could work it out). She has been on WP since 2006, so I assumed she knows the rules.)

Lucy-marie is removing 'Voting records' from British MP's articles. See also Margaret Beckett‎ (which I used as an example of how they are used elsewhere - then she removed it!), Charlotte Atkins, Janet Anderson‎, Hilary Armstrong, Candy Atherton. I have explained why I find this unacceptable but her language is that they are "pointless" and "meaningless" - they are anything but, as I have clearly explained in the David Lammy Talk page. She is arguing that I am "doing the same" in reverting her back - but I don't see I have had any choice, and I have been explaining why all the while. Her last revert was to a new paragraph of her own which she claims is not a real revert (as it was not a straight delete) - but she removed the entire 'Voting record' again, so it clearly is a third revert.

I'm not sure if she technically has gone over 3RR (her first "Previous version reverted to" doesn't count right?) - but my problem is that it looks like carrying on in the other articles I mentioned above (she has reverted me once on each one, which I've let go for the moment, but would like them back) - and its all over the same 'voting record' sections (which she is entirely removing). Many of these Voting record sections have been there for a long time, possibly years.Matt Lewis (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Looks to me like a technical violation of 3RR by both parties. It takes two to edit war. Either of you is fully capable of opening up an RfC to decide whether those voting sections should be kept for the whole set of articles. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• No violation - reverting to remove a copyright violation is exempt from 3RR limitations. The text being removed was a copy/paste from [21] as Lucy-marie correctly stated in her edit summary. --B (talk) 05:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

On a side-by-side comparison, the data was actually properly edited (and not copy/pasted) - compare the two diffs below (they have been removed so see above). Lucie-marie was right to call call it "add", and not "copy". --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This can easily be corrected - It's merely a short list of freely-available stats (which I support, but didn't include myself - I had not ideas they were not re-formatted). Lucy-marie did NOT make that her reason: SHE SAID "DO NOT ADD" - SHE DID NOT SAY "COPY", OR MENTION COPYRIGHT. Her reasoning was over notability. And I don't think theyworkforyou.com copyright themselves anyway - they are all about public information being free for everyone!!! The GNU Affero GPL is on their site. It is a Wiki site, like this one!

• And there are only three reverts anyway, four required to breach the 3RR. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I stated that myself above! Please read my point about the other articles too - I didn't want it to get out of hand. I will correct any copyright issue, but am concerned I now have my hands tied now I'm warned. What have I done that is not in the best of faith, and for the benefit of Wikipedia?. *I DID NOT KNOW OF THE POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT VIOLATION UNTIL AFTER I MADE MY EDITS AND MADE THIS REPORT*. Please remove my warning - as it is based on an incorrect summary that I was warned about them. Also they have been on Wikipedia for ages, and are probably not a copyright list!!! --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The information selected, collected, aggregated and annotated by theyworkforyou is clearly copyrightable under both U.K. and U.S. law. The fact that the information itself is public record is irrelevant. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand the need for WP to always be fully careful and am happy to do some re-writing to completely erase any copyright issues. But I must say again that I did NOT originally put these list in the articles, that they have been on Wikipeida for a while, and that I was NOT warned about any copyright issues by anyone - so I feel the above warning is based on misinformation: (User talk:B incorrectly stated I was warned about copyright by Lucy-marie - but I simply wasn't, and her arguments were on another level). I also feel compromised by the warning (what does it entail?) - as I would like to correct the copyright issues, and replace the deleted text (which is important encyclopedic information). --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In this edit summary, Lucy-marie stated that her reason for reverting was that the content was copied from the website. She didn't use the word "copyright", but that's what I was referring to when I said "as Lucy-marie correctly stated in her edit summary". I never said that she "warned" you, nor is a "warning" an entitlement. You didn't know that the content was being copied from another website. Everyone takes you at your word that you didn't realize it was plagiarized. It's not a problem as long as you don't add it again. --B (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'll make the records the bare public facts, and unrecognisable from the theyworkforyou lists (it can't be too hard for a group of 10 or so facts). I can see my errors - I just want people to see I'm editing in the best of faith, for the best for Wikipedia, and by extension, those who use it. I can see now that starting this 3RR report was clearly the wrong thing to do - I apologise. I took the time to do it as I honestly thought it would help the other articles involved too - I clearly jumped the gun, and should have researched the records that have clearly been pasted-in at various times (I took user:B's word for this mistake). I'm not just saying that - I do acccept we can't take anything for granted on WP.--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: In addition to B's warning about copyright, I've posted a note on Matt Lewis' talk page that in my opinion the user had violated 3RR. (non-admin opinion) --Coppertwig (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC) restoring this comment which had been deleted apparently accidentally. Coppertwig (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes you did scold me - but you wrongly suggested that I haven't properly discussed the issue. It's not very clever (or helpful) for a non-admin to 'swing in' like that, imo. I'm trying to back down, here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Struck out, as editor apologised for his use of wording (and explained he's a contibutor to 3RR). --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• This board is not for discussion. If you wish to discuss the article, use its talk page. If you wish to discuss user behaviour, use
  WP:DR. If you wish to discuss me, use /dev/null. Stifle (talk
  ) 21:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• I really mean this. I have removed the further discussion. It is accessible in the history. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You have moved the evidence I provided of userB:s clear mistake about "cut/paste" (the one you referred to adding the warning tag to me). You have removed more than the debate - the correction referred to a serious mistake in here - which you clearly judged upon. Please see your Talk page. This simply does not warrant a quickly-made warning given to me! Please give this more of your time, as this is now taking a lot of mine - unfairly. I wish to carry here - but what does the warning entail? Why does a warning even need to be made here? --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

User JigmeTobden continues to deleted properly sourced and accurate information from Drukpa, refusing to communicate on either the talk page or on his user page. Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete

diffs. Stifle (talk

) 18:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Template:Romanian_diaspora (edit | [[Talk:Template:Romanian_diaspora|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Olahus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 18:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 00:15, 26 March 2008

• 1st revert: 19:23, 3 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 21:13, 3 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 09:20, 4 April 2008
• 4th revert: 18:02, 4 April 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 18:12, 25 January 2008

User:Olahus tries to push his own personal view that Moldovans should be considered part of the Romanian diaspora, claiming that this is the official position of Romania, and thus we should ignore the neutral point of view and the opinion of Moldovans (an American survey in the early 90s has shown 90% of the Moldovans don't consider themselves Romanians, and the last census in Moldova has shown 2.5 million self-declared Moldovans, compared to 70,000 self-declared Romanians in Moldova). He also accuses me (a Moldovan ethnic) and everyone who doesn't think Moldovans are Romanians (according to census results, about 3.5 million people) of being Stalinists (see his 4th edit above). Xasha (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Both users also warned about the ArbCom discretionary sanctions for Balkans-related articles. Stifle (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

)

Hope this the right place

At

Kalamaja cemetery

user keeps reverting. If 3RR rule lets three reverts, he's four reverts already:

• [22]
• [23]
• [24]
• [25]

• Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kalamaja_cemetery&oldid=203283872

Also waring at

long list of edit war blocks already.

Mihail —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.26.47 (talk • contribs) 21:02 4 April 2008 (UTC) I added links in the above report Coppertwig (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please use the format requested. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Does not appear to be a 3RR violation. Similar pattern of editing on both articles. First edit may or may not count as a revert; may be deleting a few words that had been in the article for a long time, e.g. since 00:43, 19 October 2007 in the case of Kalamaja_cemetery. I didn't check the middle two edits. Last edit is adding a POV tag, therefore not a revert. The

talk page has not been edited since 19 June 2007. It would be better to use it to discuss your changes instead of repeatedly reverting. (non-admin opinion) --Coppertwig (talk

) 22:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Template:Infobox Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Shpakovich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 21:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 16:35

• 1st revert: 16:38
• 2nd revert: 16:45
• 3rd revert: 16:49
• 4th revert: 16:53
• 5th revert: 16:53

• Diff of 3RR warning: 16:50

Editor would like to overturn a long-standing consensus concerning the image in an ethnic template. He has been repeatedly advised to propose his changes on the Talk page and wait for other editors' comments, but he continues to revert. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

24 hrs ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

)

• 1st edit. 16:10 April 4, adds a quote from Schopenhauer to show that he believed lack of concern for animals was the fault of Jews, and that his views were embraced by the Nazis: "The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity and the very basic source of this lays in jewdom."
• 1st revert. 16:58 April 4, restored the quote as above
• 2nd revert. 17:38 April 4, restored the quote as above
• 3rd revert. 18:07 April 4, restored the quote as above
• 4th revert. 19:14 April 4, restored the quote, but used a different German-English translation of it — but it is the same quote: "It is asserted that beasts have no rights; the illusion is harboured that our conduct, so far as they are concerned, has no moral significance, or, as it is put in the language of these codes, that 'there are no duties to be fulfilled towards animals.' Such a view is one of revolting coarseness, a barbarism of the West, whose source is Judaism."

Comments

Polentario has been adding similar material — using poor sources or primary sources only, or no sources at all — to multiple articles since March 26, reverting constantly when other editors (on all sides of the debate) remove it. I gave him the opportunity to revert himself before being reported, but he declined. [28] SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Salt Lake City School District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Dylandude89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 3:00pm (21:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC))

• Previous version reverted to: [01:54, 3 April 2008]

• 1st revert: [14:30, 4 April 2008]
• 2nd revert: [00:12, 3 April 2008]
• 3rd revert: [21:13, 2 April 2008]
• 4th revert: [19:56, 13 March 2008 ]

• Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

A short explanation of the incident. For the last several months, user: Dylandude89 has written content that is damaging to the character of the person being mentioned. Dylandude89 has updated, revised and undid multiple revisions of this same article. The "facts" being referenced are completely made up and inaccurate. The person whom these statements were written about is pursuing legal action as these statements have interfered with him in furthering his career. On multiple occasions, associates of the coach have contacted him to inform him that tournaments were hesitant to invite his team due to the information published online. Also in terms of job interviews, the content was referenced and may have played a part in the committee's decision to go a different direction. This defamation has reached a point where action needs to be taken immediately, either by wikipedia or through legal prosecution of the writer.

The report is malformed. No action taken. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a BLP warning at 22:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC) to Dylandude89. No 3RR violation; the diffs span more than 24 hours. (non-admin opinion.) --Coppertwig (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Reported to BLP/N: User continues to editwar after my warning; 3 reverts in a 24-hour period. I've reported to BLP/N. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR violation (non-admin opinion): and continues to violate BLP after being warned. I've posted a 3RR warning 13:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC) to Dylandude89. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete

diffs. Stifle (talk

) 22:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Ku Klux Klan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). God Save the South (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 15:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: see below - reverts were to different versions

• 1st revert: 11:21, 5 April 2008 - reverted to 05:00, 5 April 2008 Ashley Y
• 2nd revert: 11:18, 5 April 2008 - reverted to 05:00, 5 April 2008 Ashley Y
• 3rd revert: 02:44, 5 April 2008 - a reversion of this edit
• 4th revert: 03:40, 5 April 2008 - removed a photo (thus reverting whoever originally added it)

See also more reverts just outside of the 24 hour fence:

• 04:21, 4 April 2008
• 04:03, 4 April 2008
• 03:58, 4 April 2008
• 03:55, 4 April 2008
• 22:10, 3 April 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 04:06, 4 April 2008

This user is a

) 15:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Kudos to B for an excellent report, if it progresses anymore, I'd probably suggest an indefinite block for the reasons explained in the brief summary above. Rudget (review) 15:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Spider (solitaire) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 206.74.61.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 20:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 18:15, 6 April 2008

• 1st revert: 18:15, 6 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 20:31, 6 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 20:38, 6 April 2008
• 4th revert: 20:41, 6 April 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 14:29, 3 April 2008

Linkspammer just coming off a 72 hour block right back at it. Semi-protection may be appropriate as well. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 20:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd hesitate on calling him a linkspammer (although I just removed a link like some of those a few hours ago on another article), but certainly afoul of the 3rr rule again. If other mysterious IPs show up, we can consider protection. Kuru ^talk 20:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not hyped about protection or anything, it's just been a bit of a problem lately on this backwater article. ➪HiDrNick! 20:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Si. I'm digging through the discussion; I doubt I'll chime in since I've taken an administrative action, but I've added it to my watchlist of obscure backwater topics so I can keep an eye on it.  :) Kuru ^talk 21:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Vizard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 207.68.63.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 21:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 17:12, April 6, 2008

• 1st revert: 17:23, April 6, 2008
• 2nd revert: 17:26, April 6, 2008
• 3rd revert: 17:31, April 6, 2008
• 4th revert: 17:35, April 6, 2008
• 5th revert: 17:36, April 6, 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 17:34, April 6, 2008

This anonymous IP keeps adding back some original research into the aforementioned article. The OR is discussed in the Talk Page, but that doesn't stop some from readding it into the article. Left 2 warnings, an OR one and a 3RR one, but it doesnt look like the IP wants to stop. GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 21:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Both parties blocked for 48 hours. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 23:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

article Ku Klux Klan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); user Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reported by User:GordonUS.

Time reported: 03:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

In the Ku Klux Klan article, I removed #1) wording saying a small Klan faction was violent, telling editors to show it with facts in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves) and #2) removed a duplicate paragraph:

User Guettarda reverts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=201000971&oldid=200978968

I revert, explaining my reasoning:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=201026563&oldid=201000971

OrangeMarlin reverts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=201065356&oldid=201027380

Accordingly, I revert:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=201147303&oldid=201065356

OrangeMarlin reverts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=201165532&oldid=201157032

Here, I think Guettarda and Marlin think the removal of the word violent is POV, so I decide to drop it and focus on removing the duplicated paragraph. I do not revert:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=201513500&oldid=201441597

I then make a series of unrelated edits. OrangeMarlin reverts, citing Wikipedia NPOV:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=201516397&oldid=201515610

I tell him if he sees POV to change it but not to revert my work. I make some unrelated edits. I do not revert:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=201517447&oldid=201517255

He reverts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=201518896&oldid=201518137

I do not revert but edit back manually, telling him to change whatever is POV:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=201519341&oldid=201518896

I then continue working. He leaves me alone for a bit until he reverts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=202186342&oldid=202181747

In accordance with Wikipedia's reverting rules, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting#Explain_reverts) I tell him, "Its copyediting. Please explain to me what is POV on my talk page. Please follow your advice and consult me instead of getting in rv war.":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=202191971&oldid=202186342

I consulted him on his talk page to explain and rudely tells me to leave:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orangemarlin&diff=202192296&oldid=201869635

He has reverted well over five times and this has been going on for too long.

GordonUS (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I added links at the top of this report. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any vio. within 24h. Perhaps you should be discussing your controversal changes in the talk page beforehand. seicer | talk | contribs 03:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete

diffs. In addition, there was no 3RR vio. seicer | talk | contribs

03:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

What would be the point of discussing on the talk pages when User:Orangemarlin has stated that he doesn't get involved in talk pages? (diff) DigitalC (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on John Clem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(inserted article links --Coppertwig (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)). Reenactorjohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 19:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [29]

• 1st revert: [30] (as 76.112.105.246 )
• 2nd revert: [31] (as 76.112.105.246 )
• 3rd revert: [32]
• 4th revert: [33]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [34]

New editor has refused to respond to talk or to properly cite sources. User also posts dead links and frequently misspells words. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I sited my sorces. I am new to Wikipedia but I cannot stand by and just agree to let a myth be listed as historical fact on a page about a very interesting human being. The Links I posted only come up dead because I don't know how to post a link at the bottom of the patch so that the HTTP formate will work properly. I appologize for the misspelled words, dislexia does that from time to time. If any one does even a little bit of research on the subject matter by simply calling the National Parks office of the Shiloh National Battle Field park. and Asking them about John Clems involvement at the battle, they will quickly find he was never there. that is why I so adimently dispute the adition of the Shiloh portion of this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reenactorjohn (talk • contribs) 21:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I edited the article to fix the URLs and the spelling. Reenactorjohn, please consider the use of a spelling checker when you make extensive changes. Also, being right is not an excuse for an edit war. Try asking more experienced editors how to handle the situation. Go to Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests if you need pointers on how to do things, whether the question is technical or diplomatic. EdJohnston (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

thank you Ed I appreaciate the assistance very much. Reenactorjohn (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined The reverts were made by two separate users so 3RR is not applicable here. If you believe that they are the same person, make a category E listing at WP:RFCU. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Cave Clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dmod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 08:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [35]

• 1st revert: [36]
• 2nd revert: [37]
• 3rd revert: [38]
• 4th revert: [39]
• 5th revert [40]
• Diff of 3RR warning: [41]

A potential sock puppet of User:The Fence is constantly removing reverenced material from the above mention article. They persist in removing the same paragraph of info that all the other sock puppets have removed in the past. Now this user is teaming up with an ip address to remove the same material. They are now adding what seems like advertising for an organization, that I don't this is suitable for wikipedia . --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 08:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not a sock puppet and your references are invalid. Could you PLEASE take part in the discussion on the discussion page and perhaps you will understand what we are trying to tell you? I am trying to clean this article up with correctly referenced material, please stop your malicious reverts. Dmod (talk) 08:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 8 hours Stifle (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Bosniaks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 77.78.199.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 11:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: This one

• 1st revert: 09:48, 7 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 10:56, 7 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 10:59, 7 April 2008
• 4th revert: 11:06, 7 April 2008
• 5th revert: 11:35, 7 April 2008

The user insists on inserting into the article falsehoods, and straight-up lies - and these have been added before, and all times have been rebuked. On the talk page, the user is uncivil, rude, slightly xenophobic, and shows an unwillingness to listen/compromise. The general consensus is against him, yet he has reverted not 4, but 5 times. 121.222.30.189 (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Article semi-protected. Stifle (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on RealClearPolitics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Anon18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 16:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 10:01, 5 April 2008

• 1st revert: 01:19, 7 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 10:51, 7 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 12:20, 7 April 2008
• 4th revert: 12:40, 7 April 2008
• 5th revert: 13:48, 7 April 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 01:49, 7 April 2008

User has edit warred to remove quotes from the founders of the website for reasons unknown. Despite attempts to engage the user in various ways - requests that he/she use the talk page, moving the quotes from the lead to a subsection - the user has continued to revert. User has refused to discuss the issue and until his/her last two three reverts has not even used an edit summary. Gamaliel (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Page protected Stifle (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Valencia CF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Fadiga09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 23:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 18:47, 6 April 2008 (17:47 UTC) 17:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Each revert deletes the words "Inter-Cities Fairs".

• 1st revert: 13:55, 7 April 2008 (12:55 UTC)
• 2nd revert: 20:48, 7 April 2008 (19:48 UTC)
• 3rd revert: 22:12, 7 April 2008 (21:12 UTC)
• 4th revert: 23:57, 7 April 2008 (22:57 UTC)

• Diff of 3RR warning: 23:16, 7 April 2008 (22:16 UTC)

An edit was made by

23:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added UTC times to the above report, changed the previous version reverted to, and noted some text which is being deleted on each revert. On the other "side" of the edit war, PeeJay2K3 and Ultracanalla each have 3 reverts in 24 hours. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Article protected one week - second choice would be to block all three users involved as all violated 3RR. Talk it out on the talk page rather than reverting please. --B (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum

• This edit war is/was also happening at
  UEFA Cup records and statistics with at least Fadiga9 [42] reverting after a warning by me [43]. MickMacNee (talk
  ) 12:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• And now continued by the other warned [44] user with ths revert [45] MickMacNee (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• This is also going on at
  UEFA Cup finals, countless other articles, and causing collateral damage at other obscure articles such as [46]. MickMacNee (talk
  ) 19:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Camptown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 17:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 16:17, 8 April 2008 Note: there are many intermediate changes. There are two additions I made, both reverted. One is reverted 4 times and the other 3 times with a total of 5 edits.

• 1st revert: 16:39, 8 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 16:50, 8 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 16:52, 8 April 2008
• 4th revert: 16:53, 8 April 2008
• 5th revert: 16:55, 8 April 2008

The user has been warned many times in the past and has been blocked [47] once.

I made a referenced addition to the article and provided another reference in the edit summary about the use of the word "independent". I did not feel necessary to include this reference (this, in Chinese) since it is hardly related to the article, and the assertations themselves are made in the article page. User Camptown, who has a long history of getting into edit wars, removed my additions with the incivil edit summary "rm nonsense" twice, after which I attempted to discuss with him. He nonetheless reverted again, even after I kindly warned him about his past violations of 3RR. In this case, I felt that my reverts of his edits are justified as the content is well sourced (one could consider his reverts vandalism, though I would not say so) and I have already opened a discussion on the talk page, to which he had not responded when he made his 3rd, 4th and 5th revert. I have no history of edit-warring. As a side-topic, I found a very racially charged comment by the user [48] which should require administrators' attention. Thanks. The user is notified. Herunar (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A further note: I browsed through the user's contributions and while the user has often violated fundamental Wikipedia principles, especially in disputes, I could also see an immense contribution to Wikipedia with many additions to DYK and news. Administrators, if they decide to block Camptown, should take into consideration his prolific editing and reduce the time of the block. Herunar (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Camptown (talk

) 17:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Both users have exceeded the 3RR limit, User:Herunar has done so by a wide margin. Both users blocked, 8 hours. CIreland (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Rape of the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 148.220.24.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 19:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 19:00, 8 April 2008

• 1st revert: 17:25, 8 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 20:38, 7 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 19:24, 5 April 2008

etc. just look at the edit history

He's vandalising the article. I don't know where else to report. I think the page should be protected at least for a while because his IP changes each time and/or he's using anonymous proxies Rainrem (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Simple vandalism by a dynamic IP. Page semi-protected for 2 weeks. For future reference, you'll get a faster response at

WP:RFPP. CIreland (talk

) 20:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the protection and your help! Rainrem (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• State terrorism and the United States ([[Special:EditPage/ State terrorism and the United States|edit]] | [[Talk: State terrorism and the United States|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/ State terrorism and the United States|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/ State terrorism and the United States|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/ State terrorism and the United States|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:Whatlinkshere/ State terrorism and the United States|limit=999}} links] | watch | logs | views). 64.118.111.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 19:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 18:25, 8 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 18:48, 8 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 19:10, 8 April 2008
• 4th revert: 19:13, 8 April 2008
• 5th revert: 19:18, 8 April 2008
• 6th revert: 19:23, 8 April 2008
• 7th revert: 19:59, 8 April 2008
• 8th revert: 20:02, 8 April 2008
• 9th revert: 20:10, 8 April 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 19:13, 8 April 2008

Complete reverts ignoring many other editors.Ultramarine (talk)

The IP editor continues to edit-war - please take action. John Smith's (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

barneca (talk

) 20:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

article

) 00:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

first revert second revert, third revert and fourth revert. on

) 23:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, withdraw, user has been blocked. The Dominator (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hoursToddst1 (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule
  violation on

Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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

1. 13:23, 7 April 2008 (edit summary: "Repair article after break from consensus - see discussion(s) on talk page")
2. 19:51, 7 April 2008 (edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */ - rm details that aren't directly linked to Obama, and are therefore not relevant to his BLP. Wright details should be in Jeremiah Wright")
3. 00:21, 8 April 2008 (edit summary: "
   Undid revision 204090834 by Thegoodlocust (talk
   ) - rv due to lack of a reliable source and POV language")
4. 11:58, 8 April 2008 (edit summary: "er... I don't think so did. Your own website is hardly a reliable source, is it?")
5. 12:36, 8 April 2008 (edit summary: "
   WP:WEIGHT
   ")

• Diff of 3RR warning: [49]
• Previous report: [50]

Result of previously reported 3RR violation was accepted offer of self-block for 24 hours. I noted another 3RR violation and was told "I don't monitor my contributions to make sure I don't violate 3RR. I just do what I think needs to be done."(see grey text above diff [[51]]). Message that 3RR is absolute upper limit needs reinforcing, I think. Maybe another warning from an admin will do the trick. Up to you.

) 16:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, Scjessey is enforcing the

WP:3RR. Next time you do a 3RR report, remember to include the previous version reverted to. It's also useful to include in your brief description of the event a brief comment about the nature of the material being added or removed. (non-admin opinion) --Coppertwig (talk

) 23:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I see only one of the five reverts that might qualify for the BLP exemption (the "I don't think so did" one). That leaves 4. The material differs, but I've already described what's going on in the previous notification. I don't have time to do more, before I got to go to sleep or now when I have to go to work. But 3RR is a violation of a community standard. It is not my job to act as prosecutor when supplying notice of such a violation.

Andyvphil (talk

) 23:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This one also looks like a BLP revert to me: "rv due to lack of a reliable source and POV language)" (at 00:21). Just my opinion. Anyway, the user hasn't edited the page since 12:36 8 April (UTC). Blocks are not used as punishment, but only to prevent problems and there doesn't seem to be a problem right at the moment. I think enough time has passed that if the user were to revert again now, that would not be a 3RR violation even if the previous reverts were a violation (which I think they weren't due to BLP exemption; I haven't even checked whether they were all reverts, since no previous version reverted to was given.) --Coppertwig (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The BLP exception reads as follows: "reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons". The revert that you would characterize as a "BLP revert" removed a report that the Washington Times claimed to have found inconsistencies between Obama's political positions during his Senate and Presidential campaigns. It is not remotely "clearly libelous", and it is well cited, to a Times article. Scjessey's edit comment identifies it as a revert, and in any case examining the text as of the first revert I list shows that none of the material he is removing in the later reverts was present at that time, so that there is no question that his removals were reverts. Would think you could have figured that out for yourself, if you were of a mind to.

Andyvphil (talk

) 12:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is pretty obvious to anyone that this is not a case of edit warring. The edits took place over two days (although yes, they were within a 24-hour period) and for different reasons and editors. The reporting editor is probably retaliating to a pair of 3RR warnings I placed on his own talk page recently. In violation of

WP:3RR, the reporting editor has not even warned me for a possible 3RR violation before reporting me, as can be seen from the misleading warning links listed above (the listed warning is a threat given on an article talk page last month). I expect this 3RR notice to be rejected out of hand, and the reporting editor to be warned for attempting to game the system to suit his own ends instead. -- Scjessey (talk

) 01:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil (talk

) 13:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks to be a content dispute to me, and the claim that BLP violations are being reverted would take a lot of study to prove. Under these conditions I think both editors should carefully follow the 3RR limit. Since in the previous 3RR case on 17 March, Scjessey promised an administrator on this board that he would be more careful in the future, I think his actions should get more serious scrutiny now. An editor is only entitled to get a 3RR warning once, and Scjessey got one last time around. When taking any action, the closing admin should note that Andyvphil has two previous blocks for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't follow your first sentence at all. Of course it's a content dispute. How does that exempt Scjessey from 3RR? And, disposing of the bogus BLP claim wouldn't take much "study". Just look at the diffs. That's why I supplied them. The BLP exemption specifies "clearly". No "clearly libelous" material material will be found, or any libelous material at all, and only one (previously noted) probable poor citation. Then ask Scjessey to identify what he alleges to be clearly libelous or poorly cited. Then examine the poverty of his reply. Further note that in neither case had I actually violated 3RR. See my talk page for details. But now Scjessey has violated 3RR three times, been reported twice and has no blocks. Interesting.

Andyvphil (talk

) 13:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In Scjessey's defense, this article has come under attack from editors who seek nothing more than to turn this BLP into something it shouldn't be, and the users who he reverted have a history of unilaterally inserting negative (and oftentimes irrelevant) material into the article (that goes against consensus and almost always ends up getting reverted by someone else anyway). In addition, this article gets profoundly more edits in a given day than the vast majority of articles on wikipedia, so I could see 4 edits of it not being particularly shocking. Also consider that while 4 reverts is said to break the rules, there seems to be no limit on how many times a user can insert new negative material into an article against the consensus of other editors, and there are most definitely editors who have attempted to do this at least 4 times in a day without being warned or punished for it (and indeed this is a conflict for which people who want to keep this BLP legitimate and respectful will lose). I encourage you to consider these things in coming to a judgment/decision as well as note that Scjessey has been a kind and respectful editor who has worked hard to improve this article and keep it from being hijacked by users with a vested interest. --Ubiq (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, 4 reverts is not "said" to break the rules. 4 reverts does break the rules, and you do not get an exemption for removing "negative" material. Only "clearly libelous" and "poorly cited" and the other specified exemptions. No matter how badly your finger itches to hit the "undo" button, if you've done three reverts already you need to leave it to someone else, even if admin Stifle doesn't want to say so.

Andyvphil (talk

) 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

also this 3rr report comes from a user who has been the subject and object of numerous admin actions and efforts. the term wikilawyer comes to my mind. user:Andyvphil has not yet posted on the talk section where 3 editors worked to solve a text problem, and because he disagrees with the solution, he vindictively does a 3rr report. Its also not the first time he has ignored BLP policy in making 3rr reports, ihe reported me in similar circumstances, and the admin's agreed with my BLP argument. Also check those Diffs very carefully, he padded my 3rr report with seperate edits to give it a greater appearance than was actually there. He seems to advocate use of the "3 edits of page text" view of 3rr and not the seemingly more common "3 edits on disputed text" which is what i am used to. And he only does this selectively, so its not like editors have a regular ability to see what his standards are, which is important on such a fast moving page.

And the idea the Scjessey engages in "edit warfare" is ridiculous to anyone who looks at the page regularly (except apparently the reporting user apparently)... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You were blocked. The admin who blocked you explained why your BLP claim was bogus[52] and refused to unblock you. Another admin then lifted your block, an action he declined to defend when challenged to do so.[53] If your conclusion from that experience was that your exceeding 3RR was justified and I was in the wrong to report you (or "childish", as Scjessey would have it)[54]... well the actions of Jayron32 and Stifle might lead you to that error, but that doesn't reflect well on them.

Andyvphil (talk

) 14:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Declined No previous version was indicated so it is not at all clear that these are reverts. Furthermore, numbers 3 and 5 (at least) are exempt under
  WP:BLP. Stifle (talk
  ) 08:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Unbelievable. In what way is #5 a BLP-exempt edit? The text removed is as follows:

In the wake of the Wright controversy, the

Again, it is not remotely libelous, and largely consists of a quote from a RS (the NY Times) which is properly cited. The edit comment again self-identifies the revert as a revert, and, again, the first dif does show a prior text not containing any of the material Scjessey later removes, making clear that his removals are reverts.

Andyvphil (talk

) 13:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• My mistake, I meant 3 and 4. Also #1 is not clearly a revert. Can you please indicate which exact previous version that the article matches after edit #1? Stifle (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No.3 is no more a BLP-exempt revert than #5. It's the citation of the Washington Times that I reply to Coppertwig about above. Not libelous, and well-cited.

Thast there should be any difficulty seeing that #1 is a revert is a little hard to understand, but this diff shows that what Scjessey did was undo the three immediately preceeding edits. [55]

Andyvphil (talk

) 14:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this stems from an ongoing content dispute (see

User:Andyvphil a polite 3RR warning. He is trying to use this procedure as some sort of "retaliatory strike" to get me temporarily blocked by lumping together a collection of largely unrelated edits that took place over 2 days. Meanwhile, over 24 hours have passed since the last listed reversion, rendering this report rather "stale" in any case. Please don't let Andy's personal dislike of me interfere with my normal functioning as a diligent, active Wikipedian. -- Scjessey (talk

) 13:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't ask that you be blocked. I asked that you be warned in much stronger terms than you had before. "Maybe another warning from an admin will do the trick." Not that you didn't deserve to be blocked.

Andyvphil (talk

) 14:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please see the section at the top of this page entitled "what the three-revert rule does not cover". Please continue discussion elsewhere as this page is not for discussion. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• I have, for the record, warned Scjessey. Stifle (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Then shouldn't the result in the header be changed from "no action" to "warning"?

Andyvphil (talk

) 15:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

...though, for the record, calling this a "warning" is stretching the word beyond recognition.

Andyvphil (talk

) 15:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Sonic the Hedgehog (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.193.80.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 18:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 14:12, 9 April 2008

• 1st revert: 13:56, 9 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 21:21, 8 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 17:17, 8 April 2008
• 4th revert: 15:31, 8 April 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 22:00, 8 April 2008

User:24.193.80.215 returns to article Sonic the Hedgehog (character) often to change a date from "present" to "2008", has reverted 5 times between 15:28, 8 April 2008 and 13:56, 9 April 2008, see user's contributions Special:Contributions/24.193.80.215. (Edit: I have a -4:00 time difference from UTC put into my Preferences if that matters with the edit times) Cigraphix (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Luscious Lopez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wikkibobby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 20:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 09:38, 9 April 2008

• 1st revert: 10:52, 9 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 11:39, 9 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 12:19, 9 April 2008
• 4th revert: 15:30, 9 April 2008
• 5th revert: 17:04, 9 April 2008
• 6th revert: 19:12, 9 April 2008
• 7th revert: 19:30, 9 April 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 19:31, 9 April 2008

Wikkibobby is a suspected sockpuppet of Xhy20 who has been involved in an edit war on the Luscious Lopez article for the past two days. His suspected ip was also warned for 3RR on 22:18, 8 April 2008 by an admin. Wikkibobby has reverted an administrator many times during this edit war. He has behaved in an uncivil manner in the edit summaries. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 76.102.72.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 04:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [56]

• 1st revert: 03:14
• 2nd revert: 03:36
• 3rd revert: 03:44
• 4th revert: 03:55

• Diff of 3RR warning: 03:54

Continuing the edit war

) 04:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Massive edit warring by IP single purpose accounts during the last few hours. Previous IP reverter blocked for 3RR after nine reverts. This is an obvious sock/meatpuppet who continue with exactly the same revert. Semi-protection needed.Ultramarine (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this IP editor is related to the previous one. This one has a history of productive, good edits to the article, and doing an IP trace, appear to be from different areas. So lets not make negative associations. This user appears to have accidently gone over 3RR for the first time--but other users should be be doing 3 reverts either--esp. for trying to force making massive against consensus. I think the IP user should self revert in principal, and then another editor such as myself can revert for him. No one should edit war much less go over 3R, even if they are acting correctly otherwise.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Semi-protected by Jmlk17. Full protection will follow close behind if this edit warring continues. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• And duly protected by William M. Connolley (I'm surprised I haven't seen him around here lately, he used to do a lot of 3RR work). Stifle (talk) 08:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Almeda University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wikiuserc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 01:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 23:11, 9 Apr 2008

• 1st revert: 23:45, 9 Apr 2008
• 2nd revert: 23:59, 9 Apr 2008
• 3rd revert: 00:05, 10 Apr 2008
• 4th revert: 00:47, 10 Apr 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 00:17, 10 Apr 2008

While the reverts are not to the exact same versions, they do share similarities, and the intent is quite clear. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I give previous versions reverted to for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th reverts below. I haven't confirmed whether the first one is a revert or not.

• The 2nd revert (at 23:59) deletes the word "Yet" (and replaces it with "Still"); the word "Yet" had just been added in the previous edit. (Previous version precisely reverted to: 23:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC).)
• The 3rd revert (at 00:05) replaces "bought" with "used" in a sentence about Naples police officers. Previous version reverted to: 01:06, 8 February 2008 (A very short version with almost all content deleted, immediately reverted back to the longer version by Cluebot; doesn't contain the sentence about Naples police, therefore doesn't contain the word "bought".)
• The 4th revert replaces the same word "bought" with "acquired"; since it's deleting "bought" which had just been restored in the previous edit, it's a revert. (Previous version reverted to: 00:05, 10 April 2008; not reverting to precisely the same, but reverting to a version not containing the word "bought" in the sentence about Naples police.)

(non-admin opinion) --Coppertwig (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Revert #1 does not bring the article to the same version as the previous version reverted to. If it did, this diff would show no change. Revert #2 is valid. Revert #3 does not appear to be a revert. Revert #4 seems valid.
• As such, No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
  3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. However, Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution.. Stifle (talk
  ) 08:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Charlotte, North Carolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 208.104.238.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 12:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 7 April 2008

• 1st revert: 14:51, 8 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 01:38, 9 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 22:14, 9 April 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 01:46, 9 April 2008

User repeatedly changes population estimates to those of a source agreed on the talk page to be unacceptable. User has been told to resolve the matter on the talk page and not to revert without consensus.Loodog (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No violation (non-admin opinion). You've listed only three reverts, and they span more than 24 hours. To violate 3RR, there have to be four reverts, and they must all be within one 24-hour period. However, I encourage discussion on the talk page rather than repeatedly reverting. --☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll rubber-stamp that. No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the

3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Stifle (talk

) 14:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Scotland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 20.133.0.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 15:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 07:38, 10 April 2008

• 1st revert: Revision as of 15:17, 10 April 2008
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 15:24, 10 April 2008
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 15:31, 10 April 2008
• 4th revert: Current revision (15:34, 10 April 2008)

• Diff of 3RR warning: Current revision (15:30, 10 April 2008)

A problematic ip user. Wishing to spoil the hard work taking place at Talk:Scotland. Hasn't commented at the talk page to get a consensus, just has anti-UK, English and some racist sentiments (see here, here, here). I'd really urge a short block rather than semi-protect, please. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 36 hours for edit warring and petty vandalism. CIreland (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Scotland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 20.133.0.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 15:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [58]

• 1st revert: [59]
• 2nd revert: [60]
• 3rd revert: [61]
• 4th revert: [62]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [63]

This user reverted a fourth time despite recieving a warning after the third.

) 15:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

See above. CIreland (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As dictated in the BLP rules: "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard."

I have repeatedly removed the anonymous slander attributed to Condoleeza Rice, which originates from a partisan newsletter and quotes and anonymous source. It is replaced as soon as I remove it. The Colin Powell attack on Feith is strenously denied by Powell, who maintains the exact opposite. In fact, the entire page is a laundry list of negative quotes and vulgar references mined from any source possible. Very few of them have scholarly nor informational content that is valid and pertinent to the bio of public servant Douglas Feith: instead, the page is a collection of partisan smears, thinly sources rumors and vulgar name-calling and epithets, many anti-semitic and Nazi references (accusing him of being Gestapo-like). The "praise" section, half the size of the "criticism" section is apparently a sop to allow griefers to post any criticisms, no matter how scurrilous, with the excuse that there is a "praise" section to balance it. Both are unencyclopedic, sloppy and without real informational value. Attempts to clean up the page result in reverts and even moderators refuse to abide by BLP rules, especially on the Rice quote. Other quotes seem to be included merely because they belittle Feith in extremely vulgar terms. Finding a quote calling him the "dumbest m----f---- on the planet" may be very amusing, but its not informational and its slanderous and unserious. I would like to see the entire "praise" and "criticism" sections made more encyclopedic and held to standards, but partisans refuse to allow any changes, despite mine and others complaints about the standards of the pages (see Bueller's arguments on the talk page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.96.196.85 (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete

diffs. Stifle (talk

) 19:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: This seems to be about the article

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which has been semi-protected at 16:25 10 April (UTC) and has had only two edits since then. ☺Coppertwig (talk

) 23:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Abtract (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 18:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [64]

• 1st revert: [65]
• 2nd revert: [66]
• 3rd revert: [67]
• 4th revert: [68]
• 5th revert: [69]
• 6th revert: [70]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [71]

Abtract is aware that there is a discussion on

) 18:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The report is inaccurate; diffs 1,2 and 3 are not reverts. Hence no violation, hence no action. I will, however, look at the possibility of page protection if other users continue the edit warring. CIreland (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You're saying subsequent changes are not reverts? In any event, [72], [73], [74], [75], look like reverts. I would like to hear more opinions. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Abtract, and he is administrator. Since admins are supposed to know how to calm the troubled waters, I invited him to join this discussion. There seem to be some fairly intellectual issues about policy being discussed, but I don't see people waiting to reach a Talk consensus before making their edits. A slight excess of BOLD and REVERT, and not enough DISCUSS. EdJohnston (talk

) 19:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd support a block on

19:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As well, I would support a block, as per Sesshomaru, Ed and Scarian. He was pointedly asked to discuss his edit and await the conclusion of discussion, as the edit was a new one and linked to discussions both in the WP (dab) and Harry Potter articles. None of what we do works if there is a pointed unwillingness to discuss. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Abtract only reverted three times and made no reverts after he was warned to cease or be blocked. I would not support any block of a user who ceases to edit war after being instructed to do so. Such a block would be entirely retributive. As such I would be disinclined to change my original close of this as "no violation" and I would not support a block on this user for his edits to HP (disambiguation). CIreland (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Concur with that. No violation Stifle (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ... but I will heed the need to discuss more.

Abtract (talk

) 21:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Fortune Global 500 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Signsolid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 21:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 10.47 5 April

• 1st revert: 21.36 9 April
• 2nd revert: 11.06 10 April
• 3rd revert: 14.13 10 April
• 4th revert: 16.59 10 April

• Diff of 3RR warning: 15.40 10 April

While the last diff is slightly different, the same sourced texted is removed and changed in each of the four reverts. The user has a long history of edit warring and of attacking other users, I recently started a discussion on him [76]. He has removed the 3RR warning and clearly assumes ownership of the article [77]. JdeJ (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Result - I have blocked

Scarian^{Call me Pat!}

21:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Circumcision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Garycompugeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 22:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 21:25 9 April 2008 (by Garycompugeek) for the first 3 reverts.

21:20 10 April 2008 (by Garycompugeek) for the 4th.

• 1st revert: 22:41 9 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 00:04 10 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 17:11 10 April 2008
• 4th revert: 21:37 10 April 2008

His knowledge of the rule is shown by his issuing this warning [78] to me.

His first 3 reverts added an anti-circumcision link which had been originally added by him. In 2 more edits he removed a medical summary in retaliation. He said in the talk-page warning I cited above that he wants to respect consensus but he's not acting like it. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Self-reverted: Garycompugeek has self-reverted at 22:29, 10 April 2008, nullifying the 4th revert, after a discussion with Jakew on Garycompugeek's talk page. (opinion by involved user) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JHunterJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 04:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [79]

• 1st revert: 05:11, April 10
• 2nd revert: 05:41, April 10
• 2nd revert: 21:44, April 10
• 3rd revert: 22:06, April 10
• 4th revert: 22:23, April 10

• Diff of 3RR warning: the user is an admin and is (or should be) well aware of 3RR

User:JHunterJ has been endeavoring to add HP as a dab term for Harry Potter for months, and not finding consensus for inclusion in either the HP dab page or Harry Potter, has taken to edit-warring in both articles over this and formatting. The 3RR vio is in the dab page. Note that this complaint is not being submitted to address the content issue but rather the stability of the article caused by JHunterJ fighting everyone for inclusion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Result - Blocked for 24 hours.

Scarian^{Call me Pat!}

07:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 14:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [80]

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: [85]

Dispute over whether to use a low-resolution, poor quality head shot in the lead, versus a high quality, high-resolution full-body shot in the lead. Despite 3RR warning and attempts to engage User, continually reverts to have low quality in lead. Per

14:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours and also warned David.

Scarian^{Call me Pat!}

15:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Abdullah II of Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Grandia01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 1:19 pm

• Previous version re-reverted to: [86]

• 1st revert: [87]
• 2nd revert: [88]
• 3rd revert: [89]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [90]

A short explanation of the incident. topic was open for discussion for a lengthy time, i was given permission to take out the argued part after i provide good sources and discussion, the discussion went on for a week or so, then i brought the source, a report made by the DIA of the DoD. Grandia01 will not discuss and will not read the source and will just keep on re-editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs)

Both users were already warned by me; both now blocked for 24 hours. Mangojuice^talk 17:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Balochistan Liberation Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Karojaro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 20:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [91]

• 1st revert: [92]
• 2nd revert: [93]
• 3rd revert: [94]
• 4th revert: [95]
• 5th revert: [96]
• 6th revert: [97]
• 7th revert: [98]
• Diff of 3RR warning: [99]

User is continuously adding npov content and links to a large number of videos in the text, seems to be spaming or advertising for the BLA. SMS ^Talk 20:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

C.Fred has blocked Karojaro for 24 hours beginning 21:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC) for edit warring. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on F-Zero Z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zero705 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 21:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 14:09 (restored at 16:07)

• All reverts: removing of the Hoax tag, as can be seen in history

• Diff of 3RR warning: 15:29

Repeatedly removes {{

21:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Tony Fox has blocked Zero705 for 24 hours beginning 21:14 11 April 2008 (UTC), for edit warring. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Opposition to trade unions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). J.R._Hercules (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 19:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 21:53, 8 April 2008

• 1st revert: 23:22, 9 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 14:54, 10 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 17:07, 10 April 2008
• 4th revert: 21:51, 10 April 2008

He keeps singling out Hitler as one opposed to trade unions and thus possibly trying to sneak in Reductio ad Hitlerum. -- Vision Thing -- 19:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a message at J.R. Hercules' talk page informing the user of the 3RR rule and of this report, and inviting the user to self-revert. The user has not edited for over 24 hours.(11:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

J.R. Hercules has been editing Wikipedia for two and a half years so I believe that he is acquainted with the 3RR. Also, he was active after Coppertwig left him a message at his talk page but he refused to make self-revert, which indicates that he believes that revert warring is a legitimate way of resolving disputes. Other user tried to discuss this issue on article talk page, but except comment in which he accused him of having political agenda and being intellectual dishonest, Hercules failed to provide any explanation for his reverts. -- Vision Thing -- 09:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Absolut Vodka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The rabbit in the suitcase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 01:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 13:45 10 April 2008

• 1st revert: 02:07 11 April
• 2nd revert: 02:11 11 April
• 3rd revert: 20:29 11 April
• 4th revert: 21:57 11 April

• Diff of 3RR warning: 21:28 11 April

User The rabbit in the suitcase is determined to make the Absout Vodka page about blogger Michelle Malkin. He is determined to revert as many times as he wishes to "own" the page. People have attempted to reach consensus with him, but he does not reciprocate. Urzatron (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently no violation. (non-admin opinion). I see only three reverts. It takes four reverts in a 24-hour period to violate 3RR. The two edits at 02:07 and 02:11 are consecutive, so they count as one edit. That edit added "led by", apparently for the first time, so it was apparently not a revert. The following three also added "led by", so they are reverts. No proper "previous version reverted to" has been supplied. Dates as well as times should be stated. Urzatron's account has only 24 edits. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC) I struck out some of my words. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The "previous version reverted to" isn't done correctly? My mistake.Urzatron (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted to rectify by changing the "previous version reverted to." The words aren't exactly the same, but you'll see the intent is to make the entry "led by Michelle Malkin" or "bloggers connected with Michelle Malkin began" ... to revert this meaning repeatedly.Urzatron (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I also neglected to realize that two of the user's edits were back-to-back; therefore I've removed one of the claimed "reverts" from this log, as you're obviously correct -- two edits back-to-back certainly aren't two reverts. Your advice is appreciated. :) Urzatron (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I see your point now. The version of 13:45 10 April 2008, although it did not contain the words "led by", contained essentially the same or a very similar idea, "bloggers connected with Mexican immigration critic Michelle Malkin". This idea of M. Malkin being central to or connected with all of the bloggers mentioned was softened and removed in the two subsequent edits: "Various bloggers, including those connected with ... Michelle Malkin," (Ulzatron, 14:40, 10 April 2008; then "Various ... bloggers, including ... Michelle Malkin", by Orangemike at 14:44, 10 April 2008, completely eliminating the idea that the bloggers were "connected" with M. Malkin. Therefore, logically, if not literally, inserting "led by" is a revert, and if this argument is accepted then there are four reverts within 24 hours.

I've added dates to the above report.

Here is The rabbit in the suitcase's response to the 3RR warning. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Result - I've blocked for 24 hours. Clear edit warring.
  Scarian^{Call me Pat!}
  10:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• TheRealFennShysa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 12:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 22:09, 9 April 2008

• 1st revert: 22:09, 9 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 22:09, 9 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 22:08, 9 April 2008
• 4rd revert: 22:08, 9 April 2008
• 5th revert: 22:09, 9 April 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 16:33, 8 April 2008

• 1st revert:21:04, 9 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 21:40, 9 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 21:45, 9 April 2008
• 4rd revert: 21:58, 9 April 2008
• 5rd revert: 22:06, 9 April 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 00:29, 9 April 2008

Before we discussed it in a talk page; which is not going to well, I changed a the Star Wars episodes in the template in order and this user came and reverted my edit in all 6 Star Wars Articles, not just this one. We reverted 5 to 6 times, it doesn't seem stop or go anywhere. I feel she or he is following me around Wikipedia and reverting my edits, and I dont want to break the 3RR rule and revert my edits back. This user does not clearly know the 3RR rule. // A Raider Like Indiana 12:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No violation (non-admin opinion). Looking at the edit histories, I see only three edits in April on each page by TheRealFennShysa. It takes four reverts to violate the 3RR. The report is not formulated properly: diffs must be given, not version links; there are duplicates in the list; not all versions listed are by the reportee; and no proper "previous version reverted to" has been given. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As per Coppertwig (again ;-), no violation here. These are also stale, and unless they're reverting today then no action will take place as blocks are not punitive.

Scarian^{Call me Pat!}

19:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/12/wikipedia-s-zealots-solomon.aspx

The preceding was posted by User:203.173.156.182 at 20:20, 12 April 2008.

I replaced the above to a link to where the content appears at the National Post. I doubt that Lawrence Solomon intended to release the content under the

GFDL; therefore it violates our internal copyright rules, even though it likely qualifies as fair use by US law. WAS 4.250 (talk

) 05:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I collapsed this because, although it's talking about a revert war, it's not in the appropriate format for this noticeboard. I also looked at Naomi Oreskes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and see that KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has only 3 edits on April 11, and none the day before or after, so there is no 3RR violation on that page. (non-admin opinion.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The page Naomi Oreskes has been protected until April 26 by Rjd0060. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(Actually, the page had already been protected at 14:53, 12 April 2008 before the above was posted, but whatever.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Even after being pleased on his User page to stop it, Croix 129 continues entering the (wrong) Pavillon royal () as national flag of royal France instead of the correct one I restore everytime, the Drapeau blanc (File:Flag of the Kingdom of France.png), especially in the articles First French Empire, Bourbon Restoration and July Monarchy. Louis88 (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JTMcDonald (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 05:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 22:35, 11 April 2008

• 1st revert: 21:59, 12 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 22:13, 12 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 22:34, 12 April 2008
• 4th revert: 22:51, 12 April 2008
• 5th revert: 23:38, 12 April 2008
• 6th revert: 00:01, 13 April 2008
• 7th revert: 00:38, 13 April 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 22:56, 12 April 2008

A new user, JTMcDonald, came to the article and some excessive details and ad like copy to the NaturallySpeaking article. I removed it, and finally began tackling some of the issues it was tagged for, including reading like an ad, needing clean up, being unreferenced, etc. I removed quite a bit of software-manual and ad-like material,and fixed the layout and section ordering to be more inline with what is appropriate for a software package. JTMcDonald keeps reverting this clean up, usually with some variant of the edit summary "Restoring this article to prior condition as of March 27 2008 with updates for new versions of DNS 9.1 & 9.5.". The first time, I left a note in the edit summary as to why it was cleaned out. The second time, I left an NPOV welcome[100]. The third, I left a note on his talk page asking him to stop, explaining why, and trying to invite him to discuss it[101]. When he undid the clean up again, I left a warning about unsourced material and reverted as vandalism as his reverts are also removing maintenance tags.[102] He reverted again, so I left a 3RR warning. He has answered no messages and again just keeps reverting without any discussion or response to my messages and reasons for clean up. I'm not bothering undoing his revert again until the results of this report, as I have now, of course, also gone over 3RR in trying to deal with this issue.

Note, another editor reverted JTMcDonald's last undoing of the clean up, and JTMcDonald reverted again. In the last he claims to have kept my "updates" which is false, as it is a pure revert with all tags removed, none of the reordering kept, etc.

) 05:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that both users were edit warring. I have blocked them both for 24 hours.

Scarian^{Call me Pat!}

10:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Rabindranath Tagore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an FA. Sroy1947 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 06:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 10:27, 12 April 2008 (This is a complex revert)

• 1st revert: 12:39, 12 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 23:46, 12 April 2008 (via user's IP, belongs to user per his own admission)
• 3rd revert: 00:01, 13 April 2008
• 4th revert: 00:32, 13 April 2008

Other reverts in the last 24 hours

• 09:10, 12 April 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 00:38, 13 April 2008 , but User already knows of 3RR, he has been threatening other users with 3RR "1 more rv by u = 3RR" (12:39, 12 April 2008)

This user has been blanking valid references regarding Rabindranath Tagore ancestry from Tagore's biography. The user has several times blanked references. User knows about 3RR, and has been threatening others with 3RR violation warnings (as shown above) since yesterday. Made 5 reverts in 24 hours to this article. (on a separate note, that a new user is showing such behavior makes me think this is a sockpuppet account). Ragib (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is my first (preliminary) objection to User:Ragib's charge. This objection is formal, till such time as I provide a detailed rebuttal if called upon to do so. This matter is also being discussed NOW on the talk page of the impugned article between Ragib and myself. It is noteworthy that Admin Ragib, deliberately removed (twice) a DISPUTE tag I had placed without logging any TALK (either on the TALK discussion I had previously initiated and which was ongoing with other editors, or on my Talk page). In any case I am not a vandal, but a serious editor raising serious disputes for a Featured Article.Sroy1947 (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the sockpuppetry charge, I am here under my easily searchable for RL identity, and there is no reason why I would vandalise my family page. Sroy1947 (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the "threatening" charge, I clarify that I was "cautioning" User:DwipaiyanC. Admin:Ragib would be well advised to recall what "weasel words" are. Sroy1947 (talk) 08:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that, the user has, on several occasions (linked in 1st and 2nd rv diffs) , blanked references from a reputed biography of Tagore. Either way, the diffs are all provided above, and the user is well aware of 3RR even from the start of his "new" Wikipedia edits. 5 reverts have been made by this user in the last 24 hours, in full knowledge of 3RR. I rest my case. --Ragib (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

User:RAGIB: is well aware that what was supposedly "blanked" is from dubious literary biographies cited, whereas what hesimilarly deleted (without discussion) was my citation from an ENCYCLOPEDIA which he has often cited from himself. He has Also passed dubious uncalled for remarks hinting that I am ignorant of who Krisha Kripalani is. I also dispute the way he is counting reverts, since it the letter AND spirit of 3RR which is important, and my "Compromise" edits placing DISPUTE tags must not be included.Sroy1947 (talk) 08:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, my admin hat is not on my head in this case, and in no way did I suggest, hint, claim, message, imply that my being an admin has anything to do here. So, the user sroy1947 is kindly requested not to make any misrepresentation regarding this. As for the rest of your comments, the talk page of the article in question is the appropriate venue to discuss them, which is precisely what I have been doing at this moment. User:Sroy1947 has made several reverts which have been diffed above, according to the requirements of this page. 5 reverts by blanking sourced information have been linked to in the above diffs. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 08:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked

Scarian^{Call me Pat!}

10:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on The Troubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Redking7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 12:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 19:14, 12 April 2008

• 1st revert: 00:10, 13 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 00:13, 13 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 00:48, 13 April 2008
• 4th revert: 09:04, 13 April 2008 (Note that this revert also involved adding some extra text, but was reverted by another editor)

• Diff of 3RR warning: 01:03, 13 April 2008

to rename that article to "Ireland (state)" or some such disambiguated name, most recently last month, but none has achieved consensus.

Nonethless, some editors have sought to remove the phrase "Republic of Ireland" from other articles, even when this might introduce ambiguity, and that is the issue in dispute wrt the article The Troubles (see Talk:The_Troubles#.22Disambig.22).

The article The Troubles and related articles are subject to Wikipedia:General sanctions as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Remedies. There is a notice to this effect at the top of Talk:The Troubles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:SANCTION. CIreland (talk

) 12:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why BHG reported this instance, when shes been so block happy in the recent past.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF please. As I had already explained to TU at Talk:The Troubles/Archive 1#.22Disambig.22, I reported this one because I might be perceived as having a COI in this case. BTW, the block you refer to was upheld when appealed. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs

) 14:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The appeals "process" is a greater farce than the whimsical discretion of admins to administer blocks in the first place, that proves nothing. The COI and "involved" admin principles are also close to meaningless.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm very impressed.

My admin actions have been criticised before, but this is the first time that I have been the subject of a repeated complaint for seeking third-party involvement to avoid any possible COI. Maybe you should also lodge a complaint that I have not been edit-warring or sock-puppeteering? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 92.11.146.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 22:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [103]

1. [104] Diff 18:04, 13 April 2008 (hist) (diff) James Stewart (actor)‎ (Undid revision 204220254 by Bzuk (talk))
2. [105] Diff 18:44, 13 April 2008 (hist) (diff) James Stewart (actor)‎ (Undid revision 205372274 by Bzuk (talk))
3. [106] Diff 19:19, 13 April 2008 (hist) (diff) James Stewart (actor)‎ (Undid revision 205385095 by Bzuk (talk)The talk page is locked) (top)

• Diff of 3RR warning: [107]

The editor [108] also appears to be recently using another Ip address:

1. (cur) (last) 14:32, 8 April 2008 Bzuk (Talk | contribs) (79,173 bytes) (it appears that this article will again require protection) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 14:31, 8 April 2008 92.10.220.95 (Talk) (79,267 bytes) (→Politics) (undo)
3. (cur) (last) 14:30, 8 April 2008 92.10.220.95 (Talk) (79,123 bytes) (→Politics) (undo)
4. (cur) (last) 12:57, 8 April 2008 92.10.220.95 (Talk) (78,803 bytes) (Undid revision 204200420 by Bzuk (talk)Not contentious at all, Stewart was a racist just like his friends.) (undo)
5. (cur) (last) 12:37, 8 April 2008 Bzuk (Talk | contribs) (79,173 bytes) (This is a contentious issue that was previously discussed on the talk page, introduce it there) (undo)
6. (cur) (last) 11:50, 8 April 2008 92.10.220.95 (Talk) (78,803 bytes) (Undid revision 203503326 by CDChen (talk)) (undo)

It may be editor Harvey Carter who has previously used the exact same terminology and wording. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/HarveyCarter (6th) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No violation I fixed the header of this report so that the IP links work. The second set of edits listed, those from April 8, are by a different IP editor, 92.10.220.95 (talk · contribs). Since we have two different IPs, there can't be any question of using checkuser to show they are the same editor. The April 8 edits are stale for 3RR purposes. So I don't think this can be considered a valid 3RR complaint, even if you throw in a potential RFCU. Meanwhile, back at the article, User:Rodhullandemu has full-protected the article until editors can work out a consensus whether allegations of racism are well enough proven to stay in the article. If consensus is that the allegations are not verified or undue weight, then you could maybe have a case for semi-protection against these IP-hopping attacks. Why not work on that. Meanwhile I'm marking this as No Violation for purpose of this noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 00:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 01:09 yday

23:26 yday 23:42 yday 23:53 yday

• 1st revert: 01:09 yday
• 2nd revert: 23:26 yday
• 3rd revert: 23:42 yday
• 4th revert: 23:53 yday

• Diff of 3RR warning: User has the experience to know better, and a history of similar behaviour on this article.

POV warrior and some quite inappropriate goading aimed towards editors.

Reasons included for reverts: “sock” (unfounded), “rm trollinmg from an editor whose exampl;es have been demosnstrated as falase how dare you add material that is demonstrably unsoutrced oyyur opinionj ion talk”, and “please stop promoting the [ped view” as in “pedophile”. 66.6.120.69 (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Page protected by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on WrestleMania XXIV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LifeStroke420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 05:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

• 1st revert: [109]
• 2nd revert: [110]
• 3rd revert: [111]
• 4th revert: [112]
• 5th revert: [113]
• 6th revert: [114]
• 7th revert: [115]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [116]

LifeStroke's been reverting the page for over a day now. Originally he was saying "check the archives for proof", then the later reverts were just plain and simple reverts with no reasoning. I don't think he replied to the warning either. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 18:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 12:12, 13 April 2008

• 1st revert: 12:12, 13 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 16:50, 13 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 18:08, 13 April 2008
• 4th revert: 18:25, 13 April 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: User is a regular and has many warnings on talk (removed lots of them)

He keeps reverting changes I made with no legit explanation at all (saying no consensus, all the while he makes those huge changes with no consensus), and continues to make huge POV pushing edits that aren't warranted and are highly controversial. This user is a massive POV pusher and has been warned about baised editing by admins, as well as for wiki-stalking (me and others). He is constantly edit warring and trying to push his conspiracy theories without consensus, giving them undue weight and using logical fallacies to justify the changes. - "If this theory is wrong, then where's a book that says it's wrong?" *revert* - That sort of thing, absolutely ridiculous. Krawndawg (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact I made only one revert. As one can see from this article talk page and edit history, I tried to accomodate the criticism of another side. He challenged views about Putin's involvement in the murder as "fringe theory" [117]. So, I had to provide much more supporting sources, and that is exactly what I did. In reply, my opponent told that he is not going to cooperate [118]. However, I am ready to apologize if you think I am still at fault.Biophys (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC) O'K, I made a self-revert. I guess we need more opinions on this subject.Biophys (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• No action, user self-reverted. Please pursue
  dispute resolution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
  19:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't challenge your sources, I challenged the fact that they are views worthy of a 4000 word section, which they are not. I said that twice in discussion. The claims are politically motivated, all made by dissenters and defectors, and have no evidence to back them up. Additionally, you reverted my original changes a total of 4 times as you can see above. I also find it amusing how you just reverted yourself saying "we need more opinions" after I had to do this. Why didn't we need more opinions before when I told you that in the first place? Krawndawg (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well this is great. Now we can go through the whole thing all over again in a few days and Biophys gets away with breaking rules and POV pushing yet again. Krawndawg (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it was you, User:Krawndawg, who started undoing edits by several users and broke the 3RR rule:

1st revert

2nd revert,

3rd revert

4th revert.

Biophys (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And the solution to your problem was so simple, to get your friend to do the reverting for you! Man I wonder why more people don't do that..

Like I said yesterday, it starts all over again. This user refuses to cooperate in discussion and reverts changes with no explanation whatsoever. The word consensus means nothing. I'm done. I just don't care. As long as wikipedia is full of people like Biophys and as long as they're allowed to run rampant, it will always be a joke and will always be a propaganda tool more than anything else. Krawndawg (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So, that is why you just made fifth revert? It was not me who you have reverted three times in this article. It was not me who gave you this warning. Biophys (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's right, I'm not going to bother with trying to improve the article but don't expect the tags to go away. Krawndawg (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Littlebutterfly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 02:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 20:05, 13 April 2008 which was revert to 17:13, 13 April 2008

• 1st revert: Revision as of 22:29, 13 April 2008
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 22:49, 13 April 2008
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 23:07, 13 April 2008
• 4th revert: Revision as of 23:47, 13 April 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: User has been 3RR'd in the past and has reported another user's 3RR before. This user should have known better that he would be 3RR'd for hisactions.

Littlebutterfly has been constantly doing harm to this page and has continuously reverted anything that went against his views Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Page protected Stifle (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Akatsuki (Naruto) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Darkmage Rector (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 16:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 16:01, 14 April 2008

• 1st revert: 04:56, 13 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 05:04, 13 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 22:56, 13 April 2008
• 4th revert: 15:47, 14 April 2008
• 5th revert: 15:56, 14 April 2008
• 6th revert: 16:01, 14 April 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 16:01, 14 April 2008

Continued insertion of the same nonsense. User has been told to stop many times, but refuses to do so. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 12 hours. CIreland (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 19:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [119]

• 1st revert: [120]
• 2nd revert: [121]
• 3rd revert: [122]
• 4th revert: [123]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [124]

Warring to include a link to a non-notable YouTube film parody. Kelly ^hi! 19:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours.

Scarian^{Call me Pat!}

19:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Supergreenred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 11:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to:

10:03, 13 April 2008 (first revert) 10:18, 13 April 2008 (reverts 2-4)

• 1st revert: 10:16, 13 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 22:12, 13 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 22:29, 13 April 2008
• 4th revert: 12:22, 14 April 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 22:27, 13 April 2008

Supergreenred has been edit-warring on the above article. He was temporarily blocked for tendacious editing, which was then lifted. However, even though I had warned him about edit-warring, the first thing he did after the block was lifted was to start reverting again. He also removed my warning and subsequent requests to calm down from his talk page.

Clearly the user does not believe the rules apply to him. He is an experienced user - he admits he has long edited as an anon-IP and seems to know the rules, even if he doesn't follow them. He should not be treated as a newbie. Although he has not quite reverted four times in 24 hours, he has broken the spirit of the rules by reverting four times within 26 hours, especially when he had just been released from a prior block. John Smith's (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
  3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Stifle (talk
  ) 12:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Err, with all due respect I have seen many cases where editors have been blocked for four reversions outside of 24 hours. Sure it can't be too great, but I think four reverts within 26 hours is quite similar. If you want to say that the period was not large enough, ok. But you are not being correct when you say there must be 4 reverts in 24 hours. John Smith's (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I am happy with my decision; another admin can feel free to review. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Strange, I was blocked for edit waring with less than 4 in a 24 hour period, I thought 3RR stated that just 3 was the maximum and you may be blocked for less. Also I think that waiting till the 24 hours is up, then making another revert is considering gaming wikipedia, and is most certainly not within the spirit of the rules, a block would be highly suitable for this particular case. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I already closed this case.[125] Somehow my notes disappeared. In any event, this user was on notice about edit warring, and just came off a block. They immediately

15:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

JEH's disappearing notes are actually below, in the second complaint about Supergreenred (from a different submitter). Both reports are now properly closed, and with the same answer. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Linus Pauling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). AgntOrange (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linus_Pauling&oldid=205675150 16:57] 18:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 11:01
• 2nd 1st revert: 14:19 (21:19, 14 April 2008(UTC))
• 3rd 2nd revert: 16:50 (23:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC))
• 4th 3rd revert: 16:57 (23:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC))
• 4th revert: 00:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Each revert deletes "[Oregon] Agricultural College" from the sentence "he attended ..." and/or from the sentence "Pauling entered...".

• Diff of 3RR warning: 18:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

AgntOrange has made a number of edits today, all related to Oregon State University; I believe every edit, or nearly every one, has met with opposition from a variety of editors. He/she was warned about 3RR on the Oregon State University article, violated 3RR, and the remedy was protecting the page. Now he/she has violated it at Linus Pauling, also with attempts to discuss the situation on the talk page by more than one established editor. This is becoming a big distraction from encyclopedia writing. The string of casual accusations of vandalism, sock puppetry etc. doesn't help. Pete (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've modified (by striking out) and added to the above report. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. For the record, AgntOrange quickly evaded the block by logging out: [126] The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peteforsyth at 17:53, 15 April 2008. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Not continued editwarring: The link given is a posting of a comment on the talk page of protected article

Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets rather than here. (non-admin, kindof involved (see above) opinion.) ☺Coppertwig (talk

) 00:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Jin Jing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Novidmarana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 05:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 2008-04-15T04:51:54

• 1st revert: 2008-04-15T00:45:03
• 2nd revert: 2008-04-15T01:37:30
• 3rd revert: 2008-04-15T04:48:26
• 4th revert: 2008-04-15T04:52:45

Editor keeps deleting the words "fending off protestors" in the intro. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

User has already been blocked.

Scarian^{Call me Pat!}

09:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Jin Jing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). HongQuiGong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 05:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 01:22, 15 April 2008

• 1st revert: 00:49, 15 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 20:45, 14 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 00:34, 15 April 2008
• 4th revert: 12:29, 14 April 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

Actually see above, as the complainant above has also violated the 3RR rule. Editor

.

Dassiebtekreuz (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see where the 3RR violation is. The first two diffs are different edits from the last two diffs. But if you can point out the 3RR violation, I'd be glad to self-revert. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I see 2 or 3 reverts looking through the articles history but I can't see any violation. A little bit of

Scarian^{Call me Pat!}

09:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Jin Jing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Helloterran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 05:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 01:22, 15 April 2008

• 1st revert: 01:29, 15 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 20:45, 01:08, 15 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 00:34, 01:05, 15 April 2008
• 4th revert: 12:29, 00:57, 15 April 2008

Once again, see above, as the complainant above has also violated the 3RR rule. Editor

) 05:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Already been blocked.

Scarian^{Call me Pat!}

09:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:GAME

)

• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Supergreenred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 11:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 08:30, 14 April 2008

• 1st revert: 11:22, 14 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 04:59, 15 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 09:40, 15 April 2008
• 4th revert: 11:31, 15 April 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning. The first action of the account in Wikipedia was a 3RR report so he knows the rule: 01:58, 16 March 2008 Also warned later about the rule on his talk page: [127]

Attempt to violate the spirit of the rule by waiting 9 minutes before making his fourth revert.Ultramarine (talk) 11:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This editor has persisted in edit-warring, even when asked not to/warned about it. He was let off with the last report because he reverted four times in 26 hours. This time he has reverted four times in 24 hours 9 minutes. Other editors have been blocked for doing this, so I do not see why this guy should be any different. He admits that he is an experienced user who edited as a series of IPs in the past - he may have been blocked then as well for edit-warring, as he has not disclosed any of the IPs he used in the past, even after he was asked. John Smith's (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. Jehochman ^Talk 14:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jsn9333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 13:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 19:03, 9 April 2008

• 1st revert: 13:16, 14 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 17:37, 14 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 03:14, 15 April 2008
• 4th revert: 11:52, 15 April 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 15:49, 30 March 2008

Jsn9333 is a disruptive SPA who has already been blocked once for sock/meatpuppetry on

13:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not altogether convinced that #1 is a revert, as it does not match the version reverted back to. Bearing in mind that the page was protected for 4 days and the edit war began again when the page was unprotected, Page protected This one's indefinite, though. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

From

WP:3RR "A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content or restoring deleted content...". Jsn removed the same version of the intro 4 times in 24 hours. However, I suppose protection is the second best thing. - auburnpilot talk

17:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Grsz11

(Result: 24 hours )

• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). VeritasAgent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 14:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [128]

• 14 April, 18:05
• 14 April, 19:03
• 14 April, 19:16
• 14 April, 20:57
• 15 April, 12:28
• 15 April, 14:39

• Diff of 3RR warning: 14 April, 21:04

Keeps trying to push his POV into the article, so trying to edit war it in.

14:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours.

Scarian^{Call me Pat!}

15:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Andyvphil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 17:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 11:44, April 15, 2008

• 1st revert: 11:44, April 15, 2008
• 2nd revert: 11:46, April 15, 2008
• 3rd revert: 11:54, April 15, 2008
• 4th revert: 12:11, April 15, 2008
• 5th revert: 13:00, April 15, 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 11:56, April 7, 2008
• Diff of second 3RR warning: 13:11, April 8, 2008

User has been warned for three-revert violations on multiple occasions and has been blocked twice before, yet continues to edit war on Barack Obama in order to push POV. Reversions often take place despite pleas for talk page discussion and consensus-building. The users performed a self-revert to avoid 3RR issues (diff), but then immediately cancelled it (diff). In the interests of disclosure, I should point out that this user has previously reported me for violations of 3RR, but these have not resulted in a block. Scjessey (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, the first three reverts are consecutive, so they only count as one edit. You'll need to find other reverts to get a 3RR violation. Edit warring, now that's a possibility.. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point, and I confess I was unaware of that nuance in the policy. That leaves only 3, so I agree the monitoring administrator will need to make a decision based on edit warring. I'm not looking for a block, I just want the edit warring to end. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The reports on Scjessey (which were for clear 3RR violations, not vaguely defined "edit warring") did not result in a block, but did result in warnings and an offered and accepted self-block and parole. The text in question was transferred whole from the talk page where it had resided for a couple days, so assertions that I am avoiding discussion are false. Scjessey is confusing my refusal to accept his partial acceptance of the proposed change as adequate with a refusal to build consensus. Not the same thing at all. Putting text on the page once in awhile is what keeps the discussion going. Otherwise the refuseniks demand "consensus", ignore or string out the discussion endlessly, and win by desuetude.

We're all three edit warring, but so far (since Scjessey was last reported) obeying the speed limit. None of us have violated 3RR. We each have three reverts in the 24 hour period in question (in each case spread over two or more issues) although one of Bobblehead's is a genuine rvv exception (one of Scjessey's is a bogus rvv claim,[129] but he's the one still getting an education in the details of the speed limit.) It's not disruptive -- it's how things get done at

Andyvphil (talk

) 00:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No violation. I'm not seeing enough reverts by Andyvphil to break the limit. I have merged multiple edits into one, for purpose of counting. Here are the beginnings of the sets:

14:52 UTC 15 April: Adds "terrorism" in double quotes to Wright discussion, adds ABC News link (doesn't seem to be a revert)

15:44 UTC 15 April: Adds new material on Rezko's federal trial which wasn't there before; not a revert

16:11 UTC 15 April: Puts back the Rezko material after someone removed it; it's a revert

17:00 UTC 15 April: Puts back the Rezko material again; it's another revert

00:19 UTC 16 April: Adds 'POV' tag to one of the sections, which is not a revert

I invite others to do their own analysis, and block if they can find enough reverts. I don't perceive that either side in this debate is much more virtuous than the other, regarding edit warring, so I don't see cause for a block on those grounds. Scjessey didn't edit enough during this period to risk a 3RR violation himself. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Xan Yae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gavin.collins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 03:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 07:51, April 15, 2008

• 1st revert: 08:23, April 15, 2008
• 2nd revert: 11:14, April 15, 2008
• 3rd revert: 11:53, April 15, 2008
• 4th revert: 13:22, April 15, 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gavin.collins/Archive_4#Beware_3RR

Edit warring over clean-up tags. Basically an episodes-and-characters dispute. 71.107.160.155 (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No violation Removal of the templates was vandalism, and Gavin was reverting it. A fluctuating set of four different single-purpose IPs was on the other side of Gavin during this dispute.

User:Jeske Couriano, an administrator, is one of those who restored the templates. User:Tiptoety has now semi-protected the page. EdJohnston (talk

) 03:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That's wrong, removal of incorrect templates is not vandalism. Gavin should be blocked. Also, Jeske Couriano is also a deletionist, so he is biased in this instance. The administrator who protected the page obviously didn't look at the revisions.

You *are* aware that those on the other side turn out invariably to be Grawp socks, right, Ed? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 04:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Those reverts weren't 3RR-exempt. But I probably wouldn't have blocked anyway. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of Talk:Deaths in 2008, removing contributions of other editors when it doesn't suit him, reverting to present his view of history. Breach of 3RR when other editors attempt to restore contributions.

1. (cur) (last) 14:53, 16 April 2008 Rodhullandemu
2. (cur) (last) 11:28, 16 April 2008 Rodhullandemu
3. (cur) (last) 10:57, 16 April 2008 Rodhullandemu
4. (cur) (last) 09:01, 16 April 2008 Rodhullandemu

This person is a disgrace to wikipedia 62.64.200.158 (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete

diffs. You could also try discussion, if you see it from someone else's perspective, it can help. Rudget

17:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Information: This anon IP is a suspected sockpuppet of Smurfmeister (talk · contribs)--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Could anyone, pls, help prevent this dispute [130] degenerating into an edit war. Sorry for not putting this request through the proper channels, they are very slow in reacting. Hopefully, this very conspecous place would help get some of you interested to help us. Thank you very much. Dc76\^talk 11:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone with a spare half hour, the long running war over UEFA Cup related articles is ongoing, see

) 21:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

For convenience, here are some links to the above-mentioned: article

) 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete

diffs. Stifle (talk

) 08:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A correct report would have filled a whole page, since nothing was done after the editors resumed warring following an 8hr block by your own hand, following the first correct filing. If anyone is interested in another incorrect filing: admin User:Oldelpaso must have either acted on this filing anyway, or saw the capital letter e/s tirades in recent changes, and has warned two editors since, [here] and [here], of which Ultracanella broke tonight [131], and Fadiga09 reverted [132] with the e/s if i get blocked, so do you. MickMacNee (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No violation (non-admin opinion). Although there's editwarring going on, I don't see 4 reverts within a 24-hour period on either of the two pages whose links I've listed above. I encourage all involved to discuss things calmly on the talk page rather than reverting repeatedly. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure edit warring within the technical limit is supposed to be actionable. Do you see any evidence that the users will discuss on the talk page, despite having been warned? Plenty of talk has happened with no result, now they just seem determined to take each other down, meanwhile the article gets reverted continually without a technical violation. And be aware, this is being done at other articles too. There comes a point where the technical interpretation of the policy and the correct use of filing template has to be put aside for the good of an article. If it goes on much further, I and I presume other non-admins will just unwatch it and let them get on with it. MickMacNee (talk)

I issued the warnings as a result of seeing edit warring on

UEFA Cup on my watchlist. I hadn't realised it had spread to Valencia CF too. The prolonged nature of the edit warring means I wouldn't oppose a block even if 3RR was not technically breached, as both have continued to edit war despite receiving previous warnings and short blocks for it. By now they should both be aware that 3RR is not an entitlement. Lets see whether B's actions change anything. Oldelpaso (talk

) 17:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Fadiga09 blocked 48 hours, Dustihowe warned, rollback removed, Ultracanalla warned. The cross-article edit warring is ridiculous. Protecting the article for a week didn't seem to do the trick. I have removed the rollback privilege from
  talk · contribs), who was using it to revert war on Valencia CF. I have blocked Fadiga09 (talk · contribs) for 48 hours. He appears to be the only one to have violated 3RR of late. I left warnings on the talk pages of the other two. --B (talk
  ) 02:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Talk:Deaths in 2008 (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Deaths in 2008|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 02:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 08:06, 16 April 2008

• 1st revert: 09:01, 16 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 10:57, 16 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 11:28, 16 April 2008
• 4th revert: 14:53, 16 April 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: (User is an administrator, therefore presumably aware of 3RR.)

This is the same incident as reported in the malformed report above. Rodhullandemu removed a comment from an article talk page four times, essentially the same comment each time. The comment is addressed to Rodhullandemu. Smurfmeister posted the original message; the message was restored 4 times by 3 similar IP accounts. Rodhullandemu alleges that the comment is vandalism and that an IP account restoring it is a sockpuppet of Smurfmeister. Smurfmeister is not a banned user, so I don't think it's a valid 3RR exception even if they're sockpuppets. I didn't find any suspected sockpuppet report. If the IP accounts are sockpuppets of each other, they've also violated 3RR.

The reverts by the IP accounts are as follows:

• 10:55, 16 April 2008 62.64.201.155
• 11:02, 16 April 2008 62.64.201.155
• 14:50, 16 April 2008 62.64.213.157
• 17:39, 16 April 2008 62.64.200.158 (This last one is the one which posted the above report, and

which Rodhullandemu alleges to be a sockpuppet of Smurfmeister.)

☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1. The start of it all: Talk:Mark_Speight#Death
2. Notification of problem: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive138#Revert_war_at_Mark_Speight
3. Support for my actions: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Update:_WP:POINT_disruption_at_Talk:Deaths_in_2008_-_Block_review_please
4. The locus in quo:Talk:Deaths_in_2008#Mark_Speight
5. Proposal by third party to block IP for disruption:
   Wikipedia:AN#Proposed_blocking_of_an_IP_user_.2862.64.200.158.29
6. IP is blocked by User:seicer: [133]
7. Relevant policies/guidelines:

Wikipedia:Talk#How_to_use_article_talk_pages

Wikipedia:Talk#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable

• If this is an improper 3RR violation, I am a banana. And I note the editor in question has not taken up my suggestion to open an
  WP:RFC in relation to this. --Rodhullandemu (Talk
  ) 05:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note While the reverts were not strictly exempted from 3RR, I am minded to take no action on this because the IP and poster were making posts which bordered on personal attacks.
  talk
  ) 09:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SaltyBoatr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 19:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 20:33, 11 April 2008

• 1st revert: 17:33, 17 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 17:40, 17 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 17:49, 17 April 2008
• 4th revert: 18:45, 17 April 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 21:38, 5 April 2008

Editor is continuously edit warring with other editors, attempting to

) 19:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for clear violation. User has been blocked before for edit warring on the same article. There also seems to be numerous editors reverting him/her. Obvious consensus against their changes?

Scarian^{Call me Pat!}

19:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Anastrophe.

(Result: No vio )

• talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): 20:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

i'm reporting myself in the interest of fairness per the block immediately preceding this, as believe i'm guilty of violating 3RR in response to User:Saltyboatr's reverts.

talk

) 20:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Nej, at most you did 3 reverts apparently in line with consensus. No violation. (And don't let you conscience fool you into feeling guilty ;-)

Scarian^{Call me Pat!}

20:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks. less about guilt than about being fair, and above-board.

talk

) 20:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Deaths in 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 12.18.63.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 00:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 19:41, 17 April 2008 (23:41 UTC)

• 1st revert: 19:42, 17 April 2008 (23:42 UTC)
• 2nd revert: 19:45, 17 April 2008 (23:45 UTC)
• 3rd revert: 19:49, 17 April 2008 (23:49 UTC)
• 4th revert: 19:55, 17 April 2008 (23:55 UTC)

• Diff of 3RR warning: 19:51, 17 April 2008 (23:51 UTC)

The user's last revert was only four minutes after receiving the 3RR warning. It seems possible that the user stopped reverting when the user saw the warning. (Non-admin opinion) I've added UTC times to the above report. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've now blocked this user for a further 3RR breach after this report has been filed. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Multiple reversions by anon IP user with multiple IP addresses editing the article Analog hole.

• 15:08 April 17 - User:71.100.164.179 appeared for the first time today at the Analog hole article and added an external link to a "how-to" site.
• 17:05 - I deleted the link simply because it was a "how-to"; I didn't want the article to become a linkfarm.
• 17:57 - User:71.100.164.179 came back and restored the link.
• 17:59 - User:71.100.164.179 vandalized my user page.
• 18:22 - User:71.100.12.251 appeared and made a small change to the link's wording.
• 18:36 - I deleted the small change without examining it closely, I thought I was deleting the whole link.
• 18:39 - User:71.100.12.251 returned to restore the newer link text.
• 18:40 - I returned to delete the anon IP "how-to" link.
• 18:42 - I examined the remaining links more closely, evaluating them for their relevance. I found one that linked to a software application solution which appeared to fail
  WP:EL
  so I deleted it.
• 19:00 - User:71.100.12.251 returned to restore his own link.
• 19:07 - User:71.100.12.251 left a note on my Talk page including an accusation of WP:POV and a threat to spread my user name around.
• 19:09 - User:71.100.12.251 returned to restore the software solution link.
• 19:19 - I replied to my Talk page saying the links fail
  WP:EL
• 19:40 - I deleted both links again.
• 19:41 - User:71.100.12.251 came back to restore both links.
• 19:53 - I reverted both links
• 19:53 - I called for discussion on Talk:Analog hole#External links
• 19:54 - I went to User talk:71.100.12.251 and asked him to take it to Talk:Analog hole.
• 20:11 - User:71.100.0.75 appeared at the Village pump to complain about my POV pushing.
• 20:13 - User:71.100.0.75 restored both links
• 20:34 - I responded at
  Village Pump
• 20:40 - I responded further at Village Pump
• 20:44 - I deleted just the link to the software solution, awaiting discussion regarding the "how-to" link.
• 20:48 - User:71.100.171.52 appeared and restored the link to the software solution.
• 20:48 - User:71.100.171.52 tweaked the wording on the "how-to" link
• 22:33 - User:71.100.173.105 appeared and responded at Village Pump
• 23:19 - User:71.100.173.105 responded further at Village Pump
• 23:39 - User:71.100.173.105 responded further at Village Pump

Clearly, I myself am in violation of 3RR. I am willing to take whatever punishment is deemed suitable. What I would like most in this case is for the system to come up with a way to tame this anon user who is leapfrogging from IP to IP without ever having to answer to his wrongdoings such as his vandalism of user pages, immediate accusations of POV and his threatening attitude. Having multiple IP addresses insulates this user from warnings and 3RR. This user appears to feel that the rules are best applied to others.

• 3RR warning: Sole entry on Talk page

• Three-revert rule violation on Analog hole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.100.171.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 00:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Because of the dynamic IP, it seemed possible to me that the user had not seen the 3RR warning, so I posted information about 3RR to the article talk page at 00:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC) and in an edit summary in the article history at 00:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC). (non-admin opinion) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete

talk

) 09:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Analog hole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 12:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 03:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 17:05, 17 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 18:36, 17 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 18:40, 17 April 2008
• 4th revert: 19:40, 17 April 2008
• 5th revert: 19:53, 17 April 2008
• 6th revert: 20:44, 17 April 2008
• 7th revert: 03:41, 18 April 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: User is aware of 3RR, having submitted the next report above this one at 00:29, 18 April 2008 (before the last revert).

Dynamic IP user 71.100.x.x is adding an external link to a site that tells how to use an analog hole to circumvent copyright protection software (or something along those lines). Binksternet is removing this link on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a "linkfarm" but without citing policy to support that position, as far as I noticed. It's not obvious to me that one version or the other is definitely supported by Wikipedia policy; I think this needs to be worked out as a content dispute. Note also the report below this one, which is the other person reverting on the same page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've prot'd the article. I don't wanna block the user because he is removing a potentially illegal link. Circumventing DRM is certainly illegal and I'm sure Wikipedia doesn't want to be associated with that.

Scarian^{Call me Pat!}

15:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Analog hole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.100.174.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 12:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 15:08, 17 April 2008

• 1st revert: 17:57, 17 April 2008 using 71.100.164.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2nd revert: 19:00, 17 April 2008 using 71.100.12.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 3rd revert: 19:41, 17 April 2008 (same IP as above)
• 4th revert: 20:13, 17 April 2008 using 71.100.0.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 5th revert: 21:48, 17 April 2008 using 71.100.171.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 6th revert: 05:16, 18 April 2008 using 71.100.174.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Diff of 3RR warning: User is now aware of the 3RR (e.g. this message on my talk page at 06:41, 18 April 2008) but it isn't completely clear to me whether the user was aware at the time of the last revert. There was a 3RR warning at 22:39, 17 April 2008, which the user may not have received due to using a dynamic IP, and I put a message about 3RR into the edit history of the article, which the user acknowledges seeing in the aforementioned message on my talk page, though possibly might not have seen it until after reverting.

This is related to the report in the section immediately above. This person using a dynamic IP is inserting a how-to link and Binksternet is deleting it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked all of them for 24 hours for edit warring and spamming (Mainly spamming). Thanks for your reports Coppertwig.

Scarian^{Call me Pat!}

16:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Cerberus Capital Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 79.35.107.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & Sp4rt4n (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ) Time reported: 06:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [134]

• 1st revert: 08:15, 17 April 2008 - Sp4rt4n
• 2nd revert: 06:41, 18 April 2008 - 79.35.107.7
• 3rd revert: 06:58, 18 April 2008 - Sp4rt4n
• 4th revert: 13:02, 18 April 2008 - 79.35.107.7
• 5th revert: 21:16, 18 April 2008 - 79.35.107.7
• 6th revert: 05:24, 19 April 2008 - 79.35.107.7
• 7th revert: 06:21, 19 April 2008 - 79.35.107.7
• 8th revert: 06:22, 19 April 2008 - 79.35.107.7

• Previous version reverted to: 06:41, 18 April 2008

All of the following reverts are by 79.35.107.7. Each revert inserts the same link.

1. 13:02, 18 April 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
2. 21:16, 18 April 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
3. 05:24, 19 April 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
4. 06:21, 19 April 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
5. 06:22, 19 April 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
6. 06:53, 19 April 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
7. 06:56, 19 April 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")

• Diff of 3RR warning: 00:13, 19 April 2008 (This is the first post to the talk page, so only a version link and no diff is available.)

User 79.35.107.7 / Sp4rt4n is trying to post his own POV Blog that is poorly written and slanders a corporate entity with unsubstantiated and unverifiable bias. posted by WikiDon at 06:39 19 April. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've modified this report. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP and account for 24 hours and prot'd the disputed article. Clear

Scarian^{Call me Pat!}

15:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Talk:Afghanistan (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Afghanistan|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Carl.bunderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 22:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 18:04, 16 April 2008

A poll was done on this talk page. This user did not like the results and crossed out the poll and made his own poll and later voted in it. He was told to stop crossing out polls by several users (on ANI, link) but does not stop. He is not admin so he has no right to cross out polls. He is already aware of 3RR. Also, while edit warring he engages in name calling such as calling people "blind" and "idiot" (link, and link).

• 1st revert: 19:01, 16 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 19:59, 16 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 20:23, 16 April 2008
• 4th revert: 20:42, 16 April 2008
• 5th revert: 04:44, 17 April 2008
• 6th revert: 16:42, 17 April 2008
• 7th revert: 16:47, 17 April 2008
• 8th revert: 16:51, 17 April 2008
• 9th revert: 17:05, 17 April 2008
• 10th revert: 17:21, 17 April 2008
• 11th revert: 17:29, 17 April 2008
• 12th revert: 14:06, 18 April 2008
• 13th revert: 18 April 2008
• 14th revert: 21:30, 18 April 2008
• 15th revert: 05:57, 19 April 2008

The above was posted by 65.93.210.190 22:24 19 April 2008. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The diffs above span more than 24 hours. I think Carl.bunderson had more than 3 reverts on April 17. There is an allegation of ban-evading socks, so possibly Carl.bunderson's reverts might be exempt from 3RR for that reason. Carl.bunderson is crossing out a poll which begins with arguments in favour of one side, and replacing it with a balanced poll; and it appears to me that Carl.bunderson's version is accepted by at least two other users. The user posting the above report has only 15 edits. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive403#user removing poll results (non-admin, not previously involved opinion) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm... This is stale. He's only made one edit on the 19th (It's now the 20th GMT). Remember, we don't issue blocks to punish users; only to protect articles (or in this case talk pages).

Scarian^{Call me Pat!}

23:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides, the page has been semi-protected at 07:36, 19 April 2008, which may be why the revert war went away -- the other side was all (or almost all) anon-IP's. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Courtesy of the Red, White, & Blue (The Angry American) 72.200.173.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 23:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [135]

I have asked the editor to discuss this issue. I've shown multiple examples of where this was used in the mainstream media on the talk page and reminded him of the 3R. Although the warning was in the edit comments, the editor saw it and resonded that he didn't care about the 3R. The editor refuses to discuss the issue and makes reverts.

• 1st revert: [136]
• 2nd revert: [137]
• 3rd revert: [138]
• 4th revert: [139]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [140]

I have blocked the user for 48 hours and the IP for 24. Both of them were edit warring regardless.

Scarian^{Call me Pat!}

23:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Christoph Hartknoch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Space Cadet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ): Time reported: 01:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 21:02, 9 February 2008 (edit)

• 1st revert: 01:07, 19 April 2008
• 2nd revert: 01:14, 19 April 2008
• 3rd revert: 01:56, 19 April 2008
• 4th revert: 19:13, 19 April 2008
• 5th revert: 22:21, 19 April 2008
• 6th revert: 03:23, 20 April 2008 (rev) (added later)

• Diff of 3RR warning: 08:32, 4 September 2005 - besides, Space Cadet had recently been put under edit restriction according to
  Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#List_of_editors_placed_under_editing_restriction

Space Cadet is a very experienced editor regarding pro-Polish and anti-German POV. Here (and in many other articles, eg. [141] [142] [143] [144]), he tries to squeeze in "

.

In addition, he edit-wars over the title of Hartknoch's book Altes und Neues Preussen, written and titled in German, claiming it is called Old and New Prussia (It IS the original title in English.) .

Due to Space Cadet never-changing anti-German habits, it was proposed to ban User:Space Cadet from German-Polish-related topics:

I suggest that Space Cadet at least be banned from adding "Królewiec" to Königsberg/Kaliningrad, or adding any other Polish name to places that never were part of Poland.

Space Cadet recently also accused User:Sciurinæ as sockpuppeteer: Serafin, get a life! Or are you just Sciurinæ's sockpuppet? You guys are always together.... I have no idea what he wrote in Polish at User talk:LUCPOL [145], but he recently proposed a Non-aggression Pact to LUCPOL.-- Matthead  Discuß   01:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when is proposing a Non-aggression Pact something bad? And take a look at those:[146], [147], [148], [149], [150]. As you can see I'm pretty experienced in German POV as well. And the 4th revert was already corrected. Typo. Space Cadet (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC) I did not accuse anybody of anything. It was only a well justified observation. And I did revert Serafin. Space Cadet (talk) 02:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I see no evidence that the 4th revert is a revert. The first 3 reverts add "(Królewiec)" to the sentence with "ducal capital of...". This is also in the "previous version reverted to," so the first 3 reverts are reverts. The 4th revert adds "Old and New Prussia" to the sentence with "... in his book ...". In the "previous version reverted to", those words appear but not in that sentence; only in the section "Work", where they also already appeared before the 4th "revert". So the 4th revert doesn't seem to be a revert. The 5th revert re-adds the same information as the 4th revert, so it is a revert, making 4 reverts within a 24-hour period. (non-admin opinion) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever - I guess Space Cadet himself just removed all doubts with a 6th revert, see amended list above. And he did a self-rev now [151]. -- Matthead  Discuß   02:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours, since #1, 2, 3 and 5 are genuine reverts. This is his only 3RR violation so far this year, but the result should be more than the nominal block because of the Arbcom restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)