Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.
Administrators: please do not hesitate to remove disputes to user talk pages.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report

    Violations

    Please place new reports at the bottom.

    User:ItamarPH.D reported by User:Csernica (Result: 24 hour)

    Talpiot Tomb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ItamarPH.D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: 21:02, 7 June 2007 The substance of the matter is the editor's link to his own blog and mention of his own self-published novel.
    Blocked for 24hr for this and many other concerns (conflict of interest, external link, edit warring, verifiability and reliable sources). Thanks/wangi 20:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:65.9.234.169 reported by User:Rgfolsom (Result:no vio)

    Chartered Market Technician (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Market Technicians Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Technical analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 65.9.234.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Chartered Market Technician reverts (partial list of 21 edits/reverts in past 24 hours)

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

    Market Technicians Association reverts (partial list of 10 edits/reverts in past 24 hours)

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

    Technical analysis reverts (partial list of 21 edits/reverts in past 24 hours)

    • 1st revert: [7]
    • 2nd revert: [8]
    • 3rd revert: [9]

    The Market Technicians Association edit history and an IP address search suggest that 65.9.234.169 is the same user as 72.153.201.174. I explained my edits and tried to engage the user on the respective article talk pages[10] [11] [12], and on the user's own talk page[13]. Some of his edits are harmless, but a full review of the edits to the articles in question shows POV, lack of sources to controversial edits, personal criticisms of people by name, plus the unexplained removal of relevant information and links in the articles. Thanks for your attention to this matter. --Rgfolsom 20:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Only three diffs given for each article; need four reverts for 3RR vio. Also, these diffs appear to include several consecutive edits, which would count as one revert per 3RR. Looking at the article histories suggests mainly consecutive edits. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Corticopia reported by User:Jbmurray (Result:stale)

    Latin America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Corticopia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [14]

    I gave him a friendly warning on the talk page last night.[19]

    NB he also seems to on three reverts for United States, but declares he'll come back tomorrow and revert again.[20]

    Comment We are discussing the issue, throughout which the reporter has failed to suggest worthwhile editions and is counterproductive, and the last edit was insinuated anonymously (which is curious given the position of this editor). As well, the last edit rectified other POV changes regarding 'America'. And, yes, I shall return. Corticopia 21:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not sure what you mean by that, Corticopia. Anyway, I'm not convinced the second diff given is actually a revert; seems more like a tweak, as in the edit summary. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reverts of "here" (supposedly for being "unencyclopedic syntax"), of "that" (for "the") and the reinstation of the un-needed wikilink to "region" are all consistent reverts. Yes, I know these reverts are petty. But it's an obstacle to coming up with a sentence that is clear enough that it doesn't endlessly raise problems. You can see the discussion on the talk page where I try to seek a contrstructive solution to the problem, only to face his reverts and (as above) commentary which is often scarcely intelligible. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The original content editions are petty, and for not what: if these editions were enhancements, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But jbm's editions are confused/-ing: 'here above all' (unencyclopedic syntax which really makes no sense), substituting 'the' for 'that' (petty nonsense), and dewikifying 'region' from the lead (which flies in the face of the Manual of Style) all demonstrate that. My last edit/diff, H, was meant to rectify a number of changes from an anonymous IP, above all the uncommon reckoning of the Americas in English as just 'America' (one continent). And jbm's discourse is anything but constructive: for example, on the talk page, I offered to substitute the current definition in LA with one from a reputable source (with the intent of sourcing it), with jbm insinuating that I would plagiarise. Anyhow, the above is one veiled ad hominem argument, which I won't otherwise deal with: apropos, I am compelled to completely avoid this editor hereafter, but will nonetheless edit as needed within the norms of Wikiquette. Corticopia 22:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Here are the edits to the US article:
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
      • He was then warned about his actions here 4, but then removed the warning on his talk page 5. He also wrote this message on the US talk page 6.
        • I realize that he didn't go over 3 reverts on the US page, however his actions are highly disruptive, and he was already reported for his edits to Latin America. BH (T|C) 04:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also note, the user in question has been blocked 5 times already for 3RR violations, the last one began on May 20 of this year, and lasted one week. A sixth block also occurred, however it was repealed after a re-check of the pages edit history. BH (T|C) 05:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why you have chosen this moment to regurgitate information admins can easily consult and have chosen not to act upon is beyond me. Your resulting disruption and sh*t-kicking herein aside, I can only assume that you are retaliating as a result of your abortive move of America and (amidst that) straw poll (where I and others challenged you and prevailed) and for being challenged for removing (with others) a reputable citation from the lead for United States (with your cited reasons being wholly misguided). In other words, MYOB. Corticopia 05:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Corticopia, please be civil. As for this report: the original is clearly stale, while the new set of diffs shows only three revert, so there's no action to be made here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes -- noted, and thanks. However, it is exceedingly difficult to be 'civil' when responding to -- and sometimes having to deal with -- dilettantes. Corticopia 05:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Making disruptive edits and being Uncivil gives you a first class ticket to a brand new thread on WP:ANI. BH (T|C) 05:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Assault11 reported by User:Good friend100 (Result:no vio)

    List of tributaries of Imperial China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Assault11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [21]
    I think this user at least deserves a warning because he deletes my warnings [25] on 3RR.
    I'm sure Assault is aware of 3RR, he has stopped reverting my compromise edits before the 4th revert. He simply deletes anything that he doesn't like. Good friend100 23:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Good friend100 reported by User:Assault11 (Result:stale)

    List of tributaries of Imperial China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Good friend100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [26]

    Good friend100 has been blocked at least 4 times for violation of the 3RR policy in the past month [27]. Assault11 01:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It should be noted that I attempted to write down a compromised edit, which I believe is fair for both sides. Good friend100 02:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't understand why you cannot cooperate with others. "Tributary relations occurred on and off until the 7th century" is fair to both sides. I don't understand why everything has to be your way. Good friend100 02:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There was never a compromise that was accepted (and that "compromise" addition is not just limited to Gaogouli). It should be noted that Good friend100 had been criticized by various other editors for his lack of understanding on the subject [28] [29]. Despite this, Good friend100 continued to revert back to his edits containing false information (e.g. tributary relations ended in 106 CE - a date he has now changed to 7th century CE, after being proved wrong). Assault11 03:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to bring the argument here. However, I would like to point out that your first edit to wikipedia clearly shows your POV manner and your unwillingness to compromise. Good friend100 19:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the 3RR, this illustrates your attitude completely--I have little interest in this particular article, I don't think I've ever edited it, but you constantly use the fact that you are reverting "to the right version" as a justification for breaking 3RR. It isn't. Until you're blocked, you just keep reverting until someone forces you to take a break and cool down. —LactoseTIT 19:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I guess your right, LactoseTI. We should simply leave the article alone. Good friend100 19:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Didn't it just get unprotected? I guess they were trying to stop this edit war, but it just started up immediately after unprotection. —LactoseTIT 19:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    LactoseTI, do you want me blocked that bad? Trying to rub in more evidence doesn't really make a difference. The point is that I got reported. As for Assault11, I believe that he is at fault to because of his obvious POV and his stubborness. Don't you think that too, Lactose, after reading his first edit (link above)? Good friend100 19:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    For any admins looking in on this - take a look at the Talk page, I've been trying to have the two editors come to a compromise. I personally have no preference on the content of their dispute, and I'm not going to comment on these 3RR violations. And while I do think both editors have been pretty insistent on their edits, I do think Good friend100 has been more compromising in the last day or two. The current text that they've just edit-warred on is already a step away from what Good friend100 would like to have. I left a note in the Talk page asking Assault11 what problems he saw with the current proposed compromise, but he has not replied yet, and instead chose to revert the text. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Avfnx reported by User:YoSoyGuapo (Result: 24 hours)

    Dominican Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Avfnx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    comment has left statements on comments when he reverts like " 12:11, 9 June 2007 Avfnx (Talk | contribs) m (65,740 bytes) (we could do this all day, what that got do with DR)" [30]

    Blocked for 24 hours, per the evidence above. -- tariqabjotu 18:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment This user has not appear to have previously been formally warned regarding 3RR. This diff shows that it is commented he might be in breach of 3RR but, and despite the edit summary, there is no mention of the possible consequences or a demand that he stop. I realise that warnings are a courtesy and editors are expected to know and abide by the rules, and that 3RR should be acted upon promptly, but I am a little concerned that User:Avfnx has been previously accused of sockpuppetry (cleared by checkuser), has had warnings for civility and personal attacks - the first of which is WP:KETTLE and the second of which I could find no evidence of in English (I cannot comment on Spanish remarks) - all levelled by individuals with whom he is in dispute with on Dominican Republic. I have a suspicion that some individuals are using admins and WP policies to conduct a campaign against this editor instead of attempting to resolve the dispute over the article in a more appropriate forum.LessHeard vanU 20:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jakeleglarry reported by User:Calton (Result: Indef)

    Peter Roskam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jakeleglarry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Allegedly brand-new user, an obvious single-purpose sockpuppet of indefinitely banned multiple sockpuppeter Joehazelton (talk · contribs), continuing his edit warring campaign. --Calton | Talk 12:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely as a single-purpose account (and possible sockpuppet). -- tariqabjotu 15:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ofthe1780s reported by User:Ultramarine (Result:12h)

    Capitalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ofthe1780s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also probably violation of WP:SOAP by trying to promote cult-like movement.Ultramarine 13:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TiconderogaCCB reported by User:YoSoyGuapo (Result: 48h (Ti), 24h (Yo))

    User talk:YoSoyGuapo (edit | [[Talk:User talk:YoSoyGuapo|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TiconderogaCCB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    TiconderogaCCB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was just taken off of block for 3rr. continues to attack me personally on my talk page. I removed the attacks and he continued to attack me with "What the hell is you problem??? Do you lack any ability to reason? I have tried endlessly to engage you on discussion and talk pages, but instead you act like a 12 year old (which you quite possibly could be). Why do you continue to revert to an absurd version of the St. John's article? Did you get denied admission, are you a UConn fan" Immediately after getting offof block he goes back to the same article and does 3 more reverts [31] with the last one being 13:45, 9 June 2007 [32] . YoSoyGuapo 14:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ticonderoga is blocked for 48h (since this is his second block) and YoSoyGuapo is blocked for 24h. -- tariqabjotu 15:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Raul654 reported by User:Isarig (Result: No violation)

    House demolition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Raul654 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: Complex revert. See belwo for details
    • 1st revert: 16:44, 9 June 2007 - restores sentence "particularly an insurgency which employs suicide attacks" (this sentence was in this prev version)- labeled as a "restore" in the edit summary.
    • 2nd revert: 16:49, 9 June 2007 - restores sentence "House demolition has been used in an on-again-off-again fashion by the Israeli government during the al-Aqsa Intifada." (this sentence was in this prev version)- labeled as a "restore" in the edit summary
    • 3rd revert: 17:11, 9 June 2007 - restores both the above sentences, labeled as a revert in the edit summary
    • 4th revert: 17:41, 9 June 2007 - as above, again restores both the above sentences, and labeled as a revert in the edit summary

    The first two reverts are unrelated (two separate almost back-to-back edits restoring content Isarig has deleted as part of his on-going edit warring on that article), meaning this is actually only three reverts. Isarig, meanwhile, has been revert warring over that article for a while, to push his particular POV. Raul654 18:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As an admin, you must surely be aware that 3rr refers to ANY 3 reverts, they do not have to be the same or related. I appreciate you honesty in admitting that both of these are in fact reverts. A break from editing this article will do you good. Isarig 18:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy smokes, you removed objective, factually correct content. I restored it using two edits. You continued removing it, despite multiple people on the talk page disagreeing with you. You are POV pushing on that article, and your edits have made it objectively wrong. This listing is ridiculous. Raul654 18:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What you are describing above is a content dispute, in which you, too, have removed well sourced information in at least 2 of your reverts. "I restored it using two edits" is another way of syaing I twice reverted you. You are not above the law, no matter how long you have been editing here- 3RR applies to admins as well as to non admin editors. I duly warned you about it, you acknowledged on my talk page that you made 3 reverts, and then proceeded to revert a 4th time. There is nothing ridiculous about this listing, except the ludicrous claim, below, that there are only 3 reverts here. Isarig 23:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) A 3RR violation occurs when four reverts have been made, not three. Raul is not a longtime edit warrior, so there is no reason to think he's gaming the system attempting to "max out" on the three allotted reverts. There's no violation here. -- tariqabjotu 18:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are 4 reverts there - count them. Isarig 23:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    A long time use and admin who knows about 3RR and has been blocked for it before, but was warned nonetheless: [33]

    User:Good_friend100 reported by User:LactoseTI (Result:No block / both users warned)

    Liancourt Rocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Good_friend100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • 2nd revert: 18:40, June 9, 2007 (reinserted Dokdo/Liancourt Rocks (they are the same thing) as mis-translation of Usando) undoing this change
    • 3rd revert: 19:14, June 9, 2007 same effect; removes name from map (Isotakeshima) and replaces with Liancourt Rocks; again removes "For comparison," reverting to this.
    • 4th revert: 19:48, June 9, 2007 again removes Isotakeshima

    Editor has been blocked three times for 3RR several times in the past month. It is true that the four reverts are outside 24 hours by 7 minutes, but this is clear gamesmanship. Consider this in tandem with the other report of 3RR filed today on the same editor (6 reports or so above this one). Editor evidently doing this on multiple articles--on that one he seems to have clearly broken it, here he tried to game the system.

    Ok, I edited all the articles in good faith. I changed "Takeshima" to "Liancourt Rocks" because that is the name of the article. It isn't fair to use Takeshima while blocking out Dokdo.
    I don't think I have been engaging in a blatant edit war. Also, could you explain what you mean by "gamesmanship"? I feel really bad how you keep attacking me with reports and filing one that does not have 3 reverts in one day. These edits were simply to make the gallery section better. Good friend100 20:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The map actually says Takeshima on it, it's not blocking. Anyway, hitting your 3RR limit day and again, and then waiting until just outside 24 hours to make your 4th revert so as to avoid violating 3RR is not allowed. This is what I meant by gamesmanship. —LactoseTIT 20:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't wait 24 hours to make my 4th edit. That was purely coincidence. I don't play around with the time to make reverts and edits. I don't play at that kind of a level.

    And I still feel that "Takeshima" should not be used. Now I know why melonbarmonster keeps tagging you with warnings. You and other editors simply cannot take anything that you don't like. When a change you don't like is done (regardless of good faith or bad faith), you revert the edits without explanation and don't explain on the talk page of the edit warring persists. I feel that you are not treating each editor in an NPOV way. Even when Assault11 clearly is POV and makes rude comments, you don't even care. When melonbarmonster asks you to stop stalking, you simply make a sarcastic comment that he should file a report against you.

    I don't feel that I am the only one at fault. There is more than just edit warring going on and if you are trying to show that I am the bad seed, then your wrong. There is enough damage done to both sides. Good friend100 20:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This page is not for the dispute to continue, it's about 3RR's. See response on your talk page, we can discuss the off topic material there. —LactoseTIT 20:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider both editors to be warned. Editwarring only ends up in one of two scenarios: either you get dinged for 3RR, oir the article gets protected. If you cannot find common ground and edit the article, please follow the dispute resolution process. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Vilerocks reported by User:A Man In Black (Result:24 hrs)

    Ciel (Mega Man Zero) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Vilerocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There are probably a couple more; I can't be arsed to link them all. Doing 3RR reports is tedious.

    This is after days of revert warring on the same article over a different issue. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hrs. Next time, please file the 3RR report as required, even if tedious. Do not expect admins to do the research work for you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to add some extra info: Vilerocks' former account has been blocked twice before for 3RR.[37] I do not know whether or not this may affect the block, but it should be noted. - Zero1328 Talk? 08:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did do the research. Would it've really mattered if I linked five diffs instead of four? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pompertown reported by User:216.21.150.44 (Result: 1 month)

    Standing on the Shoulder of Giants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pompertown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Pompertown (talk · contribs) has already been warned several times previously for edit warring and has just returned from a 3RR block involving the same article. previous block log. User also edits anonymously under with the IP 69.117.52.248 which has also broken 3RR on multiple Oasis related articles. 216.21.150.44 12:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    1 month, user should be well aware after that many blocks that edit warring is not acceptable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tecmobowl reported by User:John254 (Result:48h)

    Kevin Youkilis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tecmobowl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: complex partial reversions, all of which remove content and/or links

    User:Ethioboy101 reported by User:Yom (Result: 24 hrs)

    Eritrean-Ethiopian War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ethioboy101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.112.235.194 and User:71.112.237.155 seem to be Ethioboy101 when not logged in. Ethioboy101's edits to the page have mainly consisted of changing the result of the war to "Stalemate" without discussion (see these earlier edits: 1, 2, by 71.112.237.155 - 3), as well as removing certain cited information from the casualties part of the infobox (see earlier edit - a; Today's edits - b, c), which were reverted by myself, User:Philip Baird Shearer (1, 2), and User:Gyrofrog (1). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    See also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Randyreporter --Philip Baird Shearer 22:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:QuackGuru reported by User:Levine2112 (Result: No block)

    Chiropractic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [38]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: 03:26, 7 June 2007
      • Blocked QuackGuru for 24 hours given this and another instance of edit warring that didn't result in a 3RR violation three days ago. --Coredesat 00:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • After re-reviewing the situation, it seems QuackGuru was baited into 3RR. I've unblocked him. --Coredesat 05:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bless sins reported by User:Prester John (Result: 36h)

    List of notable converts to Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bless sins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Prester John 22:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keeps whitewashing various descriptions; for example, removing statements Tawana Brawley's charges were fabricated, that John Walker Lindh was a convicted terrorist, that Yvonne Ridley had been kidnapped by the Taliban, and that Mike Tyson is a convicted rapist. On the fifth revert, unfixed some wording improvements that had to be reverted again by another editor. Will no doubt claim that the 5th revert was a "self-revert", but it was a bit too late, he'd already been reverted, and merely ended up reverting some new edits. Is now using various bogus claims to excuse himself. User:Bless sins is well aware of 3RR as his block log [39] indicates he has been blocked for edit warring before, and he has reported others for 3RR on this board, as recently as this week.
      • As predicted, he's shown up pretending his reverts are not reverts. Once someone else has reverted you, it's a bit too late to claim to be "self-reverting". Jayjg (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Firstly, even if I did make four reverts, I self reverted my last revert to avoid a breach of 3rr in accordance with Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#I_have_violated_3RR._What_do_I_do.3F. I declared that this revert was self-revert. [40]

    The first revert is true. That can be considered a revert.

    The second revert is not at all a revert. Please note the difference between my alleged "Previous version reverted to" and "2nd revert". [41] The main difference is that I replaced a dead link with a better one, and also added another notable person.

    Please note the difference between my alleged "Previous version reverted to" and "3rd revert". The difference is the same as above.[42]

    The difference between "Previous version reverted to" and "4th revert", are even larger. In my fourth "reversion" I add two more notable persons to the list, and conduct some other minor edits.[43]

    The allegation that the fifth is a revert (to be counted in 3rr) is ridiculous. That is a self-revert, as I declared in my edit summary. [44]

    Thanks.Bless sins 23:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:3rr#I_have_violated_3RR._What_do_I_do.3F says "In general, this should be enough to prevent you from being blocked, although there are no guarantees." It says nothing about when it is too late to self-revert. Also, Jayjg, can you make your comments immediately below the previous comment. Thanks.Bless sins 23:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I cannot speak strongly for or against this user. Him and I have reached compromises concerning content, and he does contribute some good information, biased motivations or not.

    However, the edit-warring is a fact, although I wouldn't count the 5th revert- he clearly reverted to Prester John's edit, which is not the version he preferred; therefore, I'm inclined to believe he did intend a self-rv. Concerning the others, I really can't say. Rules are rules, of course.

    If a real complaint is to be drawn, the issue of whitewashing is certainly one of them. One can claim NPOV, but when a convicted terrorist becomes a 'soldier' and kidnapped woman's kidnapping is erased from her description, POV is an issue, but it is the one altering who is applying the POV problem.

    I must now defend Bless sins. As I've said, he and I have compromised over content. This may be underplayed by some, but to me, it means quite a bit. Additionally, Bless sins is not the only user with a preference for 'whitewashed' descriptions- I fear that there should be some resolution over the language used so that everyone can learn to be reasonably satisfied with the descriptions.

    A reasonable compromise over content will hopefully prevent the need for these Admin notices in the future.--C.Logan 00:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked for 36 hours. Whether or not the fifth diff is included, Bless sins still violated 3RR with the first four diffs. --Coredesat 00:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Spoolintsi reported by User:Karrmann (Result: No block)

    Eagle Talon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Spoointsi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [45]

    (All reverts were the same)

    Rejected - malformed report. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TiconderogaCCB reported by User:YoSoyGuapo (Result: 48h)

    User talk:YoSoyGuapo (edit | [[Talk:User talk:YoSoyGuapo|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TiconderogaCCB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    TiconderogaCCB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was just taken off of block for 3rr. continues to attack on my talk page. I removed the attacks and he continued to attack me with "What the hell is you problem??? Do you lack any ability to reason? I have tried endlessly to engage you on discussion and talk pages, but instead you act like a 12 year old (which you quite possibly could be). Why do you continue to revert to an absurd version of the St. John's article? Did you get denied admission, are you a UConn fan" Immediately after getting offof block he goes back to the same article and does 3 more reverts YoSoyGuapo 07:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Avfnx reported by User:64.131.204.90 (Result: 24h)

    Dominican Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Avfnx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 64.131.204.90 23:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ; Current revision (14:37, 9 June 2007)

    Not a new user, but user is well aware of policy violations as he has removed warnings to his talk page. [47] ; User was given an initial 3rr warning on 01:04, 21 May 2007 and continues to revert articles [48].

    comment has left statements on comments when he reverts like " 12:11, 9 June 2007 Avfnx (Talk | contribs) m (65,740 bytes) (we could do this all day, what that got do with DR)" [49]
    This has already been handled a few sections up; Avfnx was blocked for twenty-four hours. -- tariqabjotu 00:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    moved to prevent deletion. User:tariq stated that this case was already handled, but this is a totally different 3rr violation if you look at the edits.

    The original case [50] dealt with money and payment. This 3rr report deals with the names of haiti being based on mountains. same article 2 different things in which edits were reverted at different intervals. YoSoyGuapo 07:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:3TTT5 reported by User:Exvicious (Result: No block)

    The Sopranos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 3TTT5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Warning issued @04:35, 11 June 2007

    In light of the rapid edits this article is getting, I'm not convinced a newbie would have seen the explanations for removal in the edit summary (or even know about page histories). I'll talk to the editor. If it happens again, re-report.--Chaser - T 15:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:206.186.8.130 reported by User:Digwuren (Result: 24h)

    Monument of Lihula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 206.186.8.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    This anonymous user has also been trying to insert spurious Estonia-Nazi associations into Judenfrei and Mart Laar.

    It looks like User:Digwuren is deleting sourced content and references. His opponents seem to think this is an attempt at "Holocaust denial". -- Petri Krohn 15:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    May the record indicate that Petri Krohn is the only one to have made such accusations -- his reference to an anonymous plural "opponents" is a lie. Furthermore, such accusations are baseless.
    May the record also indicate that making baseless accusations is not a new tactic by Petri Krohn, a proud self-professed troll. See, for example, User talk:Digwuren#3RR block. Digwuren 16:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Digwuren has a nasty habit of calling his opponents in content disputes vandals in his edit summaries: [53], [54], [55] -- Petri Krohn 15:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note, that User talk:206.186.8.130 is full of vandalism warnings, when this clearly is an content dispute. If there is any vandalism here, it is most likely coming from User:Digwuren, who is removing sourced material and categories. -- Petri Krohn 15:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've also blocked Digwuren for 48h for edit warring, if not outright 3rr, on the same article (Digwuren was blocked before for 3rr).--Chaser - T 16:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Xiao t reported by User:Matt57 (Result:protected)

    Islamophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Xiao t (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Diff of 3RR warning (for new user): 02:27, 11 June 2007
    • Comments: In all of these reverts, user is removing text regarding a certain subject in the article (Kenan Malik).

    In addition, this user is a possible sock puppet of an indef banned troll and so possibly not a new user (contribs show user is very familiar with editing here), the checkuser for which I have already filed and am waiting for the results. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've not looked at these diffs yet, but Matt57 recently violated 3RR on that same page and was not blocked for it, so it's the height of hypocrisy for him to report someone else. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the 3RR report against Matt57, which unfortunately led to page protection rather than a block. Matt57 is one of the worst reverters I've seen in a long time, and in fact I recently had to take the page off my watchlist in part because trying to deal with him is too frustrating. I hope whoever looks at this report will bear that context in mind. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In that report he claimed that the first edit was an introduction of the word "controversial." I don't understand how one introduces something that has been there in the article in many other previous reversions. Ibn Shah 22:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right; Matt's first edit on that occasion was definitely a revert. He can't be blocked for it now so long after the fact, however. Matt will have to supply a diff showing that Xiao's first edit above was a revert. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    SlimVirgin, really well. Looks who's talking? You being an administrator should show better editing behavior. You reverted 3 times in less than hour for this same article: 14:53,15:15,15:19. The fact that you are an administrator and reverted 3 times in less than 60 minutes should have rationally earned you a good block. Administrators should technically be held to higher standards that common users. You should leave better examples for other users on this website. In addition you have also personally attacked people by calling them. I dont beleive that you are a good example of an administrator here. Other users have also had problems with you (I can supply the diffs for that but this case is about Xiao t). As for my report, I do agree I cruised past the 3RR, that was an overlook on my part. Even that should not happen. One should not edit to just avoid 3RR (like you did in those 60 minutes when you reverted 3 times). That is troublesome tendentious editing. Maybe you're upset that I didnt let Mr. J. Hasan's opinions and picture (a non-notable graduate assistant) back in the Islamophobia article. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've provided the diff above which shows the first revert of Xiao t was a revert, i.e. undoing the actions of another editor. Also you should know who you are defending. This is most likely a user who was blocked indef for trolling. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You've posted all this before in multiple locations. The bottom line is that you're a bad editor, a knee-jerk reverter, and you're out to attack Islam or Muslims. You didn't "cruise past" 3RR in the report against you, you violated it. And the report above isn't an obvious 3RR violation. The diff you give as the version reverted to doesn't show the removal of the Malik passage; it shows only that it was moved, so far as I can tell. Please supply a diff showing clearly that it had been removed before. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mind WP:CIVIL, admin whose apparent standard for notability for grad students depends on the extent to which she shares their views. Arrow740
    SlimVirgin, you really are crossing lines with me here regarding CIVIL, by calling me a knee jerk reverter and a bad editor. Do you want to be called those things too? No. Is it good to revert 3 times in less than 60 minutes like you did? No. Please dont call me a knee-jerk reverter then. Its a good thing that everything we say gets saved on this website. Regarding the first RV: As I showed, Kenan had been added back by another editor before the same day. Xiao removed it 4 times. If thats not a 3RR, what is? In any case I've fixed the proof above where Xiao had deleted the same text before and editors had restored it 2 times before. Also note that Kirbytime, the suspected puppet master of this username had been blocked multiple number of times for edit warring and 3RR. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) The diff you gave appears to show the Malik material being moved, not removed or restored. Please provide a diff that actually shows its removal. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take the mudslinging elsewhere; that's not what this noticeboard is for. This article is a bloody mess, with constant reverting warring. I've chosen to fully protect it mainly to stop myself from dishing out five or more blocks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the seventh time it's been protected since March, the 14th overall. Matt, note that if the reverting continues after this protection is lifted, I'm going to consider taking you and your friends to the ArbCom. The article's been held hostage long enough. Wikipedia's not a platform for Muslim bashing. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    SlimVirgin, perhaps that was due to your reverting once every 10 minutes (14:53,15:15,15:19)? Did you forget that? Dont threaten me with ArbCom, alright? Join me there and I'll tell the committee that your revert rate is once every 10 minutes. Plus, I'll tell them that you called me a bad editor, a knee jerk-reverter and you called me and others as "anti-Islamic". All these are personal attacks. You freely violate policies or border on violations. This is your pattern. These are just the diffs that I've seen by dealing with you directly and I have seen many other editors being irrirated by you on other places and I can dig up more diffs if needed. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stop posting about your dispute on this page; or I'll start handing out blocks for disruption. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nagle reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 8 hours)

    Jewish lobby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nagle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • The first edit is a straightforward revert. Then he gets crafty; he "re-organizes" the article, moving material from Yossi Klein Halevi to the top of a section, moving material from David Aaronovitch up, and inserting headers for different countries.15:59, 11 June 2007 The subsequent 3 reverts continue to revert to this format, but each time with tiny changes to the text, so as to game the 3RR rule. He has been editing Wikipedia for a year and a half, and is well aware of the rules, which is why he is so good at trying to game them. Jayjg (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how crafty this is, since two of the edits are explicitly reverts in the summaries, but it is 3RRV. 8 hours. JoshuaZ 01:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:24.68.249.225 reported by User:Blueboar (Result:3 months)

    Freemasonry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.68.249.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also note misleading edit summaries and attempt to hide reverts among other edits, as well as personal attacks in edit summaries... and on Talk page. This fits with the user being a sock of Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Lightbringer who was banned from editing Freemasonry articles by ArbCom. Note ISP which fits with Lightbringer's known sock farm. User reported at: Wikipedia:Abuse reports but no action taken yet. Blueboar 01:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Charles reported by User:Bryson109 (Result:no vio)

    Napoleon I of France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Charles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Bryson{Talk}{Edits} 02:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [56]

    Note: User:Charles has been warned about the Three-revert rule, but has removed it from their talk page as a minor edit [60] Also User:Rfortner is close to breaking the Three-revert rule.

    Kmsiever, Mumun 無文andMasalai reported by 207.6.12.137 (Result:no vio)

    Regina Neighbourhoods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User-multi error: "Kmsiever" is not a valid project or language code (help)., User-multi error: "Mumun 無文" is not a valid project or language code (help). and User-multi error: "Masalai" is not a valid project or language code (help).: Time reported: 04:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [61]

    User:Grandmaster reported by User:Hajji Piruz (Result:No violation)

    Note: This is a 1rr report, not an ordinary 3rr report

    Grandmaster is on a standard arbcom parole:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Grandmaster_placed_on_revert_parole

    He can only make one revert per article per week. However, on the Mihranids article, he made two reverts within a two day period.

    Mihranids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As you can see above, Grandmaster has made two reverts in less than a one week period on the same article, therefore violating his parole.Hajji Piruz 05:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Take this issue to arbitration enforcement. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually the edit reverts listed above are different. So it's not quite clear whether this would constitute a 1RR violation. Atabek 07:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First one is not a revert. You cannot seriously consider addition of a couple of spaces a revert. It is ridiculous. The text was not reverted to any previous version. False report. Grandmaster 07:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first edit is not a revert. I see no violation, and at any rate this isn't the place for it. Kafziel Talk 13:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:HanzoHattori reported by User:Lft6771 (Result:12h)

    Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). HanzoHattori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • First revert is a partial revert, but a revert nonetheless. In light of the user's arguably good-faith attempts to expand the article, I'm sticking with only 12 hours despite block history. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sandpiper reported by User:Folken_de_Fanel (Result:)

    Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Folken_de_Fanel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please provide diffs rather than oldids. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, copy/pasted the wrong thing, it's all right now. Folken de Fanel 19:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was rather hoping the middle two count as one revert taken in two stages for ease of editing, as per Note that consecutive reverts by one editor are often treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule. Similarly, I also made another revert shortly after the last one mentioned by Folken,09:28, 12 June 2007 which is also within the time period (5 minutes after, Folken is in a different time zone?). Otherwise complex reverts just get ridiculous when trying to allow for other amenments to a busy page. Sandpiper 20:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • A new technique to game the 3RR ? Do you think breaking your reverts into various parts make the acts, and intentions behind it more acceptable ? Each time you've reverted my own version, re-adding each time the same content, which is entirely different than making segmented edits which are each time different and left to the care of other users afterwards.Folken de Fanel 21:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm afraid you are reverting my edits faster than I can make them. Are you watching my edits all the time? I didn't even realise you had changed back what I had written before I did the next bit. I see the piece I reinserted in 3 was one you took out here [69].
            • And I'm afraid you're just revert warring, reinserting each time content that you claim you've not noticed I'd reverted. Are you claiming you've some kind of supernatural powers, allowing you to mystically revert my edits without realizing it ? You should have looked a bit at your edits before coming up with excuses like "I didn't know". Of course you knew, since each one of your edits was an consious attempt to destroy my edits. Folken de Fanel 09:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:207.6.12.137 reported by User:Mumun_man (Result:24h)

    Regina neighbourhoods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 207.6.12.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mazarin07 reported by User:Jayjg (Result: Article protected)

    Jewish lobby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mazarin07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Editor has actually been reverting this article multiple times over the past 2 days, but these diffs demonstrate the issue most simply. In these edits, among other things, he consistently removes the {{Antisemitism}} template and Category:Antisemitism. Jayjg (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not quite seeing how the first diff is a revert; could you provide a version reverted to? Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What's actually going on is a edit war with 3-4 people on each side, dating back to at least March 2007. Currently, the article is protected. This probably needs to go to dispute resolution. --John Nagle 16:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article has been protected, so there is no point in a block. User is warned. Persisting in that kind of editing behavior will lead to blocks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Texastechfan reported by User:aznismyname2367 (Result:stale)

    WFAA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Texastechfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Aznismyname2367 17:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Have communicated with this user about a similar occasion before. User seems not to research before making edits. Keeps deleting: "Darla Miles: General Assignment Reporter." (5 times in 24 hours).


    Admin: Correct Diffs Actually, in the past 24 hours

    Aznismyname2367 has reverted the material into the article 4 times. (5 times going back beyond 24 hours).

    And Texastechfan has reverted the material out of the article 3 times. (4 times going back beyond 24 hours.)

    Aznismyname2367 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) clearly violated 4RR in 24 hours.

    Texastechfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has 3 reverts in 24 but is also edit warring.

    I am not an admin: Clearly both editors are edit warring over this material. Both appear to be new editors and neither have warnings on their talk pages. Lsi john 18:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't see anything on the talk page of the article regarding this disputed content either, but there does appear to be a primary source available for an argument allowing it [75]. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 18:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:SqueakBox reported by User:Vintagekits (Result:Warned both)

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Mabel Fitzwilliam (2nd nomination) (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Mabel Fitzwilliam (2nd nomination)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor knows WP:3RR quite well and has been blocked for 3RR and edit warring in the past. This occurrence is an AfD - the "offending" comment that this editor is removing is in relation to his motives for !voting on the AfD. He believes he can remove it because it is a personal attack. Firstly there is no personal attack and secondly as the comment is not libellous his claim that he has immunity from WP:3RR is incorrect. I had warned the editor in my edit summaries that he was about to breach WP:3RR if he reverted again. Then he stated here that he was immune and didn’t care. I'll say no more.--Vintagekits 19:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This was a removal of a personal attack by Vintagekits (talk · contribs) implying bad faith motives on my part for daring to vote in an afd in which he takes an interest. PA's are not subject to 3rr but perhaps an admin would like to examine Vintagekits behaviour attacking me for no reason. before attacking me ont he afds he left this message on my talk page calling me pathetic so IMO I am perfectly entitled to assume he was trolling and to remove his offensive comments, SqueakBox 19:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if this was a personal attack - which is wasnt, you admitted that on your talk page - that does not give you the right to overrule WP:3RR. Maybe you should have heeded the warnings I gave you (and blocks you have had before) and read the exceptions page.--Vintagekits 19:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. Same again here.--Vintagekits 19:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    PA's arent subject to 3rr, and that isnt to mention your disgraceful attempt to get the closing admin to ignore my afd comments. This is as clear a case of trolling as I have seen including this 3rr report, ie Vintage wants to waste my time and everyone else's when we could and should be trying to make a better encyclopedia, SqueakBox 19:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you even read the exceptions page? Where was the personal attack on the AfD's? That is my last word on this issue. I will let the admin see through your smokescreen.--Vintagekits 19:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your moptive for troling me in this way. All I do is vote on 2 afd's and get this level of harrassment, SqueakBox 19:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll be having a word with both users. --John 20:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:12.40.180.17 reported by User:Knverma (Result: 24 hrs)

    Quixtar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 12.40.180.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The following sentence is being repeatedly moved from the intro to elsewhere:

    Some aspects of the company and its connected distributor organizations have been controversial, in particular the sale of "Business Support Materials" (books, recordings, and the like) to distributors.
    24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chrisjj reported by User:Jehochman (Result:no vio)

    Wi-Fi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chrisjj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [76]

    We are concerned with this WP:OR and WP:WEASEL statement: Concern has been expressed about possible health risks from Wi-Fi, but scientific studies suggest this is unlikely.

    Admin, I hope you won't block the other user. What we need is guidance and a statement that 3RR isn't an entitlement to do 2-3 reverts per day endlessly. Jehochman Talk 01:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd recommend taking it to AN/I since it's not a 3RR vio. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SlimVirgin reported by User:Fourdee (Result:no vio)

    The Holocaust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    SlimVirgin again engaging in edit-warring. Second report ([77]) in a short period - pattern of gaming 3RR and pushing past its limits. These rules should apply to admins as well as anyone else and these are clear reverts ("in whole or in part"). User unwilling to engage in discussion on talk page, repeatedly threatens administrative action for "dirsuption" over obvious content/policy dispute, praises[78] personal attacks by her friends, etc. etc. Are admins immune to 3RR violations and other rules?

    I really am trying desperately hard to work with her and resolve these issues on the talk page but am meeting a brick wall. I took a cooling off period and came back a few days later only to be met with the same reversion of my additions to the article within minutes. I feel very bad about the animosity that has arisen, would like to find some solution, however this persistent edit warring needs to be addressed in and of itself.

    • 1st revert: [79] reverts my removal of what everyone agrees is uncited (improperly cited) material without comment - scroll down for line 52, at line 19 is merely a contested term ([80])
    • 2nd revert: [81] reverts my addition of relevant cited material without comment ([82])
    • 3rd revert: [83] partially reverts my addition of cited statements over previously disputed term "eradication" and removes "extirpation" contrary to citation ([84])
    • 4th revert: [85] reverts addition of cited quote and in summary orders me not to add quotes or "counter-claims"(!!!) or modify article lead-in ([86])

    All of those are "undoing the actions of another editor" "in whole or in part". She knows what 3RR is and does not hesitate to apply it to other editors. Fourdee 08:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you kidding me? SlimVirgin was removing hate-speech. Why were you adding random quotes of Adolf Hitler to the article? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a curious notion of hate-speech. Those edits stand on their own. At any rate a dispute over content is no justification for 3RR violations. Fourdee 09:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was wondering why you are singling out User:SlimVirgin? Not to imply anyone is right or wrong but a quick glance at the article's history shows that she isn't the only one reverting there. Anynobody 09:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The other editor reverting today caught himself on the 4th and reverted himself. Fourdee 09:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The third one doesn't look like a revert, and the previous 3RR report was invalid, so doesn't really add anything to this one. ElinorD (talk) 09:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The third one "undoes the actions of another editor" "in whole or in part" - that is a revert by the 3RR. The previous 3RR report shows a pattern of the same edit-warring so it is relevant. This one is about as cut and dry of a case as there could be. Fourdee 09:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, third one isn't a revert, at least not clearly. SlimVirgin would still do well to revert less often, I think, since 3RR is not an entitlement to three reverts a day. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Str1977 reported by User:Benjiboi (Result:no vio)

    Rosie O'Donnell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Str1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor Str1977 has a strong belief that the subject of the article is anti-Catholic and has been re-adding previously discussed and removed section ignoring and reversing edits. Since there was heightened emotions I tried carefully to reason with user and spell out what needed to chnage in the edits and why others had issues to to material being added. I'm not sure the best response but since they just reverted everything back agin I want to avoid edit warring myself. I'm afraid some official intervention seems to be needed - sorry! Benjiboi 10:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Spartakk reported by User:east718 (Result:24h for both)

    Fedor Emelianenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Spartakk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor Spartakk has been removing information about the nationality of the living subject, and adding in unreferenced pseudonyms despite warnings. Has also been making personal attacks and refuses to discuss civilly on talk. [90] [91] east.718 10:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Good_friend100 reported by User:LactoseTI (Result:1 week)

    Goguryeo-China wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Good_friend100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Editor has been blocked repeatedly for 3RR in the past few weeks on similar articles. Several reports above illustate further edit warring behavior.
      • Not convinced the third revert really counts: it reverts an edit from several days ago, and can be seen as consecutive with the immediately previous revert, even though there's an edit in between. But, given how the editor has been blocked three times in the last month for 3RR vios and has been reported for near-vios several times since; I'd say it's time for a block for edit warring, regardless of whether there's a technical vio. One week. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lft6771 reported by User:The Evil Spartan (Result: 48 hours for using socks to game 3RR)

    Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lft6771 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The 3RR's a bit stale, and the warning post-dates the last revert. However, given the clear evidence of sockpuppetry to game 3RR, as confirmed by checkuser, I've blocked the sockpuppet accounts and also blocked the sockmaster (User:Lft6771) for 48 hours for abuse, edit-warring, and trying to game 3RR with socks. MastCell Talk 18:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rollosmokes reported by User:Fightingirish (Result:no vio)

    KMSP-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rollosmokes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [96]
    • I attempted to slightly rewrite, clarify and correct this article, only to see this user revert. I tried to compromise, but was met with a rude response. I do not want to engage in an edit war, and have offered a compromise solution, but this user is not agreeable. I hope this will settle things once and for all.--Fightingirish 18:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only three reverts given; need more than three for 3RR vio. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.253.143.25 reported by User:Nescio (Result:semi-protected)

    Movement to impeach George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.253.143.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I made the first IP aware of WP:RS in this edit[106] after which the identical edit was made by changing IP's. To me this suggests user is alternating IP-address to circumvent 3RR. Since he keeps changing maybe a semi-protect is a better solution. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Str1977 reported by User:Benjiboi (Result: 24 hrs / unblocked)

    Resolved

    Rosie O'Donnell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Str1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This user seems intent on pushing POV that article's subject is anti-Catholic without appropriate references and has deleted work from other editors who tried to include the verifiable parts in question. Seems like it's all or nothing and very disruptive. First encouraged user to use talk page (rather than just edit warring) and reasoned dialog seems to be getting nowhere. My goal is a better article, user's goal seems otherwise.


    • 1st revert: 07:35, 12 June 2007[107]
    • 2nd revert: 23:32, 12 June 2007[108]
    • 3rd revert: 07:31, 13 June 2007[109]
    • 4th revert: 09:34, 13 June 2007[110]
    • 5th revert: 19:30, 13 June 2007[111]
    I think I replace with the needed Diffs instead of oldids, thank you for your help
    I would appreciate other admins' opinions on this block, as some of the edits are not exact reverts. Seems warranted, but a second opinion would be appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1, 2, 4 are all removing the supreme court paragraph and inserting the section on anti-Catholicism. 3 is removal of the paragraph only; 5 isn't reverting anything. As the Version reverted to was not filled in, 1 must count as that version. This still leaves 2, 3, 4 for removal of the supreme court paragraph for 3 reverts, and two reverts on adding the Catholic section. Valid block for edit warring; as "3RR is not an entitlement" or however its phrased. Was there a "version reverted to prior to this? (checking myself, brb) KillerChihuahua?!? 22:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, the previous version which had the same edits was 00:04, 12 June 2007 as well as I can determine. Can someone else verify that? Adding diff where it was removed here KillerChihuahua?!? 23:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And my final post for this, unless there are questions for me, specifically: the old version reverted to had the Catholic section, but also had the supreme court paragraph. In other words, he's gone 3 reverts on the Catholic section, and 3 reverts on the supreme court paragraph, which is SFAICT not technically violating 3RR, but he's been around long enough to know that he's edit warring. That's counting awfully close. I would be ok with reversing the block, or with letting it stand. And I would much appreciate someone else checking this, because we now have two findings on this 3RR report, and they do not agree. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind, my brain finally did math. Apologies for the spam. Neither is 3RR, due to the time difference (and DO check my math on the time, please.) KillerChihuahua?!? 23:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not be in a position to take any administrative action with regard to Str1977, as he is a personal friend. However, having stated that, I'd like to point out that the first revert is completely outside the 24-hour period. The fifth revert doesn't seem to be a revert at all, but even if it were, it's worth noting that it's the very next edit after the fourth revert; nobody had edited in between. Therefore, he could have done the two edits in one go, by doing a full page edit instead of two separate sections. It is standard practice not to count consecutive edits as separate reverts, even if they are both technically reverts. So what we have is three reverts within a 24-hour period. It is also worth noting that in the same period, he made eighteen edits to the talk page. Some were just modifications rather than new posts, but there were about fifteen individual posts — more than came from Benjiboi, who has also been reverting. I would suggest an unblock, but I admit that it's a suggestion coming from a friend of the blocked user, rather than a neutral review from an uninvolved administrator. Musical Linguist 23:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What I said, only Ml said it more clearly - 5 was not a revert, and the "version reverted to" which I had to dig out of history, is outside the 24 hours. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I nomed Str1977 as I felt they were knowingly being disruptive and I personally didn't want to be violating 3rr myself. I feel the article should be reverted back to where it was prior to Str1977's deletions and replacing the press release quote. Str1977 only used the talk page after prompted and continued to revert even after concerns were spelled out several times (politely). I'm not wed to the user getting 3rr'd but wanted to bring an end to the edit warring. As is the article is much worse for the process and the talk page seems a tad immature instead of healthy dialog. I'm glad it's stopped for the moment but am concerned about how constructive future edits will be if there is someone simply waiting in the wings to revert them. Benjiboi 00:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like Str1977 should be unblocked. Edit-warring is bad, but Benjboi was doing that too. We shouldn't be blocking anyone for defective reports of non-violations.Proabivouac 00:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I was avoiding an edit war and consistently tried to refocus the many talk page posts to lead to constructively editing the article. The article has been left with the reverted section in despite being removed quite a few times in the past by myself and others and if you look at it [112] you'll (hopefully) see why it had been tagged POV and removed several times. Str1977 added it back in repeatedly and apparently should have known better. Benjiboi 00:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I will unblock as per Proabivouac and others commenting here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that another admin has unblocked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nods, we seem to have crossed paths. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Jossi and KillerChihuahua.Proabivouac 01:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to all that stood up for me. I was off line during the whole discussion and only found out in the (Central European) morning, when all was said and done. I don't want to bother anyone here anymore and have posted my comment (disagreeing with Benji's comments above) about the whole case on my talk page. Str1977 (smile back) 10:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Entre-Nos reported by User:Jbmurray (Result: User warned)

    List of Puerto Ricans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Entre-Nos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Only three reverts, but user refuses to enter into discussion on talk page, despite many pleas (see discussion at User_talk:Jbmurray and User_talk:Entre-Nos for instance), and despite the fact that this policy for the list is now explicitly featured on the page. (See the previous version.) There has been much effort to engage this user in discussion, and now he's trying everyone's patience with his continued reverts. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User warned. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DavidRFLA reported by User:Pats1 (Result:Rejected)

    Tampa Bay Buccaneers Depth Chart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DavidRFLA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User has ignored an explanation on his or her talk page and a 3RR warning.

    Rejected as malformed report. Please show diffs for the reverts, and sign your posts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Should I fix the report or post it again? Pats1 22:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the user persists, sure. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    RookZERO 6RR and vandalism reported by COFS (Result: 48 hrs)

    RookZERO slightly vandalized and then 6RRed a section of the Church of Scientology article over the founded consensus of at least six other editors, within some minutes.

    1. Revert, 13 June, 20:42

    2. Revert, 13. June, 20:50

    3. Revert, 13 June, 21:01

    4. Revert, 13 June, 21:25

    5. Revert, 13 June, 21:32

    6. Revert, 13 June, 21:42

    He has been reverted back by myself, Speed Air Man, Slightlyright and Su-Jada and got cross with Wikihermit as well.

    I remember RookZERO from some months ago as a vandalising editor. If those diffs are needed please let me know. COFS 21:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:DavidRFLA reported by User:Pats1 (Result:24h)

    Tampa Bay Buccaneers Depth Chart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DavidRFLA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Links fixed this time (prior rejected). Pats1 22:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User has ignored explanations to the redirect in his talk page. His latest response to my explanation was "Tell me, who made WP:NOR the god to decide who puts what on Winipedia. Take a walk. Your a typical commie from Mass. Why can you not just mind your own business. Is that impossible for a person of your makeup. If I want to put up a depth chart, who the heck are you or anyone else to tell me I can not do it. Get a life Nazi." Pats1 22:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HeadMouse reported by User:TREYWiki (Result:no vio)

    Walt Disney World Monorail System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). HeadMouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [113]
    I am attempting to imporve the article, he tries to include information about how to emergency evacuate a monorail. Also I suggest he become aware of WP:OWN, WP:MoS, WP:NOT, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL.
    • Comment - Speaking as a peripherally involved editor, HeadMouse has previously received many warnings (see User talk:HeadMouse/Archive 1) including copyvio, 3RR, and WP:OWN and was blocked for 48 hours last month. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Revert #3 above is a revert of revert #2; consecutive reverts do not count toward 3RR. TREYWiki and others: please don't use rollback scripts to revert in content disputes (especially the ones that make the edit summaries that refer to vandalism). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:amadscientist reported by User:kww (Result:)

    The Rocky Horror Picture Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). amadscientist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He's been around for 6 months, so I don't think he's particularly new. He was warned of the 3RR rule in the change description undoing his reversion, and specifically told that one more revert would put him over the threshold. Kww 04:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:74.230.195.78 User:74.230.193.91 User:74.230.195.78 reported by User:BoriquaStar (Result:reporter blocked as sock)

    Chicano rap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 74.230.195.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 74.230.193.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 74.230.195.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) : Time reported: 05:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    IP user utilizing 2 IP address to engage in an edit war with multiple users across numerous articles. BoriquaStar 05:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a dynamic IP, so I can't help that it changes every so often without my wanting it to. The only reason this user is reporting a suggested 3RR violation on the page in question is because I've removed a great deal of improperly referenced content he added to another article. And with respect to the Chicano rap article, I'm doing the same thing. I think we can all agree that adding references (which support content added), is important, I'm simply asking that people include proper sources for their additions (and that's not happening). Look at my track record, everything I do is in good faith and I spend a massive amount of time explaining my edits in painstaking detail on talk pages. 74.230.195.78 06:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: User:74.230.195.78 is delibrately disrupting the Chicano Rap article. He has removed unreferenced tags from time to time without providing a valid reasons for his action. He has also accused me of providing unsourced informations. The reason i added the unreferenced tag is due to the fact that this particular article does not provide citations, references or footnotes to support claims. Why hasn't the administrator done anything about this issue? This issue needs to be resolved!. What is going on here? Ramírez72 June 14 2007 (UTC)

    User:Brest reported by User:Mr. Neutron (Result: warnings)

    Pirin_Macedonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Brest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This person is reverting to completely propaganda version of the article, he is making a POV copy of the article and inserting wild POV comments on it. He was blocked for doing this a month ago, for violation of 3RR, and he has more than 5 people reverthing him. Mr. Neutron 13:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And you reverting the article from your POV (Bulgarian propaganda). Pirin Macedonia should be separate article from your article about Blagoevgrad province. And the article tell the story about subjects in this part of Macedonia/Bulgaria. This is not propaganda, because very serious institutions like EU and other NGO work on this.--Brest 17:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And also User:Mr. Neutron is the same person as User:Laveol from Bulgaria (i.e. sockpuppeteer).--Brest 18:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, see here. Mr. Neutron 18:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Parties warned.--Chaser - T 23:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Migospia reported by User:Skinwalker (Result:18h)

    Veganism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Migospia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Diff of 3RR warning: User has been blocked previously for 3RR.

    This user is insisting on removing the phrase "poorly-managed vegan diet" to "poorly managed diet", thus obfuscating the lede paragraph of the article. Skinwalker 18:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • This was a hard one for me to decide, since the fourth revert is not an exact revert, and as it seems Migospia did try to get input on the talk page before introducing this edit. But as it does in fact have the effect of reverting to the same material to which others have objected, and as Migospia should not have been edit warring up to three reverts in the first place (having been blocked for 3RR in the past), I am blocking for 18 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:HeadMouse reported by User:TREYWiki (Result:24h)

    Walt Disney World Monorail System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). HeadMouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User has had history of edit waring, (see his talk archive). WP:OWN, WP:NOT, and WP:NPA issues. --trey 17:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note, this is different from above, he reverted 2 more times. --trey 17:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Brest reported by User:Mr. Neutron (Result: warning)

    Macedonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Brest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: 8 may

    Wasn't warned. Warnings handed out, page protected for 24 hours to let it cool down. Will be watching this situation.--Chaser - T 22:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Labyrinth13 reported by User:Cool Blue (Result:24h)

    Max Headroom pirating incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Labyrinth13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: Current


    Please note that, per here, this is not the user's first encounter with 3RR.

    The other involved party User:RHKlein, although the account was created on March 7, 2007, all of his edits except for 1 (at least all the edits I have access to as a non-admin) were made on today, thus making him an inexperienced user. RHKlein was not previously warned about 3RR, so I gave him a warning.

    • Blocked for 24 hours. For now, I'll go ahead and leave RHKlein, who also violated 3RR, with CoolBlue's warning rather than blocking. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Reverting against consensus to a redirect article. Mr. Neutron 18:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTE: Brest had a 3RR block in May. Also, the war was about a link or bolding one word. Evilclown93(talk) 19:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:EliasAlucard reported by User:Itaqallah (Result:24h)

    Sargis Bahirâ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). EliasAlucard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: 3RR notice unnecessary, editor has previously been blocked for 3rr. editor was invited to self revert, but continues to institute changes without having done so. ITAQALLAH 21:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He continues to revert-war to re-insert inappropriate cites and links (see the talk page). I've taken the liberty of adding the 5th revert above (which is not in the same time zone as the others, so it's technically outside of the 24-hour period, but not by much, and besides we already have 4). - Merzbow 07:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Charles reported by User:I vonH (Result:No violation)

    Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Charles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Report is not properly formatted; please provide links to the diffs for each reversion. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've checked the edit history, I don't see anymore than 3 reverts in a 24-hour period. DrKiernan 14:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dacy69 reported by User:AlexanderPar (Result:72h)

    Azeri cartoon controversy in the Iran newspaper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dacy69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked him for 72h: violating the 3RR rule while on a 1 revert a week Arbcom parole is over the top Alex Bakharev 02:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:74.230.195.78 reported by User:Bombaplena (Result: 24 hrs)

    Chicano rap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 74.230.195.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the second 3rr report for this user in less than 2 days [131] . User is again using multiple IP address and is serial reverting. He is well aware and has commented on his previous 3rr report Bombaplena 06:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Isotope23 reported by 87.122.36.68 09:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC) (Result:no vio)

    Electronic body music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Isotope23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverts of banned users, such as yourself, Diluvien, do not count toward the 3RR. -- tariqabjotu 13:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Equal rights for all! --87.122.21.58 15:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Isotope23 reported by 87.122.36.68 09:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC) (Result: 24 hrs)

    Industrial music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Isotope23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it was a banned user, so no action. El_C 18:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, there was action if you look at the reporter's block log. The banned user got the 24 hour block. Jossi should have noted that the reporter got blocked instead of Isotope. Funpika 20:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ezhava reported by 193.61.107.150 15 June 2007 (UTC) (Result: Page protected)

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

    No specific 3RR violation, but protected due to a massive edit war. All parties involved are strongly encouraged to use that time for discussion, and not to resume the edit war after protection is removed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:75.6.254.235 reported by User:LactoseTI (Result: 24 hours)

    Sea of Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 75.6.254.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: 75.6.254.235 (probably could consider this a revert of 21:21, June 13, 2007, too, but no need since he's reverted 4 more times anyway).
    In addition, this user is a obviously sock puppet by User:Room218, following this RfC case and this RfC case. Aiso, this user has been blocked with an expiry time of indefinite.--Gettystein 15:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:InLikeErrol reported by User:DrKiernan (Result:Indef blocked, sock evading block)

    John Wayne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). InLikeErrol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [136]

    Known sockpuppet of User:DaveyJones1968. Previously blocked. I admit, I also broke the 3RR. DrKiernan 17:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Darnit, this is the John Wayne Vandal. Blocking 24, I missed him this time. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind, Wil already took care of it. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tigeroo reported by User:Merzbow (Result:24 hrs)

    Long-term editor, should know better than to edit-war like this. His/her recent edits to Islam have been poor-quality and against consensus. - Merzbow 23:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that user is a long term editor, I will warn the user, rather than block this time. I he persists, he will be blocked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked by another admin... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mimon reported by User:Akhilleus (Result:24h)

    Minoan civilization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mimon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ryd2603 reported by User:RobJ1981 (Result:warned)

    User:Egard89 reported by User:Angus Lepper (Result: Page protected)

    • Three-revert rule violation (even after a warning by myself on both article and user talkpages) on

    School uniform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Egard89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Incomplete report, but page protected due to massive edit warring. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cavernosa reported by User:Angus Lepper (Result: Page protected)

    School uniform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cavernosa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Same as above. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Sosomk reported by User:Tamokk (Result: No violation)

    • Three-revert rule violation (Two very disruptive reverts by continuously incivil editor) on

    Georgia (country) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sosomk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The dispute is about the claim made in the article by Sosomk, that Russian economic embargo caused inflation in Georgia. In its October 2006 report the International Monetary Fund has given a totally different reason for the inflation, what I have cited on the talk page: [144]. I have given other references too. When Sosomk failed to provide sources for his statement it was tagged. Sosomk removed the tag calling it vandalism (He has routinely used the term in reference to other users edits, and on occasion he was given an explanation by an administrator [145]). After being blocked several times over the article, and being warned by several administrators, Sosomk remains incivil as ever [146] [147], [148]. User:Alaexis has initiated this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sosomk against Sosomk. Please (also) consider the case under 3RR. Tamokk 06:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Another incivility [149]. Note the Georgian text, which the addressee apparently can not understand, and which I will not translate here. Tamokk 06:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This does not appear to be a violation of the 3RR; you have only listed two reverts and you need four. -- tariqabjotu 13:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Conversely, just because someone has not violated the 3RR does not mean that they will not be blocked. Revert warring is disruptive, and the 3RR is not an entitlement to three 'free' reverts per day. Could you please reconsider the case under this? The reverts are very disruptive, and Sosomk has a long history of Revert warring and incivil conduct over the article. Tamokk 01:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Klaksonn reported by User:ALM_scientist (Result: 36 hours)

    Fatimah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Klaksonn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Some abusive attacks on me and my religion after WP:3RR warning. "you're pathetic", [150], [151].

    • You might be interested in seeing his/her block log [152]. He/she has a long history of blocks.

    --- A. L. M. 12:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Block 36 hours, per the evidence above. -- tariqabjotu 13:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Having perused his block log per ALM, and some of his contributions, User:Klaksonn has been awfully disruptive. Netsnipe indeffed it as disruption-only account, then gave him a second and then a "final" chance, yet he's been blocked twice since. His incivility towards ALM scientist and other Sunnis, matched in mainspace by his unsourced anti-Sunni POV pushing, is unacceptable, and shows no signs of improvement.Proabivouac 21:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Brunodam reported by User:Sideshow Bob (Result: 24h (Br))

    Venetian Albania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Brunodam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • This user keeps conducting original research on this article, has been removing tags(its accuracy and notability were both disputed), threatens that he'll contact administrators, and even Wikipedia headquarters, because his work(a highly doubtful, poorly sourced historical article with high level of POV) is being vandalised. I'm also suspecting of sockpuppetry(as User:Dalmata), but I don't have enough evidence to claim that yet.
    • The reported user also refuses to discuss his changes on the article's talk page, but continuously accuses everyone who disagrees with him of vandalism and nationalism. He is also showing intention of continuing the edit war if anyone edits in a manner that he finds unsuitable.

    Sideshow Bob 16:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Brunodam shows that User:Brunodam has created a sock-puppet, User:Dalmata, to assist him. As seen here, today, he used the sock-puppet to for another reversion in the article. Additionally, he makes strange things over at Talk:Venetian Albania, where he talks to himself, thanking for his/her own support...
    Both users are blockedBrunodam (talk · contribs) is blocked for violating the three-revert rule, as shown by the history of Venetian Albania and the evidence here. -- tariqabjotu 20:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    However, inspection of the history shows that User:Sideshow Bob did not violate the 3RR rule. --PaxEquilibrium 21:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Petercrapsody69 reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result:24 hours)

    Fop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Petercrapsody69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    About 6 reverts in 30 minutes. Followed up with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Fop revert war for those concerned I had an intrest in this. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CanbekEsen reported by User:SONSAVASCI (Result: 36 hours)

    Fenerbahçe S.K. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CanbekEsen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I assume good faith, but this user has problems with Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles. Although there is no vandalism and the editions made by other users were necesssary for the article, user is reverting everything back to his own edition. Ironicly, after few hours, he added what he reverted. This kind of beaviour, prevents any new information addet to article by other users, discourages anyone editing the page and also violates the 3RRV. SONSAVASCI 16:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked thirty-six hours, per the evidence above. -- tariqabjotu 21:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Krator reported by User:Quizimodo (Result: Warning)

    Netherlands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Krator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [153]

    Comment Hello. I recently boldly embarked to improve the country locator maps for European countries in Wikipedia. To date, there has only been minor resistance; most prominently, the user above has provided a wealth of criticism at that article (which is not at all bad) and I am considering it. Others have either been indifferent or have asserted support for prior or current maps. However, throughout, Krator has invoked policy and makes recommendations, while contravening them: for instance, Krator first asks me if he can revert; after I responded, Krator then reverts anyway (supposedly, consistent with WP:BRD). Then, inconsistent with BRD, Krator's 2nd and 4th reverts preceded my responses to them. Quizimodo 16:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC) As well, two administrators have since admonished Krator for this edit warring: [154] [155]. Quizimodo 17:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Krator has been warned about this a couple times since the latest revert, as you noted in your explanation. Thus, there is no reason to block him; blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. As for you... edit-warring to force another party to violate the 3RR is not good. You do not need to revert four times in 24 hours to be blocked for edit-warring; if I had blocked Krator (as I was about to), I would have blocked you too. -- tariqabjotu 17:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I am not forcing anyone to do anything: Krator's compulsion is his/her own affair. And, rest assured, I would have appealed any inappropriate block. Quizimodo 17:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The point of the 3RR is to stop people from edit-warring. Were it not for your edits to the Netherlands article, there would have been no way for Krator to make four reverts in 24 hours (not even two). To block Krator for edit-warring when you were doing the exact same thing (except with the benefit that Krator reverted before you, and thus stayed one revert ahead of you) would be entirely unfair. I've done it multiple times before in response to 3RR notices made here, and I have never seen it overturned even though most blockees post an unblock request. You may have been the first, but we'll never know. -- tariqabjotu 18:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's the point -- and your inaction and rationale are disappointing. I have been discussing throughout in good faith, and posted this report since Krator's behaviour -- who, without consensus, is the only editor to revert me at Netherlands, sometimes pre-emptively -- clearly called for it. As well, Krator was called to account by two administrators for this (like at the incident board, the thread of which he initiated): I have not been. Your reasoning seems more an evasion of responsibility and almost a call for editors to not edit Wikipedia at all: were it not for my edits in this instance, nothing would occur. Maybe we'll never know, but thanks for helping to waste my time. Quizimodo 19:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fishofg reported by User:Proabivouac (Result: Indef)

    Battle of Khaybar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Fishofg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment This obvious sockpuppet/meatpuppet was created to edit-war on Battle of Khaybar and should be blocked indefinitely.Proabivouac 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Obvious meatpuppet or single-purpose account; blocked indefinitely. -- tariqabjotu 20:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Tariqabjotu.Proabivouac 08:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:212.139.98.106 reported by User:Ronz (Result:)

    Cydonia Mensae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 212.139.98.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor is a SPA and has not contributed to article TALK page. Editor has added a comment to his own talk pagein response to the 3RR warning, that was duplicated the same day to the article talk page by a different ip:
    This second editor is making the same reversions to the article as well and has been also warned of 3RR. I'm not sure if these indicate this is just one editor using two ips to avoid blocks. --Ronz 19:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither editor has contributed since, so I won't object to this being closed without action. --Ronz 16:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:161.55.204.157 reported by User:parsecboy (Result: 48 hours)

    Talk:Max Headroom pirating incident (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Max Headroom pirating incident|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 161.55.204.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This anon is the same editor as Labyrinth13 (talk · contribs), who was recently indef blocked for the gross incivility and personal attacks on the talk page here. He has repeatedly deleted relevant discussions on the talk, and reinstated sections filled with his malicious personal attacks. Please render assistance. Parsecboy 21:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The anon user has used this IP: 63.226.203.244 (talk · contribs) to evade the 48hr block. Below is the revert:
    00:22, 19 June 2007
    The anon user has also used this IP: 71.35.155.1574 (talk · contribs) to evade the 48hr block. Below is the revert:
    01:25, 19 June 2007


    checkY User blocked « ANIMUM » 23:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MastCell reported by User:peroxisome (Result: Page protected)

    Steven_Milloy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MastCell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Give me a minute to respond here, and see my reply here. MastCell Talk
    OK. Those aren't diffs, but old versions of the page. I count that I've made 3 overlapping reverts today: here, here, and here. I'll be the first to admit that's too many, and I'm willing to revert myself if I've made a 4th revert, but I can't identify one and diffs have not been supplied above.
    That said, I'd note that Peroxisome (talk · contribs) is removing well-sourced, previously stable content from a controversial article without discussion on the talk page, and without even the courtesy of an edit summary. Lest this seem to be ignorance, note that I politely requested he discuss his proposed changes on the talk page (given his desire to remove large chunks of well-sourced content). He responded by blanking my comment, along with some other unflattering ones, and continuing to revert without discussion. I'm not excusing the fact that I've probably over-reverted here, but I find it hard to assume good faith given the above, and given Peroxisome's previous history as an edit warrior. That said, if there's actually a diff where I've reverted a fourth time, I'll happily self-revert - I've looked, and I can't find one. MastCell Talk 23:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In an effort to help out, here's what I think peroxisome meant to list as the diffs. (I've changed version links to diffs, adjusted the times by an hour, and reversed the ordering):

    --Ronz 00:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The first three diffs are sequential, so shouldn't be counted as separate reversions in my opinion:

    MastCell has a long history of reverting on the steven_milloy page; this includes acting in concert with others to suppress cited information, put in wrong information, all with perfunctory attention to giving reason in edits. See the discussion page for numerous examples of MastCell refusing to communicate. MastCell has made at least 6 reverts on the 18th. My apologies, but I don't know what a diff is, or how to use these. Peroxisome 01:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the diffs. If you need help creating them, see WP:DIFF. I'll go ahead and revert myself, in the interest of resolving this. Nonetheless, I don't think you should interpret that as condoning your actions; you're removing sourced content without even an edit summary explaining your edits. I asked you to discuss your edits on the talk page, which is how these things are usually resolved - and you blanked the request and kept on reverting without discussion. Accusing me of "refusing to communicate", given the diffs I've supplied above, is ridiculous. MastCell Talk 01:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, now I'm not sure what to do. The edit war has continued, and my edits are now buried, so reverting myself doesn't make sense. I'm happy to do whatever makes sense to resolve this; in any case, I don't plan on editing the article for a few days, and plan to concentrate on the talk page instead. MastCell Talk 02:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Starwarsrulez reported by User:Grandmasterka (Result:)

    On Wii:


    User:XGustaX reported by User:Muntuwandi (Result:Stale, discussion initiated)

    Race and Genetics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). XGustaX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: 02:59, 19 June 2007. Removal of information from a scientific journal.

     Clerk note: XGustavX is a suspected sockpuppeteer/sockpuppet. Evilclown93(talk) 13:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The reverts are very minor. It is about adding or removing internal links. Evilclown93(talk) 13:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not only links he/she is deleting an entire row of a table and deleting the source link.Muntuwandi 00:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    No, I used the talk page. Provided a source. XGustaX 01:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Clerk note: Both users have started to discuss this on the article talk page. Evilclown93(talk) 12:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    XGustaX is trying to censor information. I have offered him several compromises but he is unwilling to accept any compromises. We definitely need some outside intervention.Muntuwandi 13:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Full_Shunyata reported by User:Vision_Thing (Result:)

    Collectivist_anarchism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Full_Shunyata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Clerk note: Recieved 24h 3RR block in November of 2006. --Evilclown93(talk) 13:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dr.Awesomeness reported by User:Falcon9x5 (Result: 56 hours)

    Killer application (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dr.Awesomeness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User also vandalised a user page [161], blanked a user's talk page [162], ignored several warnings [163] and made personal attacks [164]. Fin©™ 15:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked fifty-six hours, per the evidence above. -- tariqabjotu 18:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Scottshen reported by User:Abecedare (Result: 24 hours)

    Salman Rushdie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Scottshen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: User has deleted Sir from the subject's name, 9 times in <24 hours.


    Blocked for twenty-four hours, per the evidence above. -- tariqabjotu 18:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:VartanM reported by User:Grandmaster (Result: Article protected)

    Church of Kish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). VartanM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a lot of edit-warring going on, and allegations of sockpuppetry are also mixed it. It's better just to protect the article. -- tariqabjotu 00:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:VartanM keeps edit warring on this and a number of other pages. He is aware of 3RR rule, as he was previously blocked for its violation under his previous user name User:Vartanm. [[165]] Grandmaster 19:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My 4th revert was to an obvious sock puppet account as you can see here both accounts were created today and the only "contribution" was to engage in the revert war. [166] [167] I have requested the page to be protected to end further revert warring. VartanM 20:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:UpDown reported by User:Jhamez84 (Result: Article protected)

    Bernard Manning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). UpDown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is pushing a false nationality upon the Bernard Manning article. He was warned of 3RR (at 18:45, 19 June 2007), and references were added to try to stop him, but he's continued.

    I would ask the relevant admin to look deeply into this. It was not 7 simply reverts. Another editor, SqueakBox, tried a comprimse, one that I was happy with. However, User:Jhamez84 and another have totally ignored this. They ignored other articles which use English, Welsh etc, and insisted on his POV (he admits on user page to being "proud to be British", meaning then insisting on "British" is POV). And the "references", newspaper articles. They hardly decide nationality. I'm sure I could find one to stay "English". They prove nothing. --UpDown 20:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have protected the article. Please note, however, that both UpDown and Jhamez84 violated the 3RR. -- tariqabjotu 22:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I have not. I've reverted the article to the same effect three times. The other times I was reverting out a different issue. I think that's a weak decision by the admin frankly - someone violates the rules, I go to the trouble of reporting it and you take no action against him? What's the point of this page then?? I'm sticking to guidelines by referencing articles, working with editors, working to policy and for what I wonder. Jhamez84 23:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Action was taken; the article has been protected. Note, from WP:BLOCK, The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment. The duration of blocks should thus be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behaviour. It is currently impossible for UpDown (and you) to make any more reverts to the article, so steps toward prevention have been taken. Also, you did violate the 3RR: (i) 19 June, 17:56 (UTC), (ii) 18:24 (UTC), (iii) 18:43 (UTC), (iv) 20:14 (UTC). Note, from WP:3RR, An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted. -- tariqabjotu 23:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Commodore Sloat reported by User:Biophys (Result:No violation)

    Operation Sarindar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Last revert is renaming article back to the initial version.

    This user has numerous 3RR violations in his log. Biophys 19:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The last two were consecutive, so this is not a violation. Also, I see that you would have violated 3RR under the same rules, having followed a third revert immediately with a move. The way, the truth, and the light 19:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I did not know about consequtive changes. I thought my renaming of article did not really restored any of the older versions. Thanks. Biophys 19:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The way, the truth, and the light reported by User:Exploding Boy (Result: Page protected; blocked for later violation)

    Anal sex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The way, the truth, and the light (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Other recent reverts:

    User has now been blocked three times for edit warring, disruptive behaviour and 3RR vios, most recently on June 4, when he was blocked for 48 hours.

    Currently, the user is insisting on his own version of the Anal sex page, specifically the one paragraph indicated in the diff above. Since June 16 he has made at least 7 full or partial reversions to the page. His most recent (linked above) occurred during an ongoing discussion of that particular paragraph on the article talk page. The two versions of the paragraph contain identical information, but the user prefers his own version to the good faith rewrite I did to improve clarity, brevity and encyclopaedic tone. Exploding Boy 20:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss on the talk page. If you like I can protect the article. He has not vioalted the WP:3RR. Next time you report here please provide diffs of reverions and times they occured. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs added. Please check them. Discussion on the talk page has proved fruitless. Is this behaviour to be allowed to continue unabated? Exploding Boy 20:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Last I checked, today was the 19th and it is almost the end of the 19th. Why are you providing diffs from 24 hours ago and even days ago? I will not retroactivly block for that. He has not been edit warring today over this article do not report him for past infractions. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I added them to show that he has a history of edit warring on this page. The fact that the last time he reverted was yesterday is irrelevant. He's continuing the exact behaviour of reverting without discussion or explanation. Allowing some time to pass before making exactly the same reverts still doesn't mean it's not edit warring. How long will this be allowed to continue, exactly? Exploding Boy 20:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    At the time of the report, he was not in violation of the WP:3RR. He had not reverted an article more than three times in the last 24 hours. I know he has a history of past violations but I need to see eviednce of a current violation. You did not even list any diffs for today? I know what they are so it is not necessary he has only made 2 edits in the past 24 hours to this article. I have protected it anyways to give it time to cool down. Discuss on the talk page or what not. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:82.19.66.37 reported by User:Davidmack (Result:No violation)

    Alcoholics Anonymous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 82.19.66.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User is repeatedly inserting a website that was discussed on the talk page (also text search "more revealed" on that page for more).

     Clerk note: There are only 3 reverts listed. It is a 3RR violation after reverts after the third one. Evilclown93(talk) 12:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:ScienceApologist reported by User:The way, the truth, and the light (Result: 24h (Sc), 72h (WTL))

    Heat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The previous version was moved to Heat (thermodynamics), he kept inserting a redirect to that page, effectively reverting to that version.

    Given his repeated reversion without meaningful discussion at several pages, including this one, Heat (disambiguation), Heat (thermodynamics), and Thermal energy, he clearly has broken the spirit of 3RR if not the letter. I made these changes yesterday expecting a discussion over several days or weeks, not a revert war; there was no pressing need to revert as I had not removed any information.

    Also, the merge of Heat (thermodynamics) and Thermal energy was first proposed by another user here, not by me as ScienceApologist implied in his edit summary. The way, the truth, and the light 21:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) for twenty-four hours, per the evidence above. I have also blocked The way, the truth, and the light (talk · contribs) for seventy-two hours for edit-warring on Heat and Thermal energy; he has been blocked three times before and he was also being disruptive at Anal sex. -- tariqabjotu 22:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Timeshifter reported by User:Ronz (Result:No block, Warning, and Protection discussion between both parties)

    List of mind mapping software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Timeshifter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've also started a discussion on the article Talk page for protection of the article. I think page protection would be a better solution given the recent edit history of the article. --Ronz 23:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Clerk note: I've closed this as a stale case. Even though Timeshifter editwarred, they afterwards did the immediate steps to cool down, by starting a discussion. Timeshifter was, most likely, not aware of the 3RR rule, as his warning came between the fourth and fifth revert. I commend both Timeshifter and Ronz for starting a discussion on the article talkpage. Evilclown93(talk) 12:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hetoum I reported by User:Elsanaturk (Result: Article protected)

    Church of Kish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hetoum I (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No comment. Ateshi-Baghavan 00:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a lot of edit-warring going on, and allegations of sockpuppetry are also mixed it. It's better just to protect the article. -- tariqabjotu 00:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My nth reverts were to an obvious sock puppet account as you can see here accounts were created today and the only "contribution" was to engage in the revert war. I think it is up to 5 accounts now. [168] [169] VartanM requested the page to be protected to end further revert warring. Hetoum I 00:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tony1 reported by User:Mscuthbert (Result:page protected)

    Inversion (music) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    • 1st revert 13:05 -- "Correction of POV: removing illustration of erroneous analysis of cadential six-four in the absence of an illustration of the correct analysis"
    • 2nd revert 22:32 -- "Removal again of incorrect image. No proper technical argument for keeping this appears on the talk page"
    • 3rd revert 22:41 -- "rv bloody-minded action"
    • 4th revert 01:03 -- "Incorrect privileging of one viewpoint: it's going to mediation"
    Also two more suspicious reverts from an otherwise little used IP referring to the Tony1's talk page comments:
    • 2:26 -- "Read the talk page."
    • 2:48 -- "Read the talk page. The image presents a bias."
    Longtime editor but with a lot of great edits, but having significant disagreements about a particular piece of music terminology (called I64) trying to remove it from articles. Page protection (yes, even in the "wrong" version :) might be better than just blocking, since I'd rather this not escalate, but instead get back to having a discussion. But the talk is getting less and less civil (including comments like "It took quite a long time to rise to an overt squabble; I'm surprised, coz I was willing it",) and some sort of cooling down is needed. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Added 6th if IP address is a sockpuppet. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also been engaged in this argument, and I'm finding this user to be quite disruptive. His verbose comments are frequently insulting, and most of the time repeat the same argument. His older editing history seems to be of reasonable quality, but he comes off almost as a troll on the talk pages as of late. I've listed another edit here from the anonymous IP. (Oops, edit conflict with Mscuthbert... thing it's straightened out now.) - Rainwarrior 04:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be shocked if Tony sunk to the level of sockpuppetry. — Deckiller 04:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello, I've reverted three times, not four or six. I have no sockpuppets. Tony 05:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First removal was a revert, second one was a "removal again" as per your edit summary, 3rd marked as "rv" and the 4th was also a revert. I'd give more of a benefit of the doubt if you weren't threatening people on the talk pages. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Protected the page. Myke and Tony have always been doing good work whenever I see them. No need for any escalation or arguing about who is breaking wiki-laws etc. I've locked the page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is highly improbable that Tony has resorted to sockpuppetry. Tony says he's from Sydney, Australia (and the times of his edits appear to corroborate that), and the IP is from Connecticut, USA. -- tariqabjotu 05:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've requested mediation. Tony 06:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, nobody should be blocked here. Whenever established editors get blocked for 3RR, it seems one of their allies bails them out, so it won't accomplish anything. The key is mediation, especially since we're dealing with professional and civilized editors who don't have behavior or social issues. — Deckiller 16:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SeiteNichtGefunden reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: 48 hours)

    Improvised explosive device (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SeiteNichtGefunden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Clerk note:SeiteNichtGefunden recieved 24 hour block for 3RR and vandalism on 14 May, 2007. Evilclown93(talk) 12:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 48 hours for repeat offense, tendentious editing, and consistently referring to edits restoring the consensus version as "vandalism". MastCell Talk 20:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mariam83 reported by User:Bouha (Result:24 hours)

    Berber people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bouha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]



    Please note that the user was warned about WP:3RR previously, but deleted this warning. This is the previous warning

    Please also note that this seems to be the same person (in Houston) as was blocked as User:68.90.246.113 for this exceedingly offensive edit Bouha 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Bouha, interesting observation. On my personal page I found this edit on my personal page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Collounsbury where at the end there is an offensive (no skin off my nose really, but...) usage in Arabic implying a slur against black Africans. (collounsbury 13:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]


    User previously warned about 3RR, but deleted message from talk page.  Clerk note: This is the diff of the 3RR warning. Evilclown93(talk) 12:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No, the warning noted by Evilclown93 was the second such warning, and was given after the violation. The beforehand warning was given at 12:49, 18 June 2007, as shown at the links given by Bouha and (in more standard format) by me, above. -- Lonewolf BC 13:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Confirmed Blocked for 24 hours. Evilclown93(talk) 15:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mariam83 reported by collounsbury 12:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC) (Result:24 hours)

    Maghreb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mariam83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [170]

     Clerk note: Please specify exact page, version reverted to, at least diffs of the 4 reverts, and if the user is new, a diff of a 3RR warning. Evilclown93(talk) 12:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC) User refuses to discuss edits. UPDATE: Sorry first time have been moved to report.[reply]

     Clerk note: I've reformatted the report. Evilclown93(talk) 13:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Clerk note: Now, as I have properly seen this, the result is a warning, as the 3RR warning was issued after the 7 reverts in this case, specifically. Evilclown93(talk) 13:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry to say that you are mistaken, Ec93, and that a mere warning to [User:Mariam83:Mariam83] seems like quite an under-response, given the true circumstances. As may be seen from the below, Mariam83 was first warned about 3RR two days ago, was warned again after having made four of the seven reverts to Maghreb today, but then went on to make the other three of them anyway. This troublesome editor has been breaking 3RR left and right across several articles, after being warned against it on 18 June. She(?) has also been making POV edits to the point of vandalism and against consensus, making personal attacks and being generally disruptive. -- Lonewolf BC 14:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am mistaken :(...It should be 48 hours. I'm alerting the first admin I see. Evilclown93(talk) 14:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First, apologies and thanks to Evilclown93 for the assistance on standardizing format. Second, wish to draw attention to the racist language that Bouha noted above in the separate complaint, as replicated elsewhere in talk pages. Quite inflammatory and odd. collounsbury 15:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    Mahgreb violation, put into standard format:

    -- Lonewolf BC 14:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Confirmed Blocked for 24 hours. Evilclown93(talk) 15:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Muntuwandi reported by User:XGustaX (Result:Article Protected)

    Race and Genetics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Muntuwandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [171]

     Clerk note: You should have the diffs of the reverts, as it easier to judge... Evilclown93(talk) 14:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It takes two to edit war. If he has reverted it 5 times, that means the other person has to have reverted at least 4 times. I think this is better to protect and talk it out, discuss it instead of block both parties involved. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jinxmchue reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result: 48 hours)

    D. James Kennedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jinxmchue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Clerk note: The 3RR rule applies to every revert after the third one. Having 3 reverts in 24 hours, but not more, is not a violation. Evilclown93(talk) 16:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 48 hours (repeat offense); there were several reverts after those listed above, including what appear to be 4 within a 24-hour frame, as well as a clear violation of the spirit of the policy and edit-warring against consensus. MastCell Talk 21:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Ilya1166 reported by User:The Evil Spartan (Result: 48hr)

    Estonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ilya1166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • User has been previously blocked for 3RR (9RR in fact), and has been copiously warned for it (see talk page history; some conversation removed). I almost reported this user for violating 3RR just a few days ago, right after previous block, until I realized that he was reverting some clearly false information. This, however, is not clearly false, and he knows better, as he's been blocked.
    • If the duck test is not enough to prove the IP is the same person (I think it is), I'll file something at WP:CHU, if need be. However, I believe the evidence is strong enough. The Evil Spartan 17:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's wait for the checkuser results: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wassermann. The Evil Spartan 21:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll not get a confirmation that a certain IP is a certain user... That's private information. Thanks/wangi 21:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For 3RR violation, and ban evasion, I most certainly will if it's the same person. The Evil Spartan 21:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's irrelevant, Ilya1166 (talk · contribs) alone has four reverts re-adding the category. Originally added by Daniil naumoff (talk · contribs)[177], reverts: 1, 2, 3, 4. Blocking for 48 hours. Thanks/wangi 21:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, well thank you. I hadn't realized that someone else originally added it first. The Evil Spartan 22:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:67.142.130.43 reported by User:Gamaliel (Result:One IP blocked; another warned)

    Lee Harvey Oswald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.142.130.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This IP has already been blocked once for the same offense on the same article, and this user (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 12.150.11.25) has been blocked under multiple IP addresses and his/her behavior has resulted in the semi-protection of this and other articles. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 18:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Another sysop blocked this IP and I warned 70.109.54.8, a suspected sock of same.--Chaser - T 03:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:75.73.188.53 reported by User:Knverma (Result:)

    Quixtar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 75.73.188.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Request you to please also look at what disruptions were reverted. It appears to me that those disruptions were made only to block my IP? 75.73.188.53 19:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And should some action not be taken for user who was constantly deleting information? 75.73.188.53 21:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Being a Quixtar distributor, 75.73.188.53 also has financial conflict of interest. This is apparent in his attempts to add too many corporate sites and claiming on talk page [178] that he (or Quixtar?) is not able to sell products because of controversies like in this article, and his belief [179] that this article should be used by people to know about cost effectiveness of products and other info for deciding whether to join the business. --Knverma 04:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JGoldwater reported by User:SigmaEpsilon (Result: 48hr)

    Fred Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JGoldwater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]



    User:JGoldwater reported by User:BigDT (Result: 48hr)

    Fred Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JGoldwater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is a single purpose account, the majority of whose edits have been to add this loaded claim to a biography of a living person. Thompson, a radio talk show host for ABC, did a radio spot for a company. The co-founder of this company had legal problems 10 years ago. As soon as the story broke, this guy was shown the door. All radio talk show hosts do hundreds of commercial spots - this story has nothing to do with Thompson. All neutral editors who have examined it have opined that the edit is inappropriate in a BLP. (Innuendo, bias, and undue weight, even if sourced, have no place in a BLP.) This SPA insists on readding the claim repeatedly, including twice after being warned on the article talk page of 3RR. --BigDT 19:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Undog and User:208.45.160.83 reported by User:Haemo (Result: article protected)

    Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Undog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 208.45.160.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    I'm reporting both these users, since they've been edit-warring basically non-stop on this article for the past two days. It's impossible to edit it under such a circumstance. I'm also worried about some of the incivility in edit summaries like "lol, you don't even understand it Mr. 46 counts of rape.", "Need paragraph to explain to kids and idiot racists that not every charge is true – as you and others try to imply", "What the hell is "insourced" info. I think you mean "unsourced" info? ".

    The IP appears to be dynamic, and the edit-war is most of the recent history, so I'm protecting instead of blocking.--Chaser - T 01:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TheManWhoLaughs reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: resolved)

    Batman & Robin (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). -- Tenebrae 22:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor has received several warnigns (some now on his archived talk page) for his behavior, and was blocked for 12 hours yesterday.

    His first edit in this instance, flagged for fannish, non-encyclopedic tone, was made at 20:42, 19 June 2007 . His reversions follow:

    I would like to say that I only reverted the article because im trying to help it. He is just trying to pick a fight with me because he thinks he can get me in trouble. TheManWhoLaughs 23:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Other sysops: No blocks yet, please. Trying to resolve this here first.--Chaser - T 00:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.247.110.93 reported by User:Enviroboy (Result:)

    Fellatio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.247.110.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a technical violation here, but the IP is now discussing at his/her talk page and the article talk, so I'm inclined to let this go unless there's another reversion.--Chaser - T 01:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Misou reported by User:Stan En (Result: no block)

    Scientology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Misou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    1, 2, 3, 4, 5 reverts within 8 hours by Misou !!! he was already warned. He filed a complain against RookZero and me here -- Stan talk 01:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Technical violation, but Misou has gone to talk page, so let's see how this shakes out.--Chaser - T 01:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ok just read your comments . I agree ! -- Stan talk 01:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Itaqallah reported by User:Arrow740 (Result: 24 hours)

    Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Itaqallah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    All from June 20:

    • 1st revert: 13:18 straight revert of this diff: 10:38
    • 2nd revert: 21:11 reverting this diff: 03:21, June 18
    • 3rd revert: 22:09 reverting the previous two diffs to this version: 21:11
    • 4th revert: 23:27 He again removed the same two sentences from the Jihad section. He shoved something like them lower down the article, but this is still a revert.
    • 5th revert: 23:47 where he undid part of this diff: [180] from June 16th, where I added the word “worldwide.”

    Itaqallah is a very experienced editor has been very active at this article for weeks, he just went too far today. Arrow740 01:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't checked the diffs closely but the first diff was discussed before in detail and a consensus was achieved. I don't call that diff a revert. The editor who added that has probably only one edit to this article. --Aminz 01:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Aminz once made that same change. I can dig it up if needed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrow740 (talk • contribs)
    I apparently took the reverse position as Itaqallah took here. The issue was settled back then. --Aminz 01:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You two don't own the article. It's still a revert. Arrow740 01:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Arrow, you are really stretching it when it came to reverts. Every edit that removes so much as a letter is undoing part of another edit (because obviously someone had to put it there in the first place). Thus, to suggest someone is "reverting" an edit made a couple days ago is questionable. Itaqallah is not the only party that has been involved in edit-warring recently. I was considering protecting the article, but I don't believe that would be a good idea just two days before the article's supposed to make its Main Page appearance. On that note... can you all please simmer down, at least for the upcoming days? -- tariqabjotu 02:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you guys are all being pretty lenient today. This is five solid reverts, but no block. Changing "worldwide domination" to "dominance" when I had changed it the other way a couple days ago is certainly a revert. Strange that you didn't block him, tariqabjotu. Arrow740 03:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Four very obvious reverts and another one which was not so obvious, but still a revert. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Tweak to 24 hours since the last two were consecutive and thus actually 4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I must agree with Aminz above that the first diff should definitely not be considered as part of an edit-war, which is what this page - and this rule - is for. There is now and has long been overwhelming consensus on Talk:Islam that Itaqallah's edit is correct. The notion that "Islam" means "peace" is nothing but a popular misconception. It is perverse to punish anyone for removing ranks falsehoods from mainspace even if they act alone: how much less sense this makes when the edit followed discussion and a clear and longstanding consensus. Indeed, I would be extremely surprised to learn that Arrow740 himself disagreed with this edit (do you, Arrow?) This is not WP:AN/GOTCHA!, and it should not have been included in this report. As the last two diffs were consecutive, that makes only three reverts: Itaqallah should be unblocked.Proabivouac 05:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Aminz argued for it before and it is possible to make a bad case for it from the sources. There have been revert-wars about this same topic recently. The point is that itaqallah has not followed the rules and is deleting sourced, topical material from Islam while simultaneously staying at 3 reverts in other places to keep blog postings in articles. Arrow740 06:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Eleemosynary reported by User:Crockspot (Result: page protected)

    User:Willie Peter (edit | [[Talk:User:Willie Peter|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Eleemosynary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Eleemosynary has made at least eight reverts today to User:Willie Peter, all of them attacking three editors without cause or any kind of real evidence. I'm not well versed on the use of sock templates, but I believe that these are being improperly applied as well.

    User has two previous blocks for 3RR, so is aware of the policy.

    As a view of the diffs will show, each revert made restored warning templates to the above-mentioned user's (most likely, a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Crockspot) User page, and explanation of the actions to his Talk page. As restoring blanked warnings is reverting vandalism, 3RR does not apply. As restoring comments that elucidate warnings is not vandalism, 3RR does not apply. Alas, another attempt by Crockspot (and his various other identities) to game the system has gone down in flames.
    User:Willie Peter is either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet created, most likely, byUser:Crockspot with the past 24 hours as a way to circumvent 3RR on the George Soros page. I have indicated as such on Willie_Peter's user page, and he has removed all the warnings on the talk and user pages using the exact same language and bluster that Crockspot usually does. Restoring warnings and reverting vandalism do not violate 3RR. This report is an attempt to game the system by Crockspot/Willie_Peter. Diffs to come. Stay tuned. Eleemosynary 03:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're making some pretty bold claims with zero evidence to back it up. You're harrassing and attacking three editors in one edit. You need a time out. - Crockspot 03:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The diffs, and your edit history, give compelling evidence of your actions. I'm harassing no one, and I'm beginning to think one, and only one, editor is involved here, and it's you. Stop trying to game the system. You're going to continue to be called on it. Eleemosynary 03:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the diffs... the diffs... Which diffs were you referring to? My "bogus claim" is that you have repeatedly and still continue to revert another user's page. Oh, and that you continue to personally attack me and attempt to damage my good reputation. Do you guys plan these Jeremiah Johnson-esqe attacks over email, or what? Did you draw the short straw this week? - Crockspot 03:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You may want to review the George Soros talk page for the diffs in question. I'd be happy to post them here. Yes, I have reverted (and will continue to revert) your removal of warnings on your sock/meatpuppet's user page. Your removing them is vandalism. As for your "good reputation," nothing in your edit history points to this. As for your tirade, it appears you've grown frustrated with being found out. If you'd only refrain from trying to game the system, you might find your editing here less stressful. Cheers. Eleemosynary 03:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please some one stop this out of control vandal, Eleemosynary. Now the simple questions that begs in this is... no matter what article I choose to start to edit, those <owners> WP:OWN (in which Eleemosynary seem to be following that M.O.) will accuse me of being somebodies "sock puppet", Yes? So, please tell Eleemosynary stop being a WP:DICK Willie Peter 03:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    Wow... two full-throated (although incorrect) cites of Wiki policy from an account not yet one day old. You're fooling no one. Eleemosynary 03:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You must have watched to many Johnny Carson shows with Carnac the Magnificent. Do you place your RJ45 cable in you ear WP:Beans and pop these truths out? It's clear your agenda and any one with common sense can see.Willie Peter 04:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you even filed a checkuser request yet? I'd like to clear this up as soon as possible. You're wasting my time. - Crockspot 04:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your breathless exhortations to "run a checkuser" on yourself have, thankfully, narrowed down your ruse. Thanks for letting us know you're actually using a meatpuppet. That should save some time. Eleemosynary 04:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you wiki-slander? I'm don't know Crockspot, never meet him, I don't have any outside contact with him. So, is this your way to bully new editors you don't agree with? It would seem you have been empowered to continue this, with out stop of control. So much for WP:AGF.Willie Peter 04:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your grammar was better when you were posting as Crockspot. Eleemosynary 04:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Chaser, I see your point in protecting that page. The admins can sort out the diff history, and the serial blanking, before long. I'd ask you to keep an eye on meatpuppet Willie Peter, as he seems intent on blanking warnings, and even legitimate comments on this very page. To be continued. Eleemosynary 04:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Did anyone notice the "Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic." at the top of this page. Let's try to follow that.--Chaser - T 04:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No argument from me. I'm going to bed. - Crockspot 04:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've protected this page. This is a fairly pointless template when we have checkuser (which may or may not be appropriate here). Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets is that way.--Chaser - T 04:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks far more like a meatpuppet, as Crockspot has been running the "please run a checkuser on me" goad all evening. If Willie Peter appears again to continue reverting pages on which "Crockspot" and "Bellowed," are flirting with 3RR, that's gonna be pretty damning. Eleemosynary 04:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of flirting with 3RR, very nicely done just now, how you narrowly avoided violating 3RR on Bill Moyers. You seem to be an expert at it. You go sort your diffs now. I'm done here tonight. - Crockspot 05:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And I didn't even use a meatpuppet. Thanks for stopping in to say you're "done" for the second time. Eleemosynary 05:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WookMuff reported by User:Thejermdotorg (Result: 24 hours)

    LiveJournal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). WookMuff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [181]

    This is a long existing user that should know about the 3rr. --Jerm (Talk/ Contrib) 13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for twenty-four hours, per the evidence above. -- tariqabjotu 13:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:70.105.50.115 reported by User:Nescio (Result:)

    Movement to impeach George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.105.50.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Despite my warning he violated 3RR[192] user continues reverting while removing the warning[193] which is evidence he has seen it. As an aside for the same behaviour the page was semi-protected several days ago because the IP then started alternating its address to circumvent 3RR. Maybe again semi? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Example

    
<!-- copy from _below_ this line -->

===[[User:NAME_OF_USER]] reported by [[User:YOUR_NAME]] (Result:)===

*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~

* Previous version reverted to:  [http://VersionLink VersionTime]

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
-->

<!-- copy from _above_ this line -->
    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&oldid=139683396