Please place new reports at the bottom.

User:Johnsome reported by User:ThuranX (Result: 24h Block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Henry Ford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Johnsome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 22:14, 27 May 2007.

• 1st revert: 12:27, 28 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 14:42, 28 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 17:33, 28 May 2007
• 4th revert: 13:49, 29 May 2007

Although technically just outside the 24 hour period, The user has shown ZERO willingness to talk, there is NO reason to assume anythign will change unless the user is forced to. Further, please note this, where he tried to violate me for 3RR. His edit has been reverted by two users, and his actions addressed by more. Thank you.ThuranX 20:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits are disruptive enough to warrant a block despite the 4 reverts lying within a 25h instead of a 24h period. Signature^brendel 22:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ned Scott reported by User:White Cat (Result: Pages protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ned Scott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: N/A

• 1st revert: 21:30, 28 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 17:04, 29 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 00:25, 29 May 2007
• 4th revert: 00:31, 29 May 2007

User has reverted 3 admins closing the MfD. I also request a rereview of #User:Ned Scott reported by User:White Cat (Result: No block) on this page. User has "recreated" a page deleted bu five different admins. -- Cat ^chi? 01:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you up to, Cat? Do you see why some may find this whole username change obnoxious? You have changed many of your old signatures (albeit to have those changes reverted). You bring this up at WP:ANI. It went to WP:MFD. It came here, to WP:ANI/3RR. I rejected your previous 3RR piece here. And made a note of my rejection at WP:ANI. The MfD has been closed. And protected. Your old userpage has been deleted. And protected from recreation. And now it's back here, at WP:ANI/3RR (without you even bothering to modify the timestamps). What more do you want, Cat? Do you want a hand-written apology from Ned? Ned tarred and feathered in the town square? You seem to have gotten most of what you asked for, save retribution. Shall I give you retribution? No, the purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment; you will have to suffice with just your victory. As the previous reviewer, I perhaps should ignore this request and let another admin handle it. But I cannot in my good conscience let you waste yet another admin's time with this ordeal. Your username has been changed, your old userpage deleted. That's a wrap; time to move on. -- tariqabjotu 23:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Scott has waisted everyones time. I question your objectivity in reviewing the past and this 3rr case since you clearly are an involved party. Ned Scott continued to disrupt due to your last review.

In order for me to be victorious there should be a war. I am not engaged in millitary warfare.

-- Cat ^chi? 00:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Zeraeph reported by User:Psychonaut (Result: 24h Block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Goebbels children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zeraeph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: [1] (partial)

• 1st revert: 22:29, 29 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 22:58, 29 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 23:17, 29 May 2007
• 4th revert: 23:22, 29 May 2007

User is continually removing a cited paragraph, or just the citation.

As he/she removes the citation in each edit, he/she indeed has conducted more than 3 reverts. Considering that he/she has accused another user of "writing ficton" and has an extensive block log for personal attacks and another 3RR vio, I have issued a 24h block to as I see the chance of things getting out of hand. Signature^brendel 00:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sir james paul reported by User:Not a dog (Result: Warning)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sir james paul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 19:31, 27 May 2007

• 1st revert: 19:34, 27 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 19:49, 27 May 2007 (personal attack in edit summary)
• 3rd revert: 22:17, 28 May 2007
• 4th revert: 22:37, 28 May 2007

• User has been blocked twice in the past for 3RR violations of similarly contentious edits on Evolution, and is forcing the issue again. Might not technically be within 24 hours, but he's knowingly and purposefully gaming the system to try to force his edits. This can't be acceptable behavior. Not a dog 01:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No violation of the three-revert rule, but given the incivility and past history with this article, editor has been warned regarding behavior. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sarah777 reported by User:SqueakBox (Result: 24h Block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Britain and Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Time reported: 01:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [2] (partial)

• 1st revert: 17:01, 29 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 18:10, 29 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 18:26, 29 May 2007
• 4th revert: 18:35, 29 May 2007

She has since revetred 3 times more and knows what she is doing [3], SqueakBox 01:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I reverted it once by mistake. User:Sarah777 corrected my mistake. Thanks Gold♣heart 01:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a diff for the mistake please? As then I can replace it with one of the 3 other urls, SqueakBox 01:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SqueakBox, this should be the one. [4] Gold♣heart 01:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasnt included in the report, SqueakBox 01:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide diffs to all four reverts, above you only provided three diffs. Yet, I was able to see from the page history that Sarah has egaged in an edit war that warrants administrative action. I have issued a 24h block to calm things down. Signature^brendel 02:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adam1090 reported by User:Scorpion0422 (Result: Adam1090 commended)

• Three-revert rule violation on

WWE Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Adam1090 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 19:37, 29 May 2007

• 1st revert: 22:07, 29 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 01:09, 30 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 01:26, 30 May 2007
• 4th revert: 01:31, 30 May 2007

Copyright issues are not subject to the three-revert rule, editor was replacing a fair-use image with a free one. However, I will look carefully to see if any of those putting the fair-use image back in, in violation of our fair use policy, need to be blocked. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Smee reported by User:Lsi john (Result: Page protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Large Group Awareness Training (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Smee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Smeelgova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) : Time reported: 03:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st revert: diff1
• 2nd revert: diff2
• 3rd revert: diff3
• 4th revert: diff4
• 5th revert: diff5
• 6th revert: diff6
• 7th revert: diff7 ADDED - after initial report.

This editor has a contentious edit history and already been blocked for 3RR violations 5 times by this board: as Smeelgova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Smee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user is edit warring with multiple editors.

Lsi john 03:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not 3RR violation

This user seems to habitually want to get me blocked, and it is inappropriate. A simple review of the DIFFs and a perusal of the article's history itself will see that I have provided context for the citation, and in addition to that I will not revert this information again. I have changed the nature in which the citation is given. These are in fact not "6" reverts, but if anything 3, which I apologize for, but sourced citations were being removed from the article. In any event, as the context has been given for the citation appropriately, there will be no more reverts for that. Whether or not User:Lsi john will continue to edit war on that article is irrelevant, for I will not be a party to it. Smee 03:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• User:Lsi john does not seem to understand, I changed his original research tag which was laid over the whole entire article, instead to the one word that he had a problem with "psychological", and by the way, this was not a revert. However, if someone thinks that my changing of his tagging as OR the entire article, to the only word that he has an issue with "psychological" was some kind of revert, I will be more than happy to self-revert that. I will continue to not revert this user anymore on this article, as I have stated above. Smee 04:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • SELF REVERT, As stated above, I do not wish to revert this user on this article at all, and will not in the future. Evidently he feels that my changing his tagging of the entire article as OR, to the one word that he thinks is OR, was a revert, so I have Self-Reverted here, and will not revert this user. Smee 04:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I agree that this is not a WP:3RR edit war situation, Diff This diff shows Smee is not the only editor who believes the source is valid.

[5] Justanother's rationale doesn't make sense: (The idea that we would list where a term is referenced in other books and articles is unencyclopedic, adds nothing, and I will stop just short of saying it is silly.) To the contrary mentioning the use of LGAT in textbooks discussing the issue is quite encyclopedic and adds relevance to the term/article.

[6] Lsi john doesn't explain how the reference doesn't match either in his edit summary or on the talk page.

[7] Lsi john repeats his last action.

[8] Lsi john appears to have forgotten that the article is about LGATs in general, since he earlier appeared to feel that singling out Landmark in the article was unfair given all the LGATs out there. Talk:Large Group Awareness Training#Landmark in LEAD

At best this is a misunderstanding of the WP:3RR rule by Lsi john, at worst a pattern of WP:HARASS which could be forming here. Anynobody 04:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected

Since both of you have been having disputes over the page since quite a long time, the only appropriate course of action would be to protect the page while the parties can discuss and resolve dispute on the talk page of the article. The article protection duration is of 48 hours. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 05:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the same article as previous reports. This is a problem with the editor, not the article. Smee followed me to Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji? (book) as well and is picking at my edits (check the edit logs there). I agree with Anynobody, I'm not sure I understand 3RR at all, when 7RR isn't a violation. I'm not warring, I'm only 2RR there.Lsi john 05:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pattern of abuse by Smee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (formerly Smeelgova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

This is about a long-term pattern of abuse, tendentious editing, and ownership of articles. Smee merrily went 3 reverts with me over my thought-out edit that contributed to the article and then merrily continued edit-warring with one, perhaps two, other editors. This is not about the article; this is about one editor that refuses to "get it" despite multiple blocks. When Smee is invested in an article, no-one with an "opposing" POV to her "cult-fighter" persona (or a neutral POV for that matter, or often even a more reasonable editor with views closer to hers, like User:Wikipediatrix or User:BTfromLA) is allowed to edit there. This has to be addressed. Please, Mr. Admins, do your job. Page protection will handle nothing. This is about a pattern by one POV-pushing editor, User:Smee. --Justanother 10:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smee (formerly Smeelgova) at work; WP:OWN; WP:BITE

• New user makes a nice edit in an unsourced section.
• User:Smee (formerly User:Smeelgova) reverts with edit summary "rvv" and then "welcomes" the newbie with a vandalism warning. --Justanother 12:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The User has just received a more friendly welcome message from myself. The edit was indeed non-vandalism.
  • But. The larger concern here is that mutually reinforcing vendettas and contribution stalking may be developing between Smee and other editors, which has more damage potential than a fourth revert. Should this be taken to another forum? User conduct RfCs are procedurally dreadful, but some mediation appears needed. I would say that the "not an entitlement" aspect of 3RR seems to be lost on Smee. Marskell 12:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There seems to be more evidence of retaliatory behavior against User:Jossi on WP:COIN. - Crockspot 12:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Smee has been edit warring with User:Jossi on several articles and this latest report to WP:COIN smacks strongly of retaliation to me. Lsi john 12:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Smee has been WP:BITING me since I arrived. But my complaints have been pushed aside in Good-Faith assumptions about this edit warrier. Lsi john 12:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a timeline of the 3RR pattern here for anyone who wants the tedious task of observing time stamps and dates and seeing the pattern. Smee wasn't 4RR. Smee was 7RR and I was 2RR. The only 3RR block that I've ever had, came over 24 hours AFTER I had Stopped editing in an article (clearly punitive). Yet Smee has been blocked 5 times and still continually avoids preventative 3RR blocks. I'm beginning to wonder what the 3RR rule is for. Lsi john 12:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have ended the discussion on WP:COIN. This is troubling editing behaviour. Marskell 12:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jbolden1517 reported by User:Muchness (Result: Page protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Lolita (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jbolden1517 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 22:09, 25 May 2007

• 1st revert: 01:43, 30 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 02:27, 30 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 02:44, 30 May 2007
• 4th revert: 03:04, 30 May 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 02:52, 30 May 2007

• Between the first and second reverts, two interim edits were also made by the reported user ([9], [10]). The second, third, and fourth reverts added these edits back in addition to reverting to the previous version from 25 May.
• Between the third and the fourth reverts, the page was moved to a non-standard parenthetical clarifier [11] with an edit summary that I would characterize as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

You'll notice #4 is on a new page and #1 and #2 don't match (aren't the same version of the article (see all the fashion material) jbolden1517^Talk 03:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A reversion is a reversion, whether it's in whole or in part. And moving a page to a silly title does not make it a different page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a bunch of new content is not a reversion. jbolden1517^Talk 03:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its borderline so I self reverted as much as I can. jbolden1517^Talk 03:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page was protected by After Midnight. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Migospia reported by User:Rockpocket (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Animal testing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Migospia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 09:26, 28 May 2007

• 1st revert: 11:08, 29 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 11:27, 29 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 16:09, 29 May 2007
• 4th revert: 18:39, 29 May 2007
• 5th revert: 20:33, 29 May 2007

• User not new, but 3RR warnings were made on edit summaries: [12][13] Rockpocket 05:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24 hours. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cole435 reported by User:ThuranX (Result:warned)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Two-Face (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cole435 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 16:32, 27 May 2007

• 1st revert: 23:20, 28 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 22:24, 29 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 22:56, 29 May 2007
• 4th revert: 23:00, 29 May 2007

• 5th revert: 23:16, 30 May 2007

• 6th revert: 17:47, 31 May 2007

User refuses to use talk, relies upon OR determinations of popularity, and in his last conflict, offered to 'bust a cap' in the next person who argued with him. I didn't give a 3RR warning, but he's not a newer user, and his stubborn insistence along the WP:ILIKEIT line makes him unlikely to change. As such, a block's definitely needed. I got so frustrated, I vio'd 3RR myself, but immediately self-reverted. However, he needs to stop. ThuranX 04:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a 5th revert, just outside of the 24 hour mark, and without him signing in. However, signature phrases in his argument' very camp', arguments to recentism, and genreal comments regaring Two-face being a serious character indicate it's the same editor, tryign to WP:GAME 3RR. I can go through a checkuser if needed, please let me know at my talk. ThuranX 04:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a 6th revert in this slow boil. He's been reverted and on contact with another editor, User:DrBat, and hasn't listened to that editor either. Please put a halt to this. He violated 3RR, and got nothing, and continues to revert war despite opposition. ThuranX 23:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And yet no one warned him? I am personally unwilling to block editors if I think they may not be aware of the rule, so I've just left a warning. If another admin is willing to block, OK. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings are NOT required for non-new users, for one, and for two, given his lack of intent to use talk pages, nor respond to interactions from others, I doubt it's effectiveness anyway. ThuranX 20:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Myanw reported by User:60.240.255.213] (Result:no vio)

• Three-revert rule violation on

[[::Category:Aspergian Wikipedians]] (edit | [[Talk::Category:Aspergian Wikipedians|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Myanw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: [14]

Not three, but eight seperate reverts in one 24 hour period. Wheel-warrior extraordinare.

• These reverts were of vandalism. Anon making this report was adding a disparaging message about Asperger syndrome. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:74.116.118.230 reported by User:Stephan Schulz (Result:31 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Timothy F. Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 74.116.118.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 11:38, 30 May 2007 (Removal of longstanding external link to SourceWatch)

• 1st revert: 13:49, 30 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 13:57, 30 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:03, 30 May 2007
• 4th revert: 14:52, 30 May 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 14:38, 30 May 2007

Comment: IP user may not actually have seen warning, but also ignores request for discussion on talk via edit summary. Semiprotection might be an option.

• User clearly edit warred; no reason to block out other anons. Blocked for 31 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:80.250.128.5 reported by User:Makalp (Result:24h Block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 80.250.128.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 07:41, 30 May 2007
• Warning to user :13:55, 30 May 2007
• 1st revert: 12:43, 30 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 13:49, 30 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 13:55, 30 May 2007
• 4th revert: 14:00, 30 May 2007

3RR vio - issued 24h block. Signature^brendel 22:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:67.81.154.219 reported by User:Chocolatepizza (Result: 31h Block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Elazar Shach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.81.154.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 12:01, 6 March 2007

• 1st revert: 12:56, 29 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 09:47, 30 May 2007 (This also involved his leaving of a personal attack in the edit summary)
• 3rd revert: 11:26, 30 May 2007
• 4th revert: 11:31, 30 May 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 13:50, 17 August 2006 (They are the same person, see comments below.

This user is removing the sourced paragraph of

Chabad representatives dismissed the comparisons, noting that whereas the Sabbateans deliberately violated religious laws on the assumption that a "new Torah" would emerge during messianic times, Chabad preached that only strict adherence to tradition would bring the redemption. Chabad also claimed that its veneration of the rebbe was not at odds with Jewish tradition.^[1]

and adding unsourced and pov content.

I believe that this ip is User:DavidCharlesII is the ip based on his blanking of the ip's warnings http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:67.81.154.219&diff=prev&oldid=118545159 and the ip blanking of his sockpuppeteer tag http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DavidCharlesII&diff=prev&oldid=116798822 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DavidCharlesII&diff=prev&oldid=116783319 which was his first edit. Chocolatepizza 15:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be noted that the reverts are also removing unsourced, anecdotal, probably false, defamatory content regarding R' Shach and the Lubavitch yeshiva, which is not subject to 3RR from what I recall. -- Avi 15:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However the paragraph quoted above is sourced and not defamatory and should not have been removed. Chocolatepizza 16:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of 3RR and personal comments in edit summary - issued 31h block. Signature^brendel 22:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:70.109.54.8 reported by User:Gamaliel (Result: 24h Block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Lee Harvey Oswald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.109.54.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st revert: 19:22, 29 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 21:19, 29 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 22:13, 29 May 2007
• 4th revert: 23:36, 29 May 2007
• 5th revert: 09:58, 30 May 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 00:25, 27 May 2007 by User:Jossi

Soon after this report was submitted, another revert was made by User:67.142.130.27, who is likely the same individual as User:70.109.54.8 based on past edits and talk comments. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 16:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty clear case of 3RR vio. I have issued a 24h block. Signature^brendel 17:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dacy69 reported by User:Azerbaijani (Result:72h Block)

User Dacy69 is on revert parole:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dacy69#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FArmenia-Azerbaijan_2

He has only one revert per article per week, yet on the Heroes of Azerbaijan article, he revert three times within a two day period.

Heroes of Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dacy69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st revert: 2:18 May 28, 2007
• 2nd revert: 3:58 May 30, 2007
• 3rd revert: 18:48 May 30, 2007

As you can see, on May 28 he reverted once to reinsert Babak into the article, then on May 30, he again reinsert the person back into the article twice (two other reverts). He has also just personally attacked me, implying that I dont even have a medium intelligence level: [15].Azerbaijani 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make revert - I added information with NEW supplementary references and made minor fixes. And I did not insult - what you implied it is up to you. Diffs can be checked. And speaking frankly you going after me and reporting is close to Wiki harassment. --Dacy69 22:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats still a revert. You've been on Wikipedia for a long time, you know the rules. Dacy69 knows the rules, do not let him mislead you. You reverted all three times, it doesnt matter if you added anything, it still a revert. You cant hide reverts by adding information on top of the revert. The historical section was removed three times, along with Babak, and you re-inserted it three times...Thats called a revert. You clearly violated your parole, just admit it.Azerbaijani 22:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not - if text is removed and I am coming to reintroduce it with new references and new text - it is not revert. That is clear. This is my first series of editing (3) [16] and second (4)[17]. and compare now initial and final text. In between user:Richfife came leaving quite insulting comment against the country [18]--Dacy69 22:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia rules clearly state: A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, undoing page moves (sometimes called "move warring"), undoing administrative actions (sometimes called "wheel warring"), or recreating a page.[19]. You cant make excuses for clearly violating your parole.Azerbaijani 22:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three reverts in two days do not constitute a violation of the 3RR. Yet, there seems to be a rather slow edit war in progress on this article. I have not issued a block but advise both parties to use the talk page instead of edit warring-even if it is at a crawling pace. Signature^brendel 22:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a regular 3rr report, its a parole violation report. Please read the case carefully. And I'm not edit warring in that artile, in fact, I havent made a single revert yet on that article.Azerbaijani 23:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Sorry for the mistake. I have issued a 72h block for parole vio. Signature^brendel 23:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:67.142.130.43 reported by User:Gamaliel (Result: 24 hrs)

• Three-revert rule violation on

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: 18:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st revert: 13:50, 30 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 14:00, 30 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:15, 30 May 2007
• 4th revert: 14:41, 30 May 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 14:21, 30 May 2007

User:67.142.130.43 is almost certainly a block-evading sockpuppet of User:70.109.54.8, who was blocked today for reverting the same edits in the same article.

This user has now started reverting as 67.142.130.26.

User:67.142.130.43 - 24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[[67.142.130.26 48 hrs for block avoidance and 3RR ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Giovanni33 reported by User:MONGO (Result: Page protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

State terrorism by the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

While just a bit over 24 hours and only consisting of three precise reverts...3RR is not an entitlement...

• 1st revert: 13:55, 29 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 02:04, 30 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 03:16, 30 May 2007
• 4th revert: 14:53, 30 May 2007

• Block log...Giovanni is well aware of the three revert rule Discussion regarding his edit warring on the same article was most recently on May 26, 2007 [20] based on repeated efforts to force his POV into the article over concensus [21], [22], [23]--MONGO 20:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this report because it singles me out when Mongo himself has reverted three times, as well, for his POV in this edit conflict with me and several other editors. Indeed many of us have (which I agree is not a good thing) however, if you look at the talk page, I have been the most active trying for forge a consensus and stop the edit conflicts, asking people to please talk about it instead of just reverting blindly. For Mongo to revert 3 times himself yet try to get me blocked for doing the same thing seems to me to amount to trying to gain an advantage in the edit conflict. That is not what this place is for. I have not violated the 3RR as he admits, and if I should not have reverted 3 times, he should not have either, nor the many other editors in this latest edit conflict. I should not be singled out, esp. since I did not violate the 3RR rule.

Mongo's 4 reverts, just over 24 hours based on repeated efforts to force his POV into the article over concensus (actually consensus is split):

• 1st revert: 07:37, 26 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 07:46, 26 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 18:36, 26 May 2007
• 4th revert: 12:30, 27 May 2007

Giovanni33 21:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected for one week. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably best. I don't like "trying" to get someone blocked for 3RR, but while I stopped my very short lived edit war, which was also with an IP trying to add the same stuff Giovanni was, Giovanni has persisted and he was at 3RR on the same article just a few days ago.--MONGO 21:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Smee reported by User:Lsi john (Result: 72 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Holiday Magic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Smee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Lsi john 20:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC) formerly Smeelgova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[reply]

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

Smee is also 3RR at Children of God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) against another editor.

• 1st revert: 1 <- Newbie BITING.
• 2nd revert: 2
• 3rd revert: 3

We're Back!

Earlier today 7RR didn't earn a block. So Smee has decided that he can revert war in Holiday Magic and Children of God now too.

This contentious editor has a LONG HISTORY of edit warring, and seems to love to revert everything I do.

He has been blocked by this board '5 times already as Smeelgova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Smee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

He's now at 3RR in TWO articles.. which IS a violation, since Smee keeps pushing the limit.

The last time, the admistrator assured me that Smee would 'take the warning'.. but that clearly has not happened.

note to admin: PLEASE scroll up and read the 7RR report above, including the previous 3RR timeline: here

The last block was for 48 hours.

It doesn't matter what article I edit, Smee is going to revert everything I do until I hit 2RR and have to stop.

Lsi john 20:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for three days, less for his most recent reverts and more for a troubling pattern of repeated reverting in general. See Smee's user talk for further explanation. Marskell 22:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:97.99.137.82 reported by User:FateClub (Result: 24h Block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Vicente Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 97.99.137.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 13:54, 31 May 2007

• 1st revert: 16:40, 30 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 11:06, 31 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 11:08, 31 May 2007
• 4th revert: 12:38, 31 May 2007
• 5th revert: 12:59, 31 May 2007
• 6th revert: 13:53, 31 May 2007
• 7th revert: 13:54, 31 May 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 13:03, 31 May 2007

Quite obvious case of a 3RR vio. 24h block to stop edit war. Signature^brendel 00:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Raphaelaarchon aka User: 71.100.1.7 reported by User:R. Baley (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Glenn Greenwald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Raphaelaarchon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 03:24, 30 May 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: at 02:47, 31 May 2007. 5 Reverts made under the anon IP 71.100.1.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)as indicated by this difference. Also request page semi-protection as this user has edited under at least one other anon IP address. R. Baley 04:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide diffs of the reverts. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Differences are

• 1st revert: 01:58, 31 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 02:05, 31 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 02:30, 31 May 2007
• 4th revert: 02:38, 31 May 2007
• 5th revert: 02:43, 31 May 2007.

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

• Three-revert rule violation on

Liancourt_Rocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). melonbarmonster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 03:55, 23 May 2007

The article has gone through significant change since this revision due to the recent name change, but the reverts he's pushing were present in that revision, as well as more recent revisions (that was an easy recent one to find since he had made one of the reverts in that revision as well). The changes might seem small, but are especially controversial (especially revert 3 and 4).

• 1st revert: 08:21, 30 May 2007 removed by an English speaker
• 2nd revert: 17:25, 30 May 2007 removed by an English speaker
• 3rd revert: 20:30, 30 May 2007 added back administered
• 4th revert: 01:55, 31 May 2007 removed and administered (to the other side)

• 3RR warning: Been blocked for 3RR, incivility, and personal attacks multiple times, 3RR specifically for three times since 1 March. Last time was a week long block for repeated 3RR violations starting on May 15. Since coming off this block, he is evidently still intent on edit warring, blowing right past the 3RR limits as well as continuing the personal attacks (eg here).

Third "revert" isn't, I can't find the text "and administered" in any earlier version. That would indicate this is a new edit, not a revert. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, here's the diff he was undoing. Per consensus we had discussed that "administered" was too strong a word on one side awhile back so we replaced it, but he undid this diff effectively by reinserting the word administered. --Cheers, Komdori 04:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:71.100.1.7 reported by User:Astanhope (Result:)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Glenn Greenwald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.100.1.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 20:58, 30 May 2007

• 1st revert: 20:58, 30 May 200
• 2nd revert: 21:05, 30 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 21:30, 30 May 2007
• 4th revert: 21:38, 30 May 2007
• 5th revert: 21:43, 30 May 2007

User:Epeefleche reported by User:Tecmobowl (Result:No violation)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Sandy Koufax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 03:17, May 31, 2007

• 1st revert: 01:38, May 31, 2007
• 2nd revert: 02:58, May 31, 2007
• 3nd revert: DIFFTIME

No violation. Incorrect format anyway. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lear 21 reported by User:MJCdetroit (Result:warned 24h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Template:Infobox Country (edit | [[Talk:Template:Infobox Country|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lear 21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 21:02, 26 May 2007

• 1st revert: 03:03, 30 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 10:16, 30 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 11:55, 30 May 2007
• 4th revert: 03:22, 31 May 2007
• 5th revert: 11:55, 31 May 2007
  • No technical vio, as the user skirts four in 24 hours each time. I have advised Lear that the 3RR is not an entitlement to three reverts every 24 hours. Update if the edit war continues, as a block will then be needed.
    • Your warning at 13:16, 31 May 2007 had no affect.
• 6th revert: 16:38, 31 May 2007
  • <sigh>. 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:SaltyBoatr reported by User:Ultramarine (Result:24h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Right to bear arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SaltyBoatr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 17:39, 25 May 2007

• 1st revert: 20:35, 29 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 21:13, 29 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 02:25, 30 May 2007
• 4th revert: 13:59, 30 May 2007
• Diff of 3RR warning: 15:27, 12 May 2007

• Also continues to revert after this, creating new 3RR violations, although not in the same 24 hour period as above.Ultramarine 21:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bjewiki reported by User:Chrisjnelson (Result: No block / article protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Template:Philadelphia Eagles staff (edit | [[Talk:Template:Philadelphia Eagles staff|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bjewiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st revert: 16:17, May 31, 2007
• 2nd revert: 16:23, May 31, 2007
• 3rd revert: 16:26, May 31, 2007
• 4th revert: 16:27, May 31, 2007

While I realize I am in violation of the 3RRV rule, I would like it noted that because they disagreed with my legitimate edit User:Chrisjnelson (who has several previous 3RRV violations), and User:Pats1 teamed up to revert my legitimate edit 2 & 3 times each, for a total of 5 times. While I realize that is not a technical violation of the 3RRV rule, it certainly violates the spirit. Bjewiki 22:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in your own little fantasy world. My past violations are irrelevant here considering I didn't commit and infraction here. Further, Pats1 and I have had no discussions about this subject on Wikipedia or off it so if we both are making the same change we feel is the right one, then it doesn't matter. Neither of us have violated 3RR in this case, and you have. It doesn't matter what kind of spirit it was in. Sorry.Chris Nelson 22:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No block. All of you where edit warring. Don't do it or you all will be blocked for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's an illogical conclusion. I thought you guys had rules for a reason, but I guess not.Chris Nelson 00:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars accomplish nothing. Revert once if you must, to show your disagreement, and then engage in discussions to resolve the dispute. If you cannot resolve it, pursue WP:DR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"you guys" includes you. This is Wikipedia and the policies are made by the community. Read WP:3RR to understand the nuances. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I think it would be best to fully protect the template. Hopefully, that will get you guys to go to talk page and DISCUSS. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kellen` reported by User:Abe.Froman (Result: No violation)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Veganism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kellen` (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 2007-05-31T17:44:40

• 1st revert: 2007-05-31T00:21:56
• 2nd revert: 2007-05-31T01:07:09
• 3rd revert: 2007-05-31T17:27:42
• 4th revert: 2007-05-31T17:43:12

(See report below) same article, same user.

Same responses to Abe. His changes were previously rejected by editors of the article. Migospia's changes were akin to vandalism, being undiscussed, and improperly marked as minor. Other changes were by anon/new editor who also did a large amount of blanking. Kellen^T 00:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurd. We have a 3RR violation, and a chronic [24] article edit warring user. Admins do.... Nothing. Abe Froman 03:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kellen` reported by User:Migospia (Result: No violation - Article semi-protected for 1 week)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Veganism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kellen` (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st revert: 05:21, May 31, 2007 rv anon IP
• 2nd revert: 06:07, May 31, 2007 rv anon IP
• 3rd revert: 06:21, May 31, 2007 rv new user User:Starfish2
• 4th revert: 22:27, May 31, 2007 rv edit by User:Migospia
• 5th revert: 22:43, May 31, 2007 rv edits by User:Abe.Froman

If I can make a comment, Kellen was reverting the blanking of large swaths of the article, and should not be blocked for his actions. Consensus on the talk page has been to include this material. I would have reverted it had I seen it before him. The article for Veganism attracts periodic bursts of soapboxing, and this is yet another instance of it. Cheers, Skinwalker 23:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not an admin: It looks like the first three reverts were pseudo-justified due to anon-ip and new user account. The last 2 reverts, however, were against more established editors. This is not entirely an article vandalism-protection issue. (I replaced the diff's for easier verification). Lsi john 23:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The 4th was marked as minor, yet removed a huge swathe of sourced content. Possible cause to consdier it vandalism per WP:MINOR and hence WP:3RR excempt? Rockpocket 00:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Migospia blanked a large section of the article without cause or discussion. Abe followed up, also by blanking a large section of the article. As skinwalker points out, consensus has been to include this material. I believe Migospia thinks I'm involved in her block yesterday for edits to Animal testing, which I am not, although I did seek to encourage her to learn from the block rather than accuse a conspiracy and make personal attacks. Kellen^T 00:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I blanked harmful edits to an aritcle, back to the previous state so don't do this!--Migospia☆ 01:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Hey hey you guys can't all of a sudden make excuses to bend the rules saying they are pseudo-justified it does not matter who she reverted, non were vandalism so therefore violated the 3RR--Migospia☆ 00:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Migospia☆, I apologize for not making my initial post clear that I'm not an admin. Your reaction is understandable, but unnecessary. And, significant edits which repeatedly remove significant amounts of material by an anon IP, followed by the same edit from a new user, could easily be viewed as vandalism. The admin will be able to check the IP and be able to see what was going on. Lsi john 00:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a violation here. The first three reverts really do appear to be reverts of vandalism or test edits, large-scale blankings with no explanation in the edit summary, and made by an anon or very new account. I think most editors would have interpreted those as vandalism or tests. The last two were clearly content reverts, since a rationale for the blankings was provided in the edit summary, but that doesn't violate the 3RR. I would encourage the parties here to pursue dispute resolution if necessary rather than edit warring. (And whoever's logging out to make those edits-that's a really, really bad idea. 3RR applies per -person-, not three logged in, log out, and make three more.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphimblade (talk • contribs) Hypercite so when I did legit edits and reverts I get blocked 24hours plus, but when Kellen makes harmful edits and keeps reverting all of a sudden its no violation! It should state that wikipedia considers admins higher priority than other users as well as the admins can get away with pretty much anything and if you are friends with an admin the same goes--Migospia☆ 01:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Rockpocket's reasoning seems accurate here. Several of the reverted edits removed large portions of contents from the article, paragraphs that seemed well sourced and had been stable prior to that episode. To prevent anonymous blanking, I'm also semi-protecting this article for a period of time sufficient to discourage this behavior. I also urge both Migospia (specially Migospia) and Kellen to engage in discussion before proceeding with this edit dispute. Phaedriel - 00:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

They were not well sourced which is my point, and I tried before and after my edits with Kellen but I just cannot seem to get through--Migospia☆ 01:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

<!-- 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 -->