• Three-revert rule violation on Miss Universe 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kaiwhakahaere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 21:46, 31 May 2008

• 1st revert: 18:11, 1 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 20:38, 1 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 20:48, 1 June 2008
• 4th revert: 09:32, 2 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 20:52, 1 June 2008

Part of a general pattern of incivility towards me by this user, as well as a debate over the standard of referencing in this article. The user is consciously ignoring the numerous times I have pointed them towards the WP:VUE policy. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 21:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked both the reported user and the reportee for 24 and 48 hours respectively. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 22:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Meerkat Manor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Collectonian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [1]

• 1st revert: [2] 00.13 2 June
• 2nd revert: [3] 00.56 2 June
• 3rd revert: [4] 01.00 2 June
• 4th revert: [5] 1.05 2 June

• No warning necessary as this is a very experienced user who knows better but has let a silly error during a self-admitted wikibonk phase turn into a vendetta. I tried a very reasonable softly, softly approach but sadly this was the response.

• Refused - currently at WP:ANI (reporting editor had also breached 3RR). Black Kite 01:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In what way have I breached 3RR? Abtract (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, change to "was inadvisedly edit-warring". Still, this is at WP:ANI as you know, which is a better venue. Black Kite 01:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Just so I have this straight ... she reverts my very reasonable edits 4 times without a decent edit summary (indeed calling mine vandalism) and she doesn't get blocked; that's what you are saying? Abtract (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
        • No. See your talk page. Black Kite 01:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Gretchen Carlson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Arzel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 18:28, 26 April 2008

1. Revision as of 10:13, 29 May 2008
2. Revision as of 16:13, 30 May 2008
3. Revision as of 19:57, 30 May 2008
4. Revision as of 10:56, 31 May 2008
5. Revision as of 15:11, 31 May 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: User:Arzel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is an experienced editor who has given WP:3RR warnings and made reports in the past.

No violation Arzel's removals are exempt under WP:BLP. He was taking out inadequately-referenced negative material from a biographical article. Since the people who keep putting back this material are gradually improving the sourcing, he may not be able to get away with this indefinitely. Neither Blaxthos nor Arzel has so far made any use of the Talk page of the article. (It should be noted that the NY Times reference offered for the critical material doesn't mention Gretchen Carlson, so it's not an ideal reference for criticism of Gretchen. It is not clear that blogs are a suitable reference here either). EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Response. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that Blaxthos has an ongoing dispute with me personally over other articles. He has never once commented on that talk page, and as near as I can tell never made an edit. It would appear that he "followed" me to that page and is reviewing my edits, showing a huge lack of good faith. Additionally, I can't understand why he would even be in favor of such vague references to controversies within a BLP. Arzel (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the anoyn added the same material multiple times without reliables sources, any sources, or sources even relating to Carlson multiple times and I am the one that gets reported? Not cool at all. Arzel (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Including liberal criticism added context to the article. From reading the entire article there was no reference for the reader to be aware that she is considered a controversial figure in journalism and on television. Additionally, Keith Olbermann ("Claims of ideological bias") Bill O'Reilly ("Controversy and criticism") and Brit Hume all have similar controversy sections so it seemed obvious that one controversy section should be included for Carlson. Regardless, Arzel chose not to use the discussion section and seemed ideologically bent on keeping any criticism out. Notably, he did not dispute any of the citations as EdJohnston has appropriately done. Surely the admin notices Arzel has been removing criticism of mainly conservative figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.230.48.50 (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Immanuel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kuratowski's Ghost (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 20:29, 31 May 2008reverted to 01:55, 1 June 2008

• 1st revert: 01:55, 1 June 2008
• 2nd revert; The malicious user forgot to delete a short paragraph among his repeated deletions: Revision as of 23:24, 30 May 2008
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 23:23, 30 May 2008
• 4th revert: 04:04, 3 May 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 20:30, 1 June 2008

The malicious user didn't make these deletions in a short period, but should be blocked, as is the discretion of the Administrator in this type of case. The user's Talk page has numerous warnings spread out over wide amounts of time, on many articles.

Hasn't reverted since 1 am this morning, ergo, stale. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There were nowhere near four reverts by Kuratowski's Ghost in 24 hours. The submitter of this complaint, and some of his supporters, persist in adding an unsourced passage to the Immanuel article. If your claim is correct, you should be able to find sources. It seems probable that Mateek (talk · contribs), 70.22.168.24 (talk · contribs), 70.19.192.13 (talk · contribs), and 70.19.197.168 (talk · contribs) are all the same editor. Otherwise the exact coincidence of viewpoints between Mateek and these three single-purpose accounts would be curious. Sockpuppetry on admin noticeboards is not likely to be a successful strategy. (Mateek is inviting a block, in my opinion). If the abuse continues, semi-protection of the article should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because the Wikipedia cookie expires when I'm filing here at the 3RR Noticeboard, or I forget to sign innocently doesn't make me intentionally deceptive in any way, which accounts for the IP addresses. My DSL provider (Verizon) changes them at their will, and I don't have any connection to them. The Noticeboard description says deletions older than 24 hours can still be considered for a block. I don't have the time to ask to become an Admin here, but I doubt you are authorized. I could've sworn instead of User: it should have said Admin:. Either way, you and Scarian fail in your duties miserably. Mateek (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not take rocket science to be sure you are logged in to Wikipedia under your own name when you file a 3RR report. It might have been helpful if you had acknowledged that you had made IP edits on Immanuel somewhere in the text of your report. If you think these details don't matter, take a look at WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Nor is it rocket science to know a worn out Wikipedia cookie would sign me out right in the middle, accounting for the IP. Mateek (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as failure, Mateek, when you make a change that can lead to a success. If you want something done it's best not to insult the two most regular admins who oversee the board. :-) Scarian^{Call me NANCY!} 21:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Harvard Extension School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ave Caesar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 14:50, 1 June 2008

• 1st revert: 14:50, 1 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 14:43, 1 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 14:38, 1 June 2008
• 4th revert: 20:59, 25 May 2008
• 5th revert: 14:52, 25 May 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 02:05, 2 June 2008

This user has shown an obvious bias against the Harvard Extension School. This user is not only edit warring on the Harvard Extension School page, but if you go through the users contribs you will see that he has a history of edit warring. Also, you can see in the users Talk page that he has had dozens of users say something about this, but he just deletes the comments immediatly, threatens to have them blocked, then writes negative things on their talk pages. He is essentially trying to bully his edits into wikipedia. I feel that he should recieve a block, since he has not responded to any warnings to stop edit warring. --71.233.150.26 (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 64.91.165.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 48 hours for violating 3RR on Harvard Extension School and for deleting others' comments from the article's Talk page. The submitter of this 3RR complaint, 71.233.150.26 (talk · contribs), is cautioned for adding promotional language to Harvard Extension School which violates WP:NPOV. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I understand that the language that I put in the Harvard Extension School page could be considered "promotional", even though I did not intend it to be, and that is why I did not put it back in. But would you agree that Ave Caeser is going against consensus by continuing to revert peoples edits? --71.233.150.26 (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that Ave Caesar was trying to ensure neutral point of view. He did not go over the 3RR limit himself. The 64.91 editor's deletions of well-sourced material bordered on vandalism. If you think the current article is not sufficiently positive about the school, I urge you to take your concerns to the article's Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well looks like this took care of itself while I was offline. Let me know if you need me to comment. Thanks for looking into this closely, Ed.--Ave Caesar (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: VERSIONTIME

1. 14:01, 23 May 2008 (edit summary: "There is no consensus for Scjessey's version. Andyvphil, Justmeherenow, Fovean Author and I have all spoken out against it on the article Talk page. If you want to remove this, show consensus.")
2. 21:49, 24 May 2008 (edit summary: "There is no demonstration of a consensus on the Talk page for any other version.")
3. 21:59, 24 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 214703408 by Bobblehead. That evidence is insufficient.")
4. 14:44, 25 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 214839051 by Johnpseudo (talk)")
5. 13:26, 30 May 2008 (edit summary: "This is the consensus version, supported by seven editors. See Talk page.")
6. 13:35, 30 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 215961961 by Scjessey This is the consensus version, supported by seven editors. See Talk page.")
7. 13:48, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */")
8. 13:49, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* Ayers, Rezko, Wright and later primaries */")
9. 13:51, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* Ayers, Rezko, Wright and later primaries */")
10. 13:52, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* Ayers, Rezko, Wright and later primaries */")
11. 13:54, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */")
12. 13:55, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* Ayers, Rezko, Wright and later primaries */")
13. 14:57, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* Ayers, Rezko, Wright and later primaries */")
14. 12:02, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Controversies over Ayers, Rezko and Wright */ Correcting typos, clarifying name of church")
15. 12:07, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Controversies over Ayers, Rezko and Wright */ Correcting more typos")
16. 17:13, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 216424952 by Modocc This is supported by consensus. Please see Talk page.")
17. 17:59, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 216441515 by Modocc (talk)")
18. 18:20, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */")
19. 20:19, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Later primaries */")
20. 20:34, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Controversies over Ayers, Rezko and Wright */ Better sentence structure, active voice rather than passive voice is always preferred")
21. 23:17, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */ Yeah, you're right. There's no consensus for burying this all the way down there. It belongs in the "Presidential campaign section."")
22. 03:22, 2 June 2008 (edit summary: "Jimmy Wales said: "It isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article." See WP:CRIT")

User:Kossack4Truth's entire edit history consists of introducing POV and non-relevant material into Barack Obama (and writing large treatises on talk pages about "how readers must know the 'dark underside' of Obama"). This material always consists of large paragraphs expounding on the evils of Obama's "associates"; mostly, these edits are exact reinsertions of the same material removed by consensus; occasionally it is a slight rewording of the same WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE violations. S/he has been blocked for the same exact action before, but has again gone over 3RR today. 71.130.194.163 (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I see a lot of edits listed, but not reverts. You need four, in 24 hours, to break 3RR. Fixing typos doesn't count. Andyvphil (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Kossack is edit warring. He reverted both my attempts to remove his massive POV push midday yesterday. This morning, he just reintroduced the massive POV push again and reverted by another editor, and then put it back [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=216598862&oldid=216546848.. At least four massive POV pushes in less than a day is edit warring. He is also ignoring a consensus to not introduce a controversy section to the article. His/her edits are disruptive. Modocc (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

BHO bio Dissident "Kossack" edit wars but keeps from actually reverting over thrice (exactly as BHO bio Apologist "Lulu" did, during 24 hours yesterday, as well). Since the variuos BHO bio contributors including these two are busily at work on the talkpage as we speak, toward a compromise, please refrain, Mister--M/s Honorable Admin., from squinting at innocuous edits to push either editor (well, that is, should somebody file as well against Lulu) over the top. — Justmeherenow (   ) 15:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Kossack for 48 hours. Scarian^{Call me NANCY!} 15:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Viv Richards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Blnguyen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:00, 2 June, 2008 (UTC). Submitted by 68.83.179.37 (talk · contribs).

Dear Wikipedia Administrators, I (user name Anup Ramakrishnan) am making this post from outside of my account in Wiki. In a certain page here, titled Viv Richards, a player of the game of cricket, there is a lot of trouble being created by some extremely biased and cheap fans of other cricketers who do not want to see facts about others that their own favorites cannot boast of.

This has led to my having to revert their edits more than twice, and one of the miscreants on that page is getting his friends to revert my edits so that he himself would not violate the rules on this site. Please warn the user Blnguyen not to come on that site and remove whatever goes against his own views and opinions on the subject, even if they are fact. He is guilty of false citations and lies on other pages which I am not even detailing here. Hope you understand and help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.179.37 (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have blocked the IP (it was him who violated the 3RR) for 31h. Please somebody refactore this section Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC).

Reformatted the above report (originally submitted in the wrong section). EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This report is completely malicious. The above user, who has been editing under an account as well, continues to add POV uncited statements to both Sachin Tendulkar and Viv Richards (e.g. "Viv is the King of Everything") type statements, and he is now in danger of disrupting wikipedia to make a point. He has also been very uncivil on the Tendulkar talk page. He will need some watching when his block expires. SGGH ^speak! 09:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Peter Yarrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Jkp212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In the midst of a mediation, this user has 4 times, within 24 hours, reverted the page to delete the word "prison" from the article. The user has previously [[6]] been issued a 3RR warning. Here are the 4 edits which constitute the violation: 1. [[7]] 2. [[8]] 3. [[9]] 4. [[10]] John celona (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Result I have blocked the user for 24 hours. Scarian^{Call me NANCY!} 15:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Googoosh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Arcayne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 00:22, 1 June 2008

• 1st revert: 17:41, 1 June 2008 He's undoing/reverting this edit
• 2nd revert: 05:21, 2 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 17:18, 2 June 2008
• 4th revert: 17:32, 2 June 2008

• It's clear from Arcayne's block log that he has already been blocked for edit-waring and 3RR on eight occasions!!!, his last block was for the duration of 79 hours only 4 weeks ago.--Kurdo777 (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No violation Arcayne's edits appear to be exempt under WP:BLP. Your claim that Googoosh's parents lived in Iranian Azerbaijan rather than Azerbaijan has no reliable source. In fact, Googoosh's own web site says she was born to Azerbaijani immigrant parents from the former Soviet Union. (i.e. not from Iran). This implies that your claim is wrong. Find reliable sources for the statement you are trying to make, and then we will start enforcing 3RR on any further reverts beyond that point. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And, just to point out that Kurdo has been repeatedly asked (and eventually warned) by many other editors to utilize the discussion page to discuss his edits instead of edit-warring. I should have pointed out in article discussion that my reverts regarding the (regionally) polarizing ethnicity issue was based upon BLP; that's my bad. If a reliable, verifiable source is added, I have no intention of fighting it. I don't care one way or the other; it just needs a citation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A few points about this report. 1) User:EdJohnston has a history with Arcayne, he was canvassed for help by Arcayne in another dispute I had with Arcayne only a few days ago. 2) The Iranian Azerbaijan theory is supported by several sources. 3) All of Arcayne's reverts are in violation of WP:BLP by claiming that GooGosh is currently married to Kimiaei, when there is no evidence that the two are still together. Taking into account 1, 2, 3, could another admin please re-review this report? --Kurdo777 (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• No violation Concur with EdJohnston. Arcayne's edits are exempt from the 3-revert-rule; the edits of those re-adding the information are not. The article, however, is a mess of fact tags and needs some aggressive pruning. CIreland (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

comment - Again, it would bear to point out the characterization of 'canvassing' is pretty inaccurate. I asked for a neutral set of eyes in the Anti-Iranian sentiment. It is also insightful to point out that Kurdo was counseled and warned not to editwar there as well (a behavior which had occurred on two prior occasions and resulted most recently in the article being dispute-locked).

Also, there is a citation noting the state of marriage, which is backed up by the article subject's own website. There is no citation suggesting that they are divorced or estranged from one another. Had Kurdo responded to the repeated requests for discussion regarding these matters, this would have been pointed out earlier, and might have made his confusion here somewhat unnecessary. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Aladdin (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Abtract (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 21:37, 2 June 2008

• 1st revert: 07:08, 2 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 19:50, 2 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 19:56, 2 June 2008
• 4th revert: 21:37, 2 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 19:59, 2 June 2008

User has a clear history of relentless incivility, harassing/inciting other editors, gaming the system, sparking edit wars, etc. (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abtract‎). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for 48 hours. Scarian^{Call me NANCY!} 22:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Joe Scarborough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DHeyward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [11]

• 1st revert: 13:59, 2 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 15:45, 2 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 23:14, 2 June 2008
• 4th revert: 23:29, 2 June 2008

User knows the rules and was warned that he was breaking 3RR here:[12] Other editor attempted to discuss with him the conflict but user simply reverted the message.

There are many other reverts going back over the past couple days. There are only 4 reverts within the last 24 hours, violating the 3RR which is an electronic fence not to be crossed, besides his edit warring in general, and I note lack of the use of the talk page to discuss the content dispute.

Conflict is about adding the information about the article's POV on the abortion issue, and his wanting to take a capital case.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

These are BLP violations and oversighted reverts in the list (notice back to back edits by me with no differences, as well as on my talk page). Please check with User:Fred Bauder of oversight before taking action as he is the oversight person who I've worked with on those edits. Also please note that Giovanni33 was looking to bait me with a single unexplained revert. Not cool and I even told him on his talk page that these were oversighted edits. Please ask to stop wikistalking me and supporting those that harass me. Thank you. --DHeyward (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There were a couple of edits which were inappropriate (a stale dispute revisited). What remains visible now (pro-life) and (capital case) is unobjectionable. Fred Talk 01:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I see no BLP concerns here. DHeyward is not assuming good faith either with his unfounded accusation that I was trying to "bait him." That is absurd just like his other accusations here. I even left a message on the talk page asking him to discuss his concern instead of just edit-warring. I also left one on his talk page. If there was some BLP issue then the offending editor would have been warned, or blocked. Instead we just have DHeyward edit-warring on his own, over the course of several days.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course you don't see it. It's been oversighted. A user would have been blocked but this is a low-level of activity IP editor so we just deal with it using rollback and other edits. The IP editor is aka Kek15 and her edits were discussed over a month ago. --DHeyward (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are mixing up and confusing that with this issue. I see nothing related to the user Kek15 here, and nothing about BLP or privacy. The issue is public information that you are reverting, specifically his view on Abortion (relevant given the case), and his being rejected for a Capital Case, based on inexperience according to the judge. What is the privacy concern, here?Giovanni33 (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have not been involved in this article so that is why you do not know anything. Isnerting yourself was a bad idea since it was only to bait me.. --DHeyward (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted myself pending other input but please address the wikistalking and baiting that User:Giovanni33 is engaged in. --DHeyward (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am formerly Kek15 and my issue with this article and Dheyward had nothing to do with this content. I was attempting to add the term Christian Terrorirst and this is well documented on the article talk page. Dheyard is confusing 2 issues here. The content that he is attempting to remove now has been in the article for a long time without objection from him or anyone else. I (and others) are pleading with Dheyard to please use the article talk page to present his rationale for removing this content at this time. It is sourced, it is public information, and has been in the article for a long time. DHeyward is an experienced editor who does know the rules. He has violated the 3RR and I have left him 2 warnings on his talk page. He really does know better. Why does he refuse to discuss this? Why the edit war? 72.92.4.157 (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"Terrorist" is hardly a term that should be tossed around lightly, and it's inexplicable that you think such a thing ever belongs in a NPOV article. Even the article on Osama bin Laden only mentions that word in the context of direct quotes and references (such as saying he's on the FBI Most Wanted Terrorists list), rather than using it directly as a description of the person. Now, "stalking" and "harassing" are also terms that shouldn't be tossed around nearly as much as they are, and it's disappointing that DHeyward uses them in the context of an editing dispute. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The term Christian terrorist was not being tossed around lightly and has nothing to do with this current edit war (that other issue was over a month ago). The term applied to one of Scarborough's clients, but sufficient sourcing was not found for it to appear in the article as opposed to the article on Eric Rudolph where the sourcing and consensus does provide for its inclusion. I agree that DHeyward is a more experienced editor than some of his comments here would indicate. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If OBL is not a terrorist - who is? 72.92.4.157 (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Currently waiting on DHeyward to propose alternative wording that is to his satisfaction in order that article can be unprotected. See Joe Scarborough talk page. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Page protected by User:Viridae. EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Bot_policy (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Bot_policy|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Locke Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 00:48, May 16, 2008

Explanation, Locke Cole (talk · contribs), has a very long history of edit warring on WP:BOTS ([13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]) and WP:BAG ([26] [27] [28] [29] [30]) , and, has been blocked multiple times for edit warring (in fact, just recently[31]). At this point, it appears the system is being gamed, by running right up to 3RR, with his preferred version, even though multiple other users are reverting it to the version that describes the current practice. He is clearly aware of the Three Revert Rule, and, generally chooses to ignore it, it seems. Anyhow, it appears, he's back, trying to kick up the same old problems. SQL^{Query me!} 06:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 13:12, June 2, 2008
• 2nd revert: 06:48, June 2, 2008
• 3rd revert: 05:25, June 2, 2008
• 4th revert: 06:10, June 3, 2008

" Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. — Werdna talk 06:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: Both Locke Cole and Betacommand. — Werdna talk 06:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Betacommand2 remains unblocked. What's the procedure in cases of multiple accounts? Leithp 09:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It remains unblocked until he uses it to circumvent the block. If he does circumvent the block, then it will be extended [for all accounts]. But he wouldn't be stupid enough to do that. Scarian^{Call me NANCY!} 12:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Marsupial lion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). UtherSRG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [32]

• 1st revert: [33]
• 2nd revert: [34]
• 3rd revert: [35]
• 4th revert: [36]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [37]

• This is an edit war over what page Marsupial lion links to. The pages as is, current makes little sense, and is being discussed at: [38]. At the moment there is no consensus as there is two editors on both side of the arguement.

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Both UtherSRG and Cazique. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Ensenada, Baja California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thsebajabum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 23:00, June 3, 2008

• 1st revert: [39]
• 2nd revert: [40]
• 3rd revert: [41]
• 4th revert: [42]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [43]

Including the four reverts since the warning was issued. Montco (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked 31 hours by Doczilla. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on History of Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mosesconfuser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 2008-06-02T18:58:30

• 1st revert: 2008-06-03T03:10:41
• 2nd revert: 2008-06-03T03:20:09
• 3rd revert: 2008-06-03T20:12:57
• 4th revert: 2008-06-04T02:40:34
• 5th revert: 2008-06-04T03:23:42
• 6th revert: 2008-06-04T03:41:04
• 7th revert: 2008-06-04T03:52:23 -blanked the whole article.

• Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-06-04T02:54:37
• 2008-06-04T03:45:26
• 2008-06-04T03:45:26
• 2008-06-04T03:54:12

The edit waring originally started by Mosesconfuser (talk · contribs) on May 31th over whether some part of history could be interpreted as a legend or regarded written history on multiple articles related to Korea, but there is no discussion on the controversial subject except this mockery.

Regardless of the 3RR waring and my advice to participate in a discussion to the both party, unlike Kubie, Mosesconfuser ignored and reverted to his preferred version twice. Besides, meanwhile, he also added another previously reverted contents. Judging by his POV pushing and writing habits, I don't think Mosesconfuser is a newbie, so he needs a lesson from his violation. --Appletrees (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Video games notable for negative reception (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I am a jedi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to (1st revert): 04:06, 3 June 2008
• Previous version reverted to (other reverts): the same version but with a typo corrected and a {{videogame-stub}} template added

• 1st revert: 07:54, 3 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 10:21, 3 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 21:51, 3 June 2008
• 4th revert: 22:31, 3 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 01:04, 2 June 2008

Result - I have blocked the user for 24 hours. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 08:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Galatasaray S.K. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Redman19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 10:18, 3 June 2008

• 1st revert: 12:56, 3 June 2008 (53,926 bytes) (Undid revision...
• 2nd revert: 16:09, 3 June 2008 (53,926 bytes) (vandalism...
• 3rd revert: 18:27, 3 June 2008 (53,926 bytes) (you are...
• 4th revert: 21:24, 3 June 2008 (53,858 bytes) (Undid revision...

• Diff of 3RR warning: [44] (this is an old edit-war & 3rr warning to the same user. The user had been in edit wars on other articles. Hence, there isn't a new warning about Galatasaray article.)

• here I explained my edition in details but the user keeps calling that vandalism.

Page protected Both these editors seem well-intentioned, and they participate on Talk, though not always courteously. They are not the first sports fans to take all details extremely seriously. Protected two days. If the revert war starts up again after two days, blocks will be issued. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The two editors left extremely lengthy comments here, which I have moved to Talk:Galatasaray S.K.. Please continue the debate there. Since the alternative is to immediately block both editors, please show some patience. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Good work, Ed. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 19:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

OK this is my last comment here. I still don't understand how did the user with 3rr violation twice get away with no punishment. This certainly will make the user think he was right about 3rr vioaltions and will encourage him for new edit wars. --Icykip2005 (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) If he does edit war again, then report him here again. Ed made the right decision, in my opinion. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont get it why are you thinking im vandalising things Icykip2005? I made the Galatasaray page look nice with the right info but you seem to have missed my point when you are reverting your edits are deleting some precious info ! please take a look at it by yourself and you will see what I mean I was never banned or blocked, Im just a user thats tries to add useful info at pages and clean up vandalism

Redman19 (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Andyvphil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

1. 11:27, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Controversies over Ayers, Rezko and Wright */ restore material")
2. 11:34, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Controversies over Ayers, Rezko and Wright */ Better description than "fundraiser".")
3. 11:48, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Controversies over Ayers, Rezko and Wright */ Part of what "radical activist" means.")
4. 13:09, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "restoration; improve cite for TUCC resignation")
5. 23:25, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "Restore section, specify meaning of "several".")
6. 14:32, 4 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */ bit more specificity")
7. 15:54, 4 June 2008 (edit summary: "Equating bombing with radicalism is offensive

to radicals, such as myself.")

User:Andyvphil has resumed edit warring over exact same topic (slightly different wording) as blocked users (possible socks) User:Kossack4Truth and User:Fovean Author. A long discussion on article talk reached (rough) consensus on minimal encyclopedic language to use in mentioned "disreputable associates" of bio subject, in a WP:SUMMARY article. Andyvphil has resumed inserting identical long digresssions about these third persons; probably hoping to sneak them in during the recently accelerated editing by previously uninvolved editors (in unrelated article areas, the completed nomination race drew lots of editor interest).

—76.168.6.152 (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Only 2 reverts on the 4th of June that I can see. If you believe them to be socks then take it to WP:SSP or WP:RfCU. I've blocked those guys before so no doubt they'll be back again. No vio. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 19:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Andyvphil is a sock of K4T. Sorry if the wording was unclear. I meant K4T/FA as socks of each other. There's a request for check at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth. You're right that Andyvphil has only reverted to the edit-warring stuff twice (so far) today. 76.168.6.152 (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries, Mr.IP. Thanks for being so vigilant. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Only 2 reverts on the 4th of June that I can see. Sic! Scarian, if you are going to enforce 3RR you need to count more carefully. Mr. Anonymous IP's undigested listing of all my edits shows a total of two edits on 6/4, and the first is... a revert? To what version? He deserves censure for filing a ridiculously false report, not thanks. Andyvphil (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

...and speaking of sockpuppets, an editor whose third edit is a posting of this report [45] is a likely candidate. Whom are you better known as, Mr. Anonymous IP? Andyvphil (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Natural theology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). PelleSmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

1. 21:32, 4 June 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "undo - please bring the quote to the talk page ... natural theology is not theology "on nature" ... you seem to have that reversed")
2. 23:51, 4 June 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "google it or search your local library ... this is clearly and undisputably a notable concept ...")
3. 00:56, 5 June 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "you are pushing it here ... see the body of the entry and all the various notable people engaged in "natural theology"")

• PelleSmith was early notified of the actions on AN/I: under Astrotheology -- see discussion of incident and previous reverts to astrotheology (obvious 2nd articles but PelleSmith votes to delete it and merge to natural theology, so very related)
• link to AN/I warning
• link to 3RR warning

• PelleSmith continues to not provided substantial material to satisfy citations. He seems to use the reverts in order to avoid WP:BURDEN on natural theology. PelleSmith's first revert actually removed a citation from the lead that can be used to verify it, so I tagged it for him to satisfy the needed citations, and you can see his replies above in the reverts. It is also suspicious that he used the wikiprojects to draw attention to an AfD on astrotheology. (which now someone else has made the 4th revert -- reverting citation tags without providing any refs???)

—— Dzonatas 01:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

For reference, PelleSmith's WikiProject request is looks like this. He contacted the Religion, Christianity, and Philosophy projects. Also, I have further reverted this user, because it seemed to me that the tagging is very pointy. How can something like natural theology not be notable? The user seems frustrated. Merzul (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not clear why he stated "pointy." I asked on Merzul's talk page to clarify. PelleSmith's reason to revert my change is merely based on the question that *I* made the change. PelleSmith didn't question the content of the change at all. See the talk page. If you notice in AN/I, it shows how he also reverted the lead in astrotheology. He seems to support that "astrotheology is natural theology" in order to get it merged into natural theology, even though I have shown many times that astrotheology is not based on teleology like natural theology's original principle. The citation I added explains that, he deleted it. Even if citations for other parts of the lead can be given, this one obviously deserves more merit than to outright delete it (and further request tags) — Dzonatas 02:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No violation There are only three reverts listed in this report. You need four to violate 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Brian Cook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Reezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 22:43, May 29, 2008 - user continues to insert obvious copyvio image.

• 1st revert: 23:56, June 4, 2008
• 2nd revert: 00:28, June 5, 2008
• 3rd revert: 00:34, June 5, 2008
• 4th revert: 00:51, June 5, 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 00:36, June 5, 2008
• Both editors blocked – for a period of 8 hours Both images are available under free licenses so there is no copyright issue, and both the reporter and the reportee have made four reverts. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I've unblocked Mosmof as the image page of the image he was reverting had copyvio tags on it at the time, so it is reasonable to assume that he thought he was reverting a copyvio. Reezy remains blocked. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It's besides the point, but I should point out that I didn't think I was reverting a copyvio, I was reverting obvious copyvio. --Mosmof (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• 1st revert: [46]
• 2nd revert: [47]
• 3rd revert: [48]
• 3RR warning: [49]
• 4th revert: [50]

• This user has the same 4 reverts on the article. Their warning was made in the middle of my own fourth revert, which I apologize for. All parties have been warned and I expect the edit war will cease. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Malformed report. Anyway, both users blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Cahokia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Marburg72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [51]

• 1st revert: [52]
• 2nd revert: [53]
• 3rd revert: [54]
• 4th revert: [55]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [56]

User has been around for a while, he should probably know better than this. Of note also are several accusations of racism [57] [58] that an admin may want to take into account.

Declined Whilst the editor has been around for about 10 months, he has made less than 100 edits in that time and thus I would not regard him as experienced. Since he has not performed a revert since he was warned of the 3-revert-rule, I would not be prepared to block unless he made a further reversion. CIreland (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Political positions of Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 209.142.181.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 14:16, June 5, 2008.

• 1st revert: 15:28, June 5, 2008
• 2nd revert: 15:34, June 5, 2008
• 3rd revert: 15:41, June 5, 2008
• 4th revert: 15:50, June 5, 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 15:37, June 5, 2008

• This user is adding inappropriately POV material to the article and reverting any attempts to remove it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Bad Religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Johan Rachmaninov‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

1. 03:22, 4 June 2008
2. 18:31, 4 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 216998019 by Alex 101 (talk) Someone needs to read the policy on OR")
3. 22:27, 4 June 2008
4. 23:27, 4 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217176589 by Alex 101 (talk) No OR")
5. 02:33, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217196176 by Alex 101 (talk)")
6. 02:33, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "/Undid revision 217196176 by Alex 101 (talk)")
7. 22:47, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217335707 by Alex 101 (talk)")
8. 22:49, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217320122 by Alex 101 (talk) Undid per WP:NORN")
9. 23:24, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217420991 by Alex 101 (talk) No")
10. 00:08, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217427324 by Alex 101 (talk) How is vandalism if i have a source?")
11. 00:19, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217429778 by Alex 101 (talk) it Dosn't matter what you think. Again, read WP:NORN")
12. 00:55, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217320122 by Alex 101 (talk)")
13. 00:55, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217320122 by Alex 101 (talk)")
14. 01:12, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217320122 by Alex 101 (talk)")
15. 01:13, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217320122 by Alex 101 (talk)")

Johan Rachmaninov‎ has repeatedly been edit warring with me on the Bad Religion page by changing the band's genre. He keeps changing their genre hardcore punk to pop punk. Bad Religion is actually a hardcore punk band, not a pop punk band and they are not Blink-182, Good Charlotte, Green Day, Sum 41 and Yellowcard, who all use that genre. He's been doing this for two days and he won't stop. I've really had enough of it. Earlier today, I already sent a request to block it in a way to stop this argument. So please, ban this guy without delay; he has a bad habit of not listening to me when I ask him to stop what he's doing.

Both editors blocked – for a period of 10 hours CIreland (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Blade of the Phantom Master (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jazz81089 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 2008-06-05T23:22:38

• 1st revert: 2008-06-05T19:06:45
• 2nd revert: 2008-06-05T23:30:29 61.119.133.163 (talk · contribs)
• 3rd revert: 2008-06-06T00:52:18
• 4th revert: 2008-06-06T16:23:16

• Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-06-05T23:22:38

I happened to know the article due to repeated vandalism on manhwa by OCN ISP anon[59][60] who also vandalised the page of Blade of the Phantom Master as blanking the nationality of the artists.[61] The main dispute is that it is only manga, Japanese comics, or manhwa. However, the two are translated into Japanese / Korean cartoon, so I presented a compromised version like " the work is a cartoon and an animation series created by Korean manhwa artist..., specializing as Japanese manga published by a Japanese publisher"....However, the anon removed all Korean mention and manhwa. I think this disruption is unfair, but have tried to resolve the dispute enough, as opened a discussion at the talk page, left message at Japanese OCN ISP anon(s) for discussion several times, even filed RFC and went WP:AIV, WP:RFP. But nothing returned from the other, and the anon keeps ignoring all WP:DR methods and removed Korean mention which originally addressed on the article. However, too obvious sock account (return after his/her 8 month break and under 15 edits in total). There is no other participant in dispute, the anon is highly likely Jazz81089. I went to WP:RFCU, but due to his scare total edits made Checkuser hard to judge anything.Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/KoreanShoriSenyou

I believe that this case is related to a banned user who did the same thing on the article in question last June, and the anon/Jazz81089 also already violated 3RR rules.

• lst revert 2008-06-04T23:41:48 by 220.104.47.22 (ocn)
• 2nd revert 2008-06-05T07:31:56 by 61.119.129.25 (ocn)
• 3rd revert 2008-06-05T19:06:45 by Jazz81089 (overlapped with above 3RR)
• 4th revert 2008-06-05T23:30:29 by 61.119.133.163 (ocn) (overlapped with above 3RR)
• 5th revert 2008-06-06T00:52:18 by Jazz81089 (overlapped with above 3RR)

I don't see that he has any intention to cooperate with the opponent (me) and regard a consensus. Judging by the circumstance evidence, the dynamic anon could be none but Jazz81089. He violated 3RR rules twice, so I think he needs a lesson on his violations. --Appletrees (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

To other admins - I see Jazz81089 has made 3 reverts in 24 hours, which is edit warring. If the IP can be proven to be him then it's 4. Would a block be in order for Appletrees and Jazz? They've both made 3 reverts. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 17:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Both editors are engaging in edit waring, waiting in some cases as little as 30 minutes after the dealine to revert again. They are both Gaming_the_system --Selket ^Talk 17:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Selket's action seems correct. In case the situation continues in the future, notice that Jazz81089 appears determined to remove mention of any Korean connection from Blade of the Phantom Master. This work, though published in Japan as manga, was created by a Korean author, so Jazz's repeated removals don't seem well-advised. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Minutes to Midnight (album)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.243.88.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

1. 21:38, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
2. 21:43, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
3. 21:44, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
4. 21:51, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
5. 21:56, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
6. 22:01, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
7. 22:03, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
8. 22:03, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
9. 22:04, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here

—Q ^{T C} 22:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Result - I have blocked the IP for 24 hours. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 22:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Wafa Sultan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).: Time reported: 23:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just look at the history page. They're having a rather unamusing revert war which I attempted to mediate; meditation failed as one IP refuses to listen and the other refuses to assume good faith. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I reported the user for vandalism because this is what he is doing. He repeatedly removed references from the Jerusalem Post and the Sydney Morning Herald and replaced them with one that cites Wikipedia as a source, and after I warned him, he decided to continue with his vandalism, while copying my edit summaries and even added a warning template to my talkpage. 63.216.113.163 (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that's because you did the same to the other IP. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Page protected — Werdna talk 00:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Arrow Air Flight 1285 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Anyeverybody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 03:16, June 5, 2008 Adds his self made image: Crash image=ArrowDc-8.png

• 1st revert: 22:35, June 6, 2008 Adds his self made image: Crash image=ArrowDc-8.png
• 2nd revert: 00:08, June 7, 2008 Adds his self made image: Crash image=ArrowDc-8.png
• 3rd revert: 00:18, June 7, 2008 Adds his self made image: Crash image=ArrowDc-8.png
• 4th revert: 02:18, June 7, 2008 Adds his self made image: Crash image=ArrowDc-8.png

• Diff of 3RR warning: 00:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This is about User:Anyeverybody reverting 4 times within 4 hours, after being warned, and being asked to revert himself, to no avail.
He persists in adding his own self-made images into an accident article, where what happened is in dispute, violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. He has also violated 3RR, and I have asked him to revert himself, which he has not done. I have unfortunately had to run up to three reverts myself, and as involved admin I am stopping to let others deal with him. Crum375 (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Anybody choosing to block Anyeverybody over this should, in fairness, block Crum375 as well - he's made the opposite reversion himself about 8 times in the past week (though never more than three times within any actual 24 hour period as far as I can see). Actually, without resorting to blocking, I'm trying to get these parties actually talking constructively. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If performing 8 reverts in a week is a violation, I am not sure where that's stated. I also suspect most active Wikipedians would be "violating" that routinely. This page is about WP:3RR, and this editor has reverted 4 times in 4 hours. Crum375 (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You might care to re-read WP:3RR and note that the whole purpose of the rule is to avoid edit warring, and that it's possible to violate this even having made fewer than three reversions in a 24-hour period. Reverting over and over again is not going to resolve a dispute... --Rlandmann (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As you have protected the article, there is no threat of disruption and thus blocking anyone is inappropriate. Blocks are preventative, not punative. --B (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Crum has been reverting more than the image; his/her evidence actually shows him/her reverting improvements to the page besides the image. Moreover his/her response on the article's talk page seem to indicate this as well as they seem to refuse to enter into discussions about expanding the article on the talk page. Anynobody 03:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Rlandmann has protected the article. There is nothing more to argue about here. Anybody blocking Crum375 over this should be desysopped faster than you can say arbitration. --B (talk) 03:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If the case weren't moot due to the protection, in my view a block of Anynobody would have been appropriate. A self-made computer-generated image of what the airplane might have looked like under one of the scenarios can't be justified by any reference to reliable sources. He did go over 3RR while Crum did not. It's hard to make a defence of Anynobody's edits as being within policy. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure - I agree it would have been appropriate. I eventually protected the article as an alternative to blocking both of them. I'd rather have them talking. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Mecca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yahel Guhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 21:23, 4 June 2008

• 1st revert: 04:01, 6 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 04:06, 6 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 03:11, 7 June 2008
• 4th revert: 04:44, 7 June 2008

Please note the user reverted the same material 4 times in 24 hours and 43 minutes.

In each revert, the user adds the following material:

This law has been criticized for religious discrimination against non-muslims. Freedom House showed on its website, on a page tiled "Religious apartheid in Saudi Arabia", a picture of a sign showing Muslim-only and non-Muslim roads.

• Diff of 3RR warning: I warned the user twice before making this report: 04:59, 7 June 2008, 05:08, 7 June 2008 saying that I will not report him/her if he/she self-reverted.Bless sins (talk) 05:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I never violated the 3rr rule, as my edits are not within a 24 hour period. Second, you are an equally active member in the dispute, as you alone have reverted the inclusion each time I added it ever since the first time I added it. Not to mention you recently got away with 2 3rr violations without being blocked. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In the last 40 hours I've made 3 reverts to the article while you've made 4 in just over 24 hours. Secondly, I'm giving you a chance to correct yourself. If I was given the chance to do so, I would only be too glad to self-revert.Bless sins (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

NO. I made 3 reverts, not 4 in 24 hours, and so have you. You are probably just waiting for me to be blocked, or an hour to pass before you revert me agian. Instead you make more false allegations of a non-real 3rr violation. Conviently just one day after your incorrect stalking report. This is simple math; it is 3, not 4. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Note to admins, Bless Sins appears to be forum shopping for a block of Yahel Guhan. See also: [62] Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: blocking: I've stated 3 times now that I will retract this report if Yahel self-reverts. Had I wanted to see the user get blocked I wouldn't have have warned him twice ([63], [64]) before coming here.Bless sins (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You want your way in the article, and am willing to make up allegations of a falsified 3rr report in order to get it. You want that clause deleted inspite of it being well sourced and within wiki policies. Warnings are a required step in making 3rr reports, and even though you did the math incorrectly, you know a warning is required before a block is ever made. I love how you attempt to hide your real intentions. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You are well aware of the 3 revert rule, and have been blocked for it in the past. Hence no warning is necessary. ITAQALLAH 16:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note to other admins - YahelGuhan, despite being just outside of the 24 hour limit (40 or so minutes doesn't count, as that's gaming the system), has violated 3RR. Both users, in fact, are edit warring, but I am unsure of how to proceed. I would suggest a block for both. Thoughts? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 06:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Since Yahel Guhan's last revert I've not made any reversions (though I could have). The edits you see that I made after Yahel Guhan (in the history) are uncontroversial improvements to the article.Bless sins (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You are probably just biding your time. Afraid you are going to get blocked, you are trying to temporarily depict yourself as a better editor. I doubt it will last, as your editing shows you do still want that paragraph removed, and you have a history of edit warring to get your way. Second, my intention was not to game the system. I didn't plan to be reverting 40 minutes after the block expired. YahelGuhan (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to leave it be, unless and until we see more disruption. — Werdna talk 08:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable --B (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Both editors are urged to discuss on the talk page instead of reverting. Trebor (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Otto Erich Deutsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 62.178.118.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and other IP-numbers: Time reported: 17:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 08:21, 23 September 2007 Then repeatedly inserting incorrect "Jewish" nationality to replace correct "Austrian". Article includes Category: Jewish Scolar already.

• 1st revert: 23:51, 3 November 2007
• 2nd revert: 12:58, 9 November 2007
• 3rd revert: 20:57, 10 December 2007
• 4th revert: 22:50, 22 March 2008
• 5th revert: 22:14, 3 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: No warning. How? 1st: Anonymous (in contrast to almost all other editors of this article), 2nd: changing ip-numbers, 3rd: editing anonymously for the sole purpose of this one edit. Clearly knowing that he/she is doing wrong.

I ask for permanent article protection against logged-out-edits. (Of all 41 editors of this article, only the troublemaker and three others were not logged in. Judging from the stubbornness, morosity and the long time endurance of the editor, peace will not be found otherwise. Excuse my righteous anger :-) WaldiR (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No violation Stale, and it needs to be more than three reverts in 24 hours. --Selket ^Talk 18:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, just found the correct place for my request. --WaldiR (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Tibet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chenyangw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 12:09 5 June 2008

• 1st revert: 12:09, 5 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 14:36, 6 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 22:12, 6 June 2008
• 4th revert: 12:28, 7 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 14:58, 6 June 2008

This user has been previously blocked for edit warring on this article in attempting to revert it to this same diff. 3 different editors in 48 hours have reverted this back to a neutral nonbiased version but this editor has continued to revert back after his 4th edit is more than 24 hours old. This is the only article this user edits and this is the only edit this user makes. Discussion on the talk page has proved unproductive with this editor being unwilling to engage in dialogue about neutral phrasing. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours 3RR is not an entitlement. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Gliese 581 c (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

NAME_OF_USER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [65]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gliese_581_c&action=history

• 1st revert: [66]
• 2nd revert: [67]
• 3rd revert: [68]
• 4th revert: [69]
• 5th revert: [70]
• 6th revert: [71]
• 7th revert: [72]
• 8th revert: [73]
• 9th revert: [74]
• 10th revert: [75]

• Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - both users. There is no valid reason whatsoever to editwar. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Andyvphil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

1. 12:56, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */ revert "bold" deletion of Ayers")
2. 23:24, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */ Claim that there is consensus to omit Ayers from this article is bogus.")
3. 13:06, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "undo deletions performed by edit warring hagiographers")

Although not strictly a violation of 3RR (the editor in question waited 24 hours and 10 minutes before performing the same revert again), this is still a clear case of edit warring (the reason for 3RR in the first place), and for exactly the same material as he was previously blocked for a week. These particular edits are both contentious and tendentious, and violate WP:BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the third revert wouldn't have violated 3RR even if were within 24 hours of the first. Takes four to do that, so there was no reason for me to "wait". I just happpen to get in from work about the same time every day. Anyway, if you look at the talk page you will find that Scjessey offered seven alternatives for the treatment of Bill Ayers in Barack Obama and got virtually no support for his preferred option (#1) of no mention at all of the former Weatherman in Obama's bio. Despite the ongoing discussion and majority opposition to his course of action (even Scjessey had given up on #1 in favor of an excessively anodyne #3) Shem decided it was time to initiate WP:BRD by deleting all mention of Ayers from the page.[76]. BRD of course allows for "R" (my first edit above) as well as "B" and is supposed to be followed by "D", not immediate repetition of "B" until it sticks. Both Kossak4Truth and I have restored Ayers to the page, and the minority of editors (the poll was quite clear in it's result -- "no mention" got maybe two votes out of about 20) who want no mention of Ayers have edit warred it off. And as I speak, it is still off, since I won't violate 3RR (and indeed have not violated 2RR) to restore it. A sockpuppet IP reported me for "violating 3RR" a bit further up this page on the basis of one revert, and now Scjessey wants me blocked for three (not four) in 25. He has himself made three reverts in the last 17 hours. He is clearly engaging in knowing abuse of process...as can be seen by examining Scjessey's own edits:

1. 00:00, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "rm original research")
2. 20:08, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Campaign */ - restored original section title of "U.S. Senate campaign" - weird that it should've been changed in the first place")
3. 20:13, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217381741 by The Rogue Penguin - restore image order (can't have people's backs facing text, looks weird)")
4. 02:18, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */ rm absolutely ludicrous categories")
5. 10:29, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217474873 by Foxcloud (talk) - rv category insanity")

Andyvphil (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think an article ban would be better than blocking. Andyvphil, you haven't had one single edit that lasted. You've been reverted by numerous users. Do you think it's time to quit (editing that article, I don't mean Wikipedia)? There must be something wrong with your edits if you're being reverted all the time. Not everyone is a vandal or an edit warrer, do you realise this? No violation by either but I think a voluntary article ban for both user's would save them from being blocked. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 14:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but even a cursory glance at the edit summaries of my edits above will see there is no edit warring on my part. Two of those edits concern minor formatting issues, and the other two concern miscategorizations. Furthermore, you will see from the article's talk page that I am engaged in a lengthy consensus-building exercise, which I initiated, and in which Andyvphil has taken almost no part it. I filed this report because Andyvphil was obstructing the consensus-building process with identical contentious edits concerning the material being discussed, rather than revert any of those edits myself. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure your reverts were good reverts and my reverts were bad reverts. In your mind.

Noroton has for several weeks vigorously pursued the dispute resolution process and has been tireless in refuting the bogus arguments of Scjessey and others that it is somehow inappropriate to clearly describe Ayers in "Obama's" article. There is little reason for me to duplicate his thankless and unrewarded effort, though I have chimed in where I have had something to add.

To repeat, as I've pointed out, since Scjessey offered seven options for treating Ayers in the Early Life section of Barack Obama (which was not how the subject came to be discussed, contrary to Scjessey's implication) both the mention there and the mention in the Presidential Campaign sections have been removed by the hagigraphic clique which "owns" the article with no regard for the ongoing discussion of how to treat the subject, which discussion has decisively rejected Scjessey's preferred option of deleting all mention of Ayers. I's been six months since the clique first deleted my contribution to the article of the information, cited to the NYTimes, that Obama's pastor and church were Afrocentric and highly political (this was before the videos hit and brought the significance of those facts to national attention) and I've had plenty of time to conclude that AGF-based effort is wasted on the likes of Scjessey. I'm obliged by the rules of Wikipedia not to say what I really think of them, but I'm not obliged to conceed their ownership of the page. Andyvphil (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If nobody plans on doing anything here, I'm going to suggest closing it as moot, since 24 hours has passed and neither party has edited the article. --B (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have every intention of restoring mention of Ayers name to Barack Obama, in accord with NPOV. Not mentioning Ayers has only minority support, but I would not be dissuaded even if the local claque of Obama campaign volunteers mustered a local majority. "Rough consensus" is determined after examaining the qualty of the arguments, and theirs are indefensible. Andyvphil (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't think I've ever seen such an emphatic declaration of the intent to edit war before. Incredible arrogance. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You're in the minority, Scjessey. You cannot claim consensus. Furthermore, Anonymous Dissident (an admin) has clearly stated that the material can be included without violating WP:BLP if neutrally written and reliably sourced. Since you wrote Options No. 2 through No. 6 on Ayers, I think you'll concede that they're neutrally written and there is abundant RS material out there. The only problem is deciding which of the multitude of reliable sources should be cited, and taking care of edit warring POV pushers like you. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This is stale unless someone wishes to submit a new report with fresh diffs. And, guys, please take the discussion elsewhere. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Florina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dvaaeg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [77]

• 1st revert: 13:37, 7 June 2008 User removed content in violation of talkpage consensus.
• 2nd revert: 17:23, 7 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 19:24, 7 June 2008
• 4th revert: 20:02, 7 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 22:36, 7 June 2008

• The edit summary provided on this diff indicates that this is an established user who prefers to engage in Plague-style edit-warring under a series of disposabe SPAs.

The user has not been active after the 3RR notification, therefore it is reasonable to assume s/he has been offline and unable to become aware of the warning. If they persist, please make a new report and make an explicit reference to this one. --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If my assessment is incorrect, please contact me on my talk page and I will be happy to review and/or reopen this issue. --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: I have blocked the user for 24 hours as a holding action since I believe that this may be a new sock of a sockpuppeteer who I blocked a while ago (namely Aegeanhawk (talk · contribs)). I suggest that the best way to establish this would be to take the matter to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. An admin with checkuser privileges would be better able than I to determine whether this is, as suspected, a sockpuppet. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I defer to that judgement, my original assessment has been based on taking facts at face value. --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the 24-hour block. There are not quite enough edits to show that Dvaaeg is a sock, from behavioral evidence alone (he has only 7 contributions). An initial impression is that he wants to deny any recognition to the Republic of Macedonia (which WP no longer requires to be denoted as FYROM), or to allow Slavic names to be included in the articles on Greek towns like Florina. This was also the pattern of edits of Aegeanhawk. I don't see any proof yet that they are the same person, but we should keep an open mind. If checkuser finds this person to be the same editor, then an indefinite block of Dvaaeg would be indicated. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on The Mickey Mouse Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TragedyStriker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 05:44, 6 June 2008

• 1st revert: 03:18, 8 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 16:31, 8 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 16:39, 8 June 2008
• 4th revert: 20:24, 8 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 16:42, 8 June 2008

TragedyStriker is virtually an SPA promoting Zachary Jaydon. After attempting unsuccessfully to put include him as a mouseketeer, he has recently come up with some fairly obscure paper sources to justify the inclusion. Consensus among other editors is that the change can only be included after someone other than TragedyStriker has verified the information. TragedyStriker seems quite unwilling to accept this. Kww (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

TragedyStriker is me, and a Wiki editor interested in Zachary Jaydon. I am not a SPA, and not an artist at all. The sources are not obscure at all, but Disney Channel Magazines; official sources from the very television station that broadcasted the show. There are also a NUMBER of online sources that have been deleted by 3 editors, one of whom maintains a hate website on the subject. I have scanned the articles and sent them to half a dozen other editors regarding Jaydon, and will have others reinclude the information. It seems ludacris that I am being told that an "uninterested" editor has to reinclude this information, when it goes completely against the spirit and policies of Wiki. Assuming good faith is the very backbone of Wiki, and it's very discouraging to run into editors like this. I have provided everything that this select few have asked for and at this point, all of it has been pushed aside. If I am taking the initiative to research the sources to create a more informative and more accurate article, I don't think it's too much to ask for other editors to take a small amount of time to look at the same sources provided if they have any questions. Please advise.

Skyler Morgan (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

For those watching: the "hate website" that TragedyStriker mentions is real: this article is an example page. I don't know if I would characterize it as a "hate" website, but I can see why he objects to it. I believe that is published by User:thegingerone (based on this statement by her), but she has not edited the article during this recent dispute.
I also have a hard time reading I have scanned the articles and sent them to half a dozen other editors regarding Jaydon, and will have others reinclude the information. as being anything but a threat to use meatpuppets to bypass blocks. If he has scanned the articles, why doesn't he send them to one of the editors that is insisting on validating the sources?
Kww (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Result - I have blocked TragedyStrike for 24 hours for edit warring. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 22:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I just want to say that I support the result. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Moldovan language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) . Olahus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 09:55, 7 June 2008

• 1st revert: 14:01, 8 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 16:43, 8 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 16:51, 8 June 2008
• 4th revert: 18:12, 8 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 17:07, 8 June 2008 (in the edit summary)

User explicitely refused to abide by the 3 reverts rule (see the edit summary of the 4th revision). Note also the personal attacks against me and the false claim of neutrality (he considers "neutral" calling 'stalinist' a language mentioned since the 17th century) in the same l4th revision. Moreover, the version he is reverting to is the same put by User:Ourscrazy2009, a blocked sock of banned User:Bonaparte (edit which I reverted, per Wikipedia:Banned#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits andWikipedia:3RR#Other_exceptions ).Xasha (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have protected the article for 36 hours, so you (Xasha) can file a request for checkuser or suspected sockpuppet report. If the inquiry comes back positive, I'll remove the protection (or it might just expire) and further reinstatements of the edit by Olahus could lead to a block. If the inquiry comes back negative, I'll revert back to Olahus's version (as it was the latest version) and see where things go. If an edit war continues in that situation, the article will probably be protected (or one of both of you may be blocked for violating the 3RR). -- tariqabjotu 19:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I already filled one yesterday, but due to wrong formatting, I think it was ignored by admins. Now I've repeaired it and I hope someone will be able to handle it.Xasha (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Has Xasha just got a permit to continue the revert war? I fail to understand... AdrianTM (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Strongbrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 01:55, 9 June 2008 All reverts are variation son this theme. Although each is worded slightly differently, they all revert the article's stating that Jerusalem is the capital into some for of a claim that it is disputed, or that Tel Aviv is the capital.

• 1st revert: 02:18, 9 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 02:22, 9 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 03:03, 9 June 2008
• 4th revert: 03:35, 9 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 02:23, 9 June 2008

Similar edit warring on Tel Aviv, with 3 reverts so far ; [78]

• 42 edits and last edit indicates they are off to work. Warning left on talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be quite inclined to block (if it wasn't stale) as Strongbow is clearly edit warring. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 12:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Carefree (chant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Vandalism directly after release of 3RR block. The_C_of_E‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 14:42, 9 June 2008

• 1st revert: 17:33, 16 May 2008
• 2nd revert: 05:49, 18 May 2008
• 3rd revert: 14:16, 18 May 2008
• 4th revert: 14:18, 18 May 2008
• 5th revert: 06:07, 5 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 07:15, 23 May 2008

Result - Not exactly being a recent 3RR violation (he was blocked for it before), this report should perhaps be filed at WP:ANI if he's still edit warring over it. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Thylacoleonidae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Marsupial Lion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cazique (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: Thylacoleonidae 9:21, June 9, 2008 and Marsupial Lion 9:21, June 9, 2008

Thylacoleonidae:

• 1st revert: Revision as of 10:14, June 9, 2008
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 11:34, June 9, 2008
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 12:16, June 9, 2008
• 4th revert: Revision as of 12:50, June 9, 2008

Marsupial Lion:

• 1st revert: Revision as of 10:14, June 9, 2008
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 11:35, June 9, 2008
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 12:17, June 9, 2008
• 4th revert: Revision as of 12:50, June 9, 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 13:05, June 9, 2008

• Result - I have blocked the user for 72 hours. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 17:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 75.207.XX.XXX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 12:15, 9 June 2008

• 1st revert: 12:15, 9 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 14:07, 8 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 15:22, 7 June 2008
• 4th revert: 01:22, 29 May 2008

and also (on a different article)

• 5th revert: 01:20, 29 May 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: Given in edit summary: 05:22, 9 June 2008 (the whack-a-mole syndrome with DHCP IP addresses...)

User 75.207.XX.XXX is editing three articles: Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy, Cyril_H._Wecht, and Mary_Beth_Buchanan and wants to include a very lengthy addition in each of these articles. User 75.207.XX.XXX refuses to talk. 75.207.XX.XXX's IP address keeps changing, so there is difficulty reaching the person. The edits have the hallmark of a novice and someone on a mission; but the lengthy addition is copied verbatim from Cyril_H._Wecht and is to the detriment of both Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy and Mary_Beth_Buchanan articles. Bdushaw (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't block because the IP hasn't made 4 reverts in 24 hours but I have prot'd the article for 48 hours. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 17:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Life.temp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: VERSIONTIME

• 1st revert: 12:24, 9 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 08:03, 9 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 07:59, 9 June 2008
• 4th revert: 08:03, 9 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fovean Author (talk • contribs)

I can only see one actual revert in a 24-hour period, although even that was hard to spot in this completely malformed report. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed up the report... But I did notice that edits 2 and 4 are the same edit and 2 and 3 are consecutive edits. I only see three edits by Life.temp on June 9 and only two of those are not consecutive. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing up the report - I don't get as much practice at this as scjessey. You'll note that it doesn't take 3rr's to be guilty of edit warring. You just have to be engaged in the practice, which he clearly is Fovean Author (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

While it is true that it doesn't take three reverts to make someone guilty of 3RR, I point you towards WP:BRD. One also needs to have a history of edit warring before an administrator will take action. Making a bold edit, then reverting back to it, then starting a discussion about it is pretty standard fare. The problem is when you repeatedly revert back to the change without discussing. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No violation There are not enough reverts by Life.temp to violate 3RR, or even give an impression of edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Carl Freer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Truthmaker1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 10:33, June 5, 2008

• 1st revert: 16:35, June 5, 2008
• 2nd revert: 20:26, June 5, 2008
• 3rd revert: 09:58, June 6, 2008
• 4th revert: 10:56, June 6, 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 10:20, June 6, 2008

Declined The user in question is reverting away from a version of the article that has a clear negative slant and in which undue weight in this short article is given to criticism of the subject. Consequently, his reverts are exempt from the 3-revert-rule. See WP:BLP and WP:3RR. However, this is not a cut-and-dried case and I invite further review. CIreland (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment. This article has been controversial for BLP reasons, but I don't see Truthmaker1's repeated removal of the reference to the Times article as having a BLP justification. The forgery charge is supported by that article. Reliable sources do indicate that this man has had a checkered history. The version to which Truthmaker1 reverted appears sanitized. Due to the complexity of Freer's dealings, it is possible that the details of his past troubles are still not exactly correct in the article. But deleting the Times reference can't be a reasonable step to take in fixing that. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There is NO evidence he had a checkered past. A gag order was instituted on Freer during the Gizmondo investigation by the court appointed liquidators. Therefore the articles cited were created without any way for Freer to pursue justice and keep them fair. The 2 journalists in the articles you cite are under indictment and awaiting trial for slander. This is NOT sufficient material to warrant publication of for you (the editors of Wiki) to assess him as having a "checkered" past. I will contact Freer and urge him to pursue a legal action against Wiki for slander if these false entries are not removed instantly. Truthmaker1 (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Truthmaker1

This man wound up making a lot of investors' money disappear, for whatever reason. It is not up to Wikipedia to anticipate what courts will do in the future, or what reliable sources will eventually conclude about Freer. All we can do is faithfully report what the sources are currently saying. And Truthmaker1 should be cautious about suggesting he will make legal trouble for Wikipedia, per Wikipedia:No legal threats. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Jim Hoffman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 152.131.10.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aka Bov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Version reverted to (for the first two, anyway) 02:53, June 8, 2008

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

1. 17:31, 9 June 2008 (edit summary: "reverting to "bov" version")
2. 21:23, 9 June 2008 (edit summary: "reverted top paragraphs to last version before AR") (same version, except he left the {{911tm}} near where I put it)
3. 22:03, 9 June 2008 (edit summary: "I think this version is pretty clear") (revert to 21:27)
4. 22:22, 9 June 2008 (edit summary: "when you take the time to do even a single search you can add your "cite" tag that no one else requires") (Deleted {{fact}} tag, as have all his other reverts)

• Diff of warning: 00:52, May 20, 2008 (Note: Subject to 1RR per week under discretionary 9/11 sanctions)
• Only one diff in a set of consecutive edits by the same person is included.

• I apologize for the block a few minutes ago. He agreed I could block him for template vandalism, not for article vandalism, under the 9/11 sanctions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I see four reverts in 24 hours by 152.131.10.133 (talk · contribs), which clearly breaks a 1RR rule. Arthur Rubin made at most three reverts in 24 hours so far as I can tell. This block also restricts Bov (talk · contribs) from editing for the same length of time, since 3RR applies to editors not accounts. Here is the pointer to the 9/11 restriction that affects this IP. Thatcher has identified him as Bov by checkuser data. EdJohnston (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

>>Arthur Rubin made at most three reverts in 24 hours so far as I can tell. If there's no possible consequence for his reverts, why mention them? If there is a consequence, does it require 4 reverts? I thought it was 3RR. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin needs to obey 3RR just like anyone else. If you think our rules are not sufficiently clear, you are welcome to propose a change to the wording over at WT:3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

1. 18:11, 10 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ Restoring earlier version of Rezko paragraphs that were gutted without consensus. Please see Talk page.")
2. 18:16, 10 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */")
3. 22:46, 10 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 218467926 by Quartermaster (talk) You were right the first time")
4. 01:31, 11 June 2008 (edit summary: "Estoring Last version before massive POV push (in violation of WP:DE and WP:TE by Scjessey, Loonymonkey and Johnpseudo. As K4T suggests, read WP:YESPOV.")

Long time edit warring by probable sockpuppet of user previously blocked multiple times for same behavior on same article: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth. Kossack4Truth makes several identical edits during the same time frame:

1. 01:19, 10 June 2008 (edit summary: "Let's try not to forget the two counts of bribery")
2. 11:14, 10 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ Restored bribery charges for the sake of accuracy (with AFP reference)")
3. 00:07, 11 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 218504857 by Scjessey rv per WP:NPOV requiring proportionate article space for all non-fringe POVs")

I just noticed a discussion of possible relevance: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious_editing_by_User:Andyvphil. In this discussion, admins seem near consensus to issue a topic ban on K4T (all indicated edits are after K4T began commenting on this at ANI.

—LotLE×talk 03:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's 3 each (Fovean Author's #2 and #3 are a combined edit) So to get to a 3RR violation you have to establish sockpuppeting or meatpuppeting, right? Wikidemo (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No violation The 18:11 and 18:16 edits by WorkerBee74 are consecutive, with no edits by others in between. Thus they count as at most one revert, by our rules. The submitter drew attention to some similar reverts by Kossack4Truth, but only three were listed, so there is no violation there either, unless Kossack4Truth and WorkerBee74 are the same person. The sockpuppet report that was cited shows a wide variety of opinions, and no firm conclusion. Since this is such an important article, there might be a case for putting it under Wikipedia:Article probation, but that's an issue for ANI to discuss. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Spartan Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Halolove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 10:20, June 10

• 1st revert: 18:09, June 10, 2008
• 2nd revert: 18:23, June 10, 2008
• 3rd revert: 18:55, June 10, 2008
• 4th revert: 21:01, June 10, 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 18:51, June 10, and again 19:38, June 10.

I explained 3RR to the user before the after the 2nd revert, and again after the third revert. As the user is new (and is posting frequently), I offered (at 21:57, June 10) the user the chance to self-revert immediately, and waited over an hour for that to happen. I think I've done what I could to help the user along, but (s)he seems to not want to play by the rules. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Strategic bombing during World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Molobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 11:49, 6 June 2008

• 1st revert: 19:38, 10 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 20:52, 10 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 21:44, 10 June 2008
• 4th revert: 22:49, 10 June 2008

Notes

• As first revert you could also count this removal of the recently added paragraph by an editor with whom he has much trouble (current example), or you could count the the revert of the move of paragraphs by the same editor.
• Revert 3 was made by an IP of his. Molobo uses IPs of that provider.

Summary

Molobo resumed revert warring once his latest block ended again: [79](prev), [80](prev), [81] (prev), [82] (prev), [83](prev), [84] (prev), [85](prev), [86](prev), [87](prev). Sciurinæ (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed a 3RR violation, if the revert from the IP is included. Please take this to WP:RFCU first. Khoikhoi 01:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Sciurinae has asked for a checkuser. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Molobo for one week. Given that he has resumed edit warring on multiple pages immediately after I blocked him (including the above 3RR violation), I think that this is a sufficient amount of time. Also, the length is based on his previous block history. Khoikhoi 04:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Nevermind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). WesleyDodds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 06:00, June 10, 2008

• 1st revert: 03:13, June 11, 2008
  • Reverting these edits: 20:58, June 10, 2008, 20:58, June 10, 2008
• 2nd revert: 07:25, June 11, 2008
• 3rd revert: 07:33, June 11, 2008
• 4th revert: 07:36, June 11, 2008
  • Reverting various parts of this edit: 06:57, June 11, 2008

• Editor first contributed with this account in September 2005 and has been very active since (25.000+ edits), so no warning was issued.

COMMENT: All three of those edits are back to back, not reversions. Dayewalker (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No violation. yandman 07:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zyxwvuabcdef (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 04:37, 10 June 2008

• 1st revert: 04:37, 10 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 05:57, 10 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 19:06, 10 June 2008
• 4th revert: 23:27, 10 June 2008
• 5th revert: 00:01, 11 June 2008
• 6th revert: 02:52, 11 June 2008

• Diff of 1st warning: 06:10, 10 June 2008 Blanked page: 06:20, 10 June 2008
• Diff of 1st 3RR warning: 09:48, 10 June 2008 Blanked page: 18:52, 10 June 2008
• Diff of 2nd 3RR warning: 06:48, 11 June 2008

• Comments: Despite repeated warnings, this user keeps removing sourced criticism from the Ocarina of Time article. Made six reverts in past 24 hours removing a source that at least three editors (User:Urutapu, User: Kariteh, and I) have agreed to be valid and noteworthy. 3RR warnings have been given on the said user's talk page by two different editors, but he/she has blanked it each time. This user has had a history of removing valid, sourced criticism, suggesting a possible conflict of interest issue. [88] [89] Wikipedian06 (talk) 07:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

24h. yandman 07:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

1. 18:11, 10 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ Restoring earlier version of Rezko paragraphs that were gutted without consensus. Please see Talk page.")
2. 22:46, 10 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 218467926 by Quartermaster (talk) You were right the first time")
3. 01:31, 11 June 2008 (edit summary: "Estoring Last version before massive POV push (in violation of WP:DE and WP:TE by Scjessey, Loonymonkey and Johnpseudo. As K4T suggests, read WP:YESPOV.")
4. 17:45, 11 June 2008 (edit summary: "This restores, as closely as reasonably possible, the Rezko paragraph at the time protection was removed. AFP source added, charges correctly identified. Those are the only two significant differences")

• Diff of warning: here

I have blocked WorkerBee for 24 hours. Someone seriously needs to do something about the edit warring over at the Barrack Obama article. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 18:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion here --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Korean cuisine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Badagnani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 14:26, 11 June 2008

• 1st revert: 09:14, 11 June 2008 Summary comment: restore highly important editing comments that need to be addressed; removal was disruptive
• 2nd revert: 08:11, 11 June 2008 Summary comment: rv disruptive blanking of editing comment
• 3rd revert: 19:52, 11 June 2008 Summary comment: rv repeated blanking (vandalism)

• Diff of 3RR warning: 20:16, 11 June 20083 Revert violation: new section
  • Diff of first warning in regards to putting comments on talk pages and not in-line in article: 14:26, 11 June 2008Talk goes on the talk page, not in the article

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 20:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Resultat - Jag har blockerat denna användare i 48 timmar. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I also would ask that this editor, who has a history of disruption on this article, be banned from editing it in the future. This is not his first incident of a 3R violation resulting in a block on his account; he has a history of edit warring on other articles as well that did not result in a block. He was one of the primary editors in a major edit war last year that ended up with the Korean cuisine article being completely locked down for a month. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 21:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Vi får se. (We'll see. If he continues the blocks will just escalate etc. etc.) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 21:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 152.131.10.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

All edits move the {{911tm}} template from where it belongs, near the top of the article, to the bottom of the article, where it mangles the layout.

1. 18:18, June 9, 2008
2. 00:08, June 11, 2008
3. 21:58, June 11, 2008

• Comment. User, as noted on his recent 3RR block above at #User:152.131.10.133_reported_by_User:Arthur_Rubin_.28Result:_24_hours.29, is on a 1RR/week parole. Even if the first one wasn't a revert, the other two are. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Violation of his 1RR/week restriction on 9/11 articles: "Bov and all IPs limited to 1RR per page per week", per Rlevse. See the previous 3RR report on the same editor above. EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Indian Rebellion of 1857 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 124.124.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• 1st revert: [90] 09/06/2008 06:22
• 2ND Revert [91] 10/06/2008 10:32
• 3RD Revert [92] 11/06/2008 05:27
• 4th Revert [93] 12/06/2008 05:07
• 5th Revert [94] 12/06/2008 09:09
• 6th Revert [95] 12/06/2008 10:54

Please note this user is aware of 3RR rule and is engaged in an edit war, it is also suspected this is in fact the banned user User talk:DemolitionMan --Rockybiggs (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Blockerat denna användare i 24 timmar. Scarian^{Call me Pat!}

Silent Hill. I've reverted a few too many times and I admit it was a mistake. Maybe a temporary edit ban might give me an excuse to cool off. --Thaddius (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Page protected by Metros. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Comfort women (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 60.42.252.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 16:56, 12 June 2008

• 1st revert: 17:03, 12 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 17:28, 12 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 18:29, 12 June 2008
• 4th revert: 18:58, 12 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 18:51, 12 June 2008

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Emerging church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lyonscc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [96]

• 1st revert: [97]
• 2nd revert: [98]
• 3rd revert: [99]
• 4th revert: [100]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [101]

Please note also that Lyonscc is using an obvious WP:Sockpuppet, User:Thunderbolt2002, which has made no substantive edits, but has only taken sides in Lyonscc's frequent edit wars. Adminster (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that revisions must be non-consecutive. Anyway, I'm going to protect the article because you were both revert-warring. Further, your tenor in this dispute is less than ideal. "Frequent edit wars"? I don't see that many instances of the use of Thunderbolt to circumvent 3RR violations (although I have blocked the account). You also shouted WP:OWN for what seems to be absolutely no reason, and made a sweeping accusation ("I notice you consisten[t]ly delete anything you disagree with") based on what appears to be little to no evidence. (Let me also add that your interpretation of WP:NPOV is off the mark.) Ultimately, you're creating a tempest in a teapot, trying to get Lyonscc blocked for no reason. No, sorry. -- tariqabjotu 20:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(Pertinent information from user talk pages for future reference:)

I will be reverting your changes tomorrow - specifically the ones in violation of WP:V - blog-sourced information from Phil Johnson, etc. and all of the unsupported material added. You've only added unsupported speculation and innuendo to this point. The legitimate complaints about the ECM are already contained, with many of them being fair ones. The stuff you've added to this point is mocking (which IS violation of WP:NPOV) via the image - which Phil does NOT own the copyright to, apart from the border. The Spurgeon Archive, itself, is a self-published blog, which also violates WP:V as a source. Please refrain from making changes without discussing them first on the discussion page, or we could have avoided this. In short - there is no need for a new section, as the key criticisms already are documented.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I will be reverting your changes immediately upon the expiration of the lock (which was certainly the coward's way of approaching disagreement) - specifically the ones in violation of WP:V - blog-sourced information from Phil Johnson, etc. and all of the unsupported material added. You've only added unsupported speculation and innuendo to this point. The legitimate complaints about the ECM are already contained, with many of them being fair ones. The stuff you've added to this point is mocking (which IS violation of WP:NPOV) via the image - which Phil does NOT own the copyright to, apart from the border. The Spurgeon Archive, itself, is a self-published blog, which also violates WP:V as a source. Please refrain from making changes without discussing them first on the discussion page, or we could have avoided this. In short - there is no need for a new section, as the key criticisms already are documented.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A couple of things -

1. Thunderbolt2002 is a friend of mine from work who I've asked to help me mediate a couple of times in the past. I called him before leaving from work today. My understanding is that he rarely logs in, though we do have some common interests.

2. Adminster has refused to discuss changes before making them, even after a reasonable request to do so. Some of the information he's trying to add is unsupported speculation from a blog source (spurgeon.org), and the image, itself, has copyright issues - the border is copyrighted by one individual, but the internal image is not his to copyright. Additionally, the image itself is a parody and violates WP:NPOV. While I'm willing to get a third opinion/arbitrate the issue if Adminster will discuss it, the changes don't belong on the main page until consensus is reached.

3. OK-one more: If you're going to block editing the page, can you return it to its form as of June 10 before the edit-warring occurred, as the current version has multiple issues requiring discussion, as noted above??--Lyonscc (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! Adminster (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Chiropractic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dematt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 17:28, 27 May 2008

• 1st revert: 03:44, 12 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 18:38, 12 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 20:27, 12 June 2008
• 4th revert: 21:26, 12 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 20:30, 12 June 2008

• Please note: The block of WHO quotes were previously removed but Dematt readded them four times in under 24 hours. I see four clear reverts by User:Dematt. QuackGuru 23:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Page protected by Kingturtle. EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Syriac Orthodox Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chaldean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): WestAssyrian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 01:05 7 June 2008

• 1st revert: 01:05, 7 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 22:21 9 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 15:46 10 June 2008
• 4th revert: 15:57 12 June 2008

[102] First, none of them has been "breakin" the rule, since its not 24 hours between it, but then, the purpose of the rule is to avoid whats just happened here. I changed Syriac people to Aramean-Syriac people, since it redirects to that page, in the "See Also"-section, and then User:Chaldean for some reason reverted it (not the first time, [103]). And when Chaldean reverted it three times (not within 24 hours), User:WestAssyrian shows up and revert it again. And now the thing is, Chaldean reported me a couple of weeks ago when I broke the rule, again he reverted it three times himself, and then WestAssyrian reverted it when he had reverted it three times, "trapping" me to break the 3RR rule. See [104]. Again, technically they haven't broke the rule, but again, they are cooperating with eachother so that they can get around the rule. The TriZ (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Result - Stale. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In any case, there are not enough reverts in any 24-hour period, even if you go back to May 1. EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but what can I do against them? They are two, they have six reverts, i've only got three before I break the rule. And they are obviously wrong, right? Why have a redirect and not a directlink? It's purely cause they don't like the directlinks name (Aramean-Syriac). The TriZ (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Next time know what the 3RR means. The page you are refering to is inaccuratly titled right now. And the Syriac Orthodox Church has not offically changed its name to the Syriac Aramean Orthodox Church yet, so for you to push your agenda is legit enough for me to check it. Chaldean (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, no one is interested in your lies. The facts are, the pages name is Aramean-Syriac people, and not Syriac people which is a redirect to the Aramean-Syriac people page. And I know what 3RR means, and I've explained it. The TriZ (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Kathleen_Sebelius#Abortion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). InaMaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 19:27, 11 June 2008

• 1st revert: [105]
• 2nd revert: [106]
• 3rd revert: [107]
• 4th revert: [108]
• 5th revert: [109]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [110]

Result - InaMaka blocked for 24 hours. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Ayahuasca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thamarih (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [111]

• 1st revert: [112]
• 2nd revert: [113]
• 3rd revert: [114]
• 4th revert: [115]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [116]

Already blocked Just as a note, those diffs are over three days or so, which means this doesn't qualify as 3RR. The block was for the editor's behavior in general. --jonny-mt 07:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Flagship university (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.229.0.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

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

1. 03:49, 12 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* California */")
2. 21:40, 12 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* California */")
3. 04:59, 13 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* California */")

• Diff of warning: [User_talk:69.229.0.162 here]

—Ndenison (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Declined No single editor has reverted more than three times in 24 hours. All the IP editors are behaving poorly, since they never participate on the article Talk and don't respond to comments left on their own Talk. The edit war will be ending soon if the prod goes through. Protection's not advisable because there is an active prod, and an AfD may be necessary if it is contested. EdJohnston (talk) 07:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Mojot Svet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 157.228.x.x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 16:14, 30 May 2008

• 1st revert: 11:31, 13 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 16:19, 13 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 16:28, 13 June 2008
• 4th revert: 17:00, 13 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 16:48, 13 June 2008

This user is edit-warring in a number of articles related to the Republic of Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest. He continually inserts redundant information in the introduction and either does not use an edit summary or simply says "do not remove sourced material", refusing to listen to any other points. Using sources is no excuse for breaking 3RR. BalkanFever 07:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

24h. yandman 07:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Dell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LedAstray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 09:07, 13 June 2008

• 1st revert: 09:07, 13 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 11:36, 13 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 11:41, 13 June 2008
• 4th revert: 11:43, 13 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 11:38, 13 June 2008

Blocked for 24 hours. --Selket ^Talk 16:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Dell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LedAstray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

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

1. 04:01, 12 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
2. 15:07, 12 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
3. 19:48, 12 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
4. 23:03, 12 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
5. 15:26, 13 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
6. 15:40, 13 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
7. 15:42, 13 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
8. 15:44, 13 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")

• Diff of warning: here

—NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 15:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked for 24 hours per violation above. --Selket ^Talk 16:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I cannot give the specific revert that violated the 3RR rule, because there was no fourth revert; however, this editor has smugly stated that they will continue making the same revert (e.g. here) "forever" but keep it to 3 reverts every 24 hours. They have explicitly admitted here that they intend to violate the intent of 3RR without technically violating the policy. Not only that, but encouraging other editors to join in the reverts - "FYA, I will continue changing the introductory forever, being careful I don't do it more than 3 times in 24 hours. I invite other editors with common sense to join me in this."

Surely, that sort of admission of malicious intent merits some sort of administrative response? Dyanega (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

24 hour block. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 17:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Generalplan Ost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 17:40, 12 June 2008

• 1st revert: 17:40, 12 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 17:44, 12 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 18:07 12 June 2008
• 4th revert: 07:12, 13 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 17:52, 13 June 2008

The user deletes massive chunks of sourced information refuses to have any direct dialog, and writes gibberish in the edit boxAheadnovel55 (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Warned Warning came ten hours after last revert. --Selket ^Talk 18:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Narcotics Anonymous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yobkcis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 13:09, 13 June 2008

• 1st revert: Revision as of 13:47, 13 June 2008
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 15:30, 13 June 2008
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 19:04, 13 June 2008
• 4th revert: Revision as of 19:19, 13 June 2008
• 5th revert: Revision as of 20:04, 13 June 2008
• 6th revert: Revision as of 20:29, 13 June 2008
• 7th revert: Revision as of 21:00, 13 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: Revision as of 19:29, 13 June 2008

Decision: I have blocked Yobkcis for 24 hours. I have also blocked User:Ndphil21 who reverted many times during the edit war. This edit summary seems to make it pretty clear that he understands the relevant policies and that he actually considered himself to be edit warring. TigerShark (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on John Degnan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hu02138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 69.124.40.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 20:07, 12 June 2008

A similar IP was previously blocked for 3RR/edit warring on this article. This IP appears to have used his/her three reverts, then purposely created an account to get around 3RR. Both are User:Hu02138 and 69.124.40.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) have violated 3RR and are self-admitted WP:SPAs.

• 1st revert: 23:55, 13 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 00:01, 14 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 00:15, 14 June 2008
• 4th revert: 00:21, 14 June 2008
• 5th revert: 00:24, 14 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 00:06, 14 June 2008
• 2nd warning: 00:25, 14 June 2008

Decision: The account made identical edits to the IP, so it seems that it is the same individual. I have blocked both for 24 hours. Also the IP address does share the same location with the previously blocked IP address (Hicksville, NY). TigerShark (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Comfort women (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Blueshirts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Blueshirts and other contributors are all reverting to his previous version of: 19:27, 12 June 2008
• As of this date, I have developed the article to this version and placed in use tag: 14:46, 14 June 2008

Its difficult to continue productive work while dealing with all this stuff.

Please bear in mind that my very first edit was on 16:41, 12 June 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.42.252.111 (talk)

• 1st revert: 18:20, 12 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 19:25, 12 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 09:24, 14 June 2008
• 4th revert: 09:50, 14 June 2008
• 5th revert: 10:08, 14 June 2008
• 6th revert: 10:10, 14 June 2008
• 7th revert: 10:19, 14 June 2008
• 8th revert: 10:38, 14 June 2008

Identical WP:3RR eversion to own his version

Additional identical revision without discussion

Identical revision by forth contributor User-multi error: "Jaysweet" is not a valid project or language code (help).

• 9th revert:18:51, 12 June 2008

Identical reversion by second contributor Caspian blue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 10th revert: 17:08, 12 June 2008

Continued gaming by unblocked second user Caspian blue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 17:03, 14 June 2008

Identical reversion by second contributor Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 11th revert: 14:15, 14 June 2008

Identical reversion by third contributor Flying tiger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), (see Youtube contribution [117])

• 12th revert: 14:29, 14 June 2008
• 13th revert: 16:40, 14 June 2008

'Note, no engagement in discussion on talk page again.

Diff of 3RR warning:

• 1st 14 June 2008
• 2nd 10:01, 14 June 2008
• 3rd 14 June 2008 ,
• 4th 10:17, 14 June 2008

• Note of pattern of similar revisions on other Japanese war crime topics ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Blueshirts

Response The accuser is the same user as User:60.42.252.205, who was banned previously. While I recognize that the user has removed blog/youtube/dead links, the user has also removed chunks of sourced information and has also rewritten statements that already have citations, some of them book citations, to suit his own pov. As I have said on the article's talk page, I have no problem with the user copyediting the article, but blatant removal and misrepresentation of sourced information is vandalism and that is why I'm reverting to the previous version. Blueshirts (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Right after the NTT Plala anon got off from his/her block, he/sh commitited the same thing on the same article regardless of several warnings and the previous lesson. My one time revert of the anon's was identical to several people including an admin, blueshirts, and two more others. However, the NTT Plala anon digs his own grave again because this report is nothing but a clear evidence on his blatant disregard as to our 3RR policy again. Admins, please look at the below file on his violation on 11RR.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Reversion means reversion. If one looks at the edits, it is clear that I continue to develop the article removing deadlnks, blogspots, Youtubes etc. Both users reverting to that same version. Thank you --60.42.252.111 (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Reversion means reversion, not necessarily to be identical at each time. (more than 5 reversion are identical though). Besides, why are you dragging me into your revert-wars or vandalism activities? I restored your blanking campaign one time and put up with your insult at my talk page (you also violated 3RR there) Sadly, more than 2 editors are against your massive deleting compaign with no consensus. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

To me, this looks like a POV-based move by anon IP 60.42.252.xxx to remove material and references that make the abuse of comfort women look more like voluntary activity. It's not vandalism, but it is taking sentences supported by reference and rewriting them to give them new meaning unsupported by the reference. Binksternet (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been very clear in my summaries (please check them), and on talk and discussion pages and added citations supporting the atrocities. I am not denying any facts nor reducing the debate to a simple polemic.

'I have also pointed out to the chief antagonist that I am not Japanese despite any attempts to target me as such, e.g. see above and [118].--60.42.252.111 (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

NTT Plala is a Japanese ISP located in Japan that you're currently using. Japanese Plala IP user is not equal to Japanese user. I already said you that I don't think you're Japanese. However, that is a simple fact that you're Japanese ISP's anon. Besides, whoever objects to your massive deletions, you label the people as pro-Korea, Taiwanese, Hong Kong, Chinese, which is all contradiction to your resentment on my edit summary. Regardless, you now violate 11RR. --Caspian blue (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have never mentioned Chinese, Hong Kong etc ... please show diffs if you can. I understand from your talk page you are Korean or Korean American, Caspian blue clearly advertises they are Taiwanese. --60.42.252.111 (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You label whoever object to your massive deletion without consensus, as "Pro-whatever-country" I do not know what ethinicity others have, but you're distorting my comment and you're the one keeping advertising editor's nationality or ethnicity here and there. Nevertheless, the record of your 11RR violation does not go away. --Caspian blue (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• LOL, the anonymous user who uses Japanese ISP makes this fake report as implying that the four editors are not only vandals but also socks because we think that his disruptive blanking is not from consensus at the talk page? I guess the anon should be blocked more than 48 hours.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Please see note on talk page. --222.150.193.35 (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting and block evasion are the best way of expressing your point of view? You're blocked for 24 hours second time, you can't leave any comment during your block.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

See link to user talk page [119]. --222.150.193.35 (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Decision: Reported user and reporting IP both blocked for 24 hours. TigerShark (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Comfort women (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 60.42.252.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 2008-06-12T19:27:09

• 1st 2008-06-14T07:39:31 see notes on discussion page Talk:Comfort_women removed info of about 13,00 bytes amount / no discussion /following clubot identified as vandalsim[120]
• 2nd 2008-06-14T07:43:21fix cluebot
• 3st 2008-06-14T09:23:40 note:29 intermediate revisions POV pushing and removing cited Japanese crimes
• 4th 2008-06-14T09:25:06 rv Youtube links
• 5th 2008-06-14T09:29:08 (Undid revision 219252796 by Blueshirts (talk))
• 6th 2008-06-14T10:08:47 Undid identical revert following 2nd WP:3RR placed on (talk) page
• 7th 2008-06-14T10:18:52
• 8th 2008-06-14T10:38:01
• 9th 2008-06-14T13:37:15
• 10th 2008-06-14T14:23:31
• 11th 2008-06-14T14:46:15
• Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-06-14T10:18:3

The NTT Plala ISP anon who resides in Japan is identical to 60.42.252.205 (talk · contribs · logs) who was previously blocked for 24 hours for his 5RR violation and POV pushing on the same article. It is so irony that the 8RR violator filed the above bad-faith report on other and he/she claims other editor's 3RR violation. This edit summary tells the anon's attitude well

Blueshirt only restored the properly sourced material and the report misleads that the anon's massive deletion of cited contetns from consensus or proper discussion. Nope. At my first glance, the anon who resides in Japan does not listen to other's opinion, and commits (near-)vandalsim on the article. We don't know who the person is with a self-claim that he has no prejuidice but his edits just prove contradictions. If you look at the talk page, you will find the opposite facts from the anon's claim. --Caspian blue (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Addendum, now the Japanese ISP anon violated 11RR in a row. I guess WP:RFCU is necessary on this case to prevent further disruptions by the anon. If h/she dits under his static account, the anon could possibly violate 11RR within 7 hours? I guess not. The anon is very knowledgeable of Wikirules, so I guess s/he is not a new user.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that is 12 IDENTICAL reverts on your side while I continue to work on developing the topic and have placed extensive discussion on the talk page; see 15:07, 14 June 2008. --60.42.252.111 (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Decision: Blocked for 24 hours. Also please see the previous report, above. TigerShark (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Christopher Dodd presidential campaign, 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). William Saturn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [121]

• 1st revert: [122]
• 2nd revert: [123]
• 3rd revert: [124]
• 4th revert: [125]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [126]

I see only one or two reverts in the past 24 hours. Those diffs date back from as far as the 9th of June, ergo, stale. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 19:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Internet Diplomacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). kestasjk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 7:00, 13 June 2008

Although a 3rd opinion was asked to ensure neutrality, User:kestasjk keeps reverting the article to his point of view. User:kestasjk is the webmaster of phpdiplomacy, so his point of view is obviously biased.

• 1st revert: 17:19 13 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 17:36 13 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 05:31 14 June 2008
• 4th revert: 09:02 14 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 09:10 14 June 2008

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawine (talk • contribs) 09:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Declined The above version links (which are not diffs) and close scrutiny of the article's edit history do not substantiate a claim that user Kestasjk violated the three-revert rule policy. — Athaenara ✉ 17:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: article semi-protected as of 16:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC). — Athaenara ✉ 18:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Followup: unprotected as of 09:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC). — Athaenara ✉ 19:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Response 1

I've responded to this on the Talk:Internet_Diplomacy page. I actually removed as much bias as possible, but IP edits from one source have been removing cited facts, adding opinion, deleting sections added by others which favor other sites (not just mine; even edits from others which reflect badly on his site are removed by this one IP).

Lawine has only contributed edits relating to this one page, and only seems to care about reversions of vandalism against my site.. Since the last reversion posted here more vandalism has occurred, which Lawine is protecting against reversion. Rather than any of the versions which were posted above, the latest version with further edits from the IP user is protected.

Kestasjk (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Response 2

As it is now: Started in December 2007, PLAYdiplomacy.com is the newest version of online Diplomacy. PLAYdiplomacy.com is based on the open-source phpDiplomacy, but offers a point-and-click interface for order submission, and hosts a range of variants for more experienced players.

How Kestasjk (talk) would like to see it: Started in December 2007, based on phpDiplomacy, PLAYdiplomacy.com is another such site.

Don't tell me that this is unbiased information. You just need to get the name of your website in there first, while the current article also says it's based on phpDiplomacy, but makes it less urgent.

I tried to talk to Kestasjk (talk) about this on his userpage, but he keeps removing comments from all Wikipedia users from his Talk page.

Lawine (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Response 3

That's not true; I actually removed "another such site" and replaced it with the existing feature list because I thought it was trying to sound bad: I really am trying to make everything as unbiased as possible. But then someone came and reverted it, and kept on removing the image that went with my site along with its feature list. If you're trying to "balance out" perceived bias with vandalism I don't think you're going to get far.

Also you just edited my user:talk page stating "Kestasjk is biased. He is the admin of phpdiplomacy.net and should not be doing this. This is bad for Wikipedia. Etc". When I removed that it was quickly re-added. That doesn't really count as "talking"

And you mention that it's the "newest version"; it's not, Strategery is just one example of a newer web-diplomacy site I can think of. You mention that I try to move mine to the top, but if you look you'll notice that they're all in chronological order. This puts my site below many others, and this is how it has always been. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kestasjk (talk • contribs) 14:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Finally I noticed that the above comment was added by 84.193.140.205; the IP which has been doing all of the vandalism (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.193.140.205). Does this mean Lawine logs off to perform the vandalism, then logs back on to complain with a user account when I revert it? Or is 84.193.140.205 pretending to be Lawine above?

Kestasjk (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• 84.193.140.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lawine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(Added Userlinks.) — Athaenara ✉ 17:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Christopher Dodd presidential campaign, 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). William Saturn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [127]

• 1st revert: [128]
• 2nd revert: [129]
• 3rd revert: [130]
• 4th revert: [131]
• 5th revert: [132]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [133]

Reverted the article again after being warned.

Result - I have blocked the user for 24 hours for edit warring. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

n.b. the user was reverting vandalism and should not have been blocked. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the user was reverting vandalism - there is a valid dispute about the length of the article. However, this is definitely not 3RR. The first 2 diffs are on the 9th, the second 2 on the 13th, and the last on the 14th. The 2 on the 9th are contiguous, so count as one. Ditto the ones on the 13th. I note that the block was for edit warring not 3RR but thats hard to understand: K has more reverts William M. Connolley (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Calling the dispute "valid" is a stretch, but you are right that the diffs don't show a 3RR problem. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Classical language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thirusivaperur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 12:37, 14 June 2008

• 1st revert: 15:39, 14 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 16:16, 14 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 17:55, 14 June 2008
• 4th revert: 05:11, 15 June 2008
• 5th revert: 15:35, 15 June 2008

• revert-warring account only. Has received ample warning. Also edit warring at Sanskrit and List of languages by first written accounts (just under 3RR).

Result - 24 hour block. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 17:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Vietnam War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Webster121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• 1st revert: [134]
• 2nd revert: [135]
• 3rd revert: [136]
• 4th revert: [137]

• Diff of 3RR warning: Haven't warned him, but he was blocked for 3rr for the same reverts recently. I'm not sure if it matches 3rr because I believe this users is now purposely trying to avoid the 24 hour time period, but he seems completely unstoppable with his way of editing and reverts stuff forever without adressing peoples arguments. Note that this user just registered, was very recently blocked over the exact same edit warring, as well as having a sock puppet blocked simultaniously during the edit warring (User Spell 123 [138]

Blocked — Werdna talk 13:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Alsager Town F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sarumio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 03:52, June 16, 2008

• 1st revert: 06:32
• 2nd revert: 06:40
• 3rd revert: 08:50
• 4th revert: 09:18

• Diff of 3RR warning: [139]

Absolutely no need for reverting my edit - my edit was reverting the change made my User:Richard_Rundle who added the FC despite there still being no consensus to do so. Dudesleeper is, once again, guilty of edit warring and petty reverts. Sarumio (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: User:The Rambling Man, a Wikipedia administrator, also reverted one of Sarumio's above edits. - Dudesleeper / Talk 13:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours There was a previous block on April 8. EdJohnston (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Jana Gana Mana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sandipani1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• This is a complex set of multiple reverts, via anon IPs and newly created single-purpose user names.

• Previous version reverted to: 21:18, 14 June 2008

• The user first started reverting via anon IPs (132.198.138.110) belonging to University of Vermont. Upon doing 3 reverts, the user switched to the newly created single-purpose account User:Sandipani1, and started reverting again. The user has been notified in his user talk page about 3RR violations, but blanked the warnings. The user has again been notified in the article talk page about 3RR violations, but openly acknowledged that he is aware of 3RR.

• From the correlated sequential comments made in the article talk page ([140],[141]), it is clear that the IP 132.198.138.110 and the user Sandipani1 are the same person.

• 1st revert: 21:24, 14 June 2008 (via anon IP 32.198.138.110)
• 2nd revert: 21:30, 14 June 2008 (via anon IP)
• 3rd revert: 10:15, 15 June 2008 (via newly created single-purpose account Sandipani1)
• 4th revert: 15:13, 15 June 2008 (via newly created single-purpose account Sandipani1)
• 5th revert: 11:07, 16 June 2008 (via newly created single-purpose account Sandipani1)

• Diff of 3RR warning: 10:21, 15 June 2008

• User blanked the warning: 10:35, 15 June 2008

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on History of the iPhone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JCDenton2052 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 15:35, June 14, 2008

• 1st revert: 19:33, June 15, 2008
• 2nd revert: 14:45, June 16, 2008
• 3rd revert: 15:01, June 16, 2008
• 4th revert: 18:04, June 16, 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning:
  • 14:56, June 16, 2008 - User's talk page
  • 14:56, June 16, 2008 - Talk page of Article where I tried to resolve this
  • 15:39, June 16, 2008 My talk page

Page protected for 24 hours. Both parties are well-intentioned, but JCDenton2052 keeps using the term 'vandalism' incorrectly. If the two editors start reverting again when protection expires, blocks will be issued. EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

How am I using the term vandalism incorrectly? JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Vandalism, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Removing material from an article is not vandalism unless it is intended to make the article worse. If you disagree with someone's removal of material, you might be able to challenge it for other reasons such as NPOV. This could be discussed on the article's Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on History of the iPhone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). KelleyCook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 10:08, June 15, 2008

• 1st revert: 10:08, June 15, 2008
• 2nd revert: 09:50, June 16, 2008
• 3rd revert: 12:50, June 16, 2008
• 4th revert: 15:56, June 16, 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 13:46, June 16, 2008

KelleyCook has repeatedly personally attacked me. See 14:57, June 9, 2008 and 13:33, June 12, 2008. He has repeatedly reverted my good faith edits, citing Wikipedia policies that he has clearly not read. When I quote the policies to him, he ignores me.

Page protected See above report. EdJohnston (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Steve Doocy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Arzel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 10:09, 14 June 2008

• 1st revert: 14:03, 14 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 18:40, 14 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 19:07, 14 June 2008
• 4th revert: 01:32, 15 June 2008

Result - User made more than 4 reverts in 24 hours, ergo, violating WP:3RR. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 08:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I did not make more than 4 reverts. Furthermore two of the reverts were for vandalism of a seperate issue.

• Revert 1: Removal if an external link provided by Gamaliel. 1
• Revert 2: Removal of vandalism 2
• Revert 3: Removal of vandalism 3

Two other editors removed the same vandalism after this. 3b 3c

• Revert 4: Removal of external link put back in by Gamaliel. 4

Now you may question if it was actually vandalism, however this same user was inserting the same material into several articles along with his corresponding IP He was warned by two other editors on his talk page. In the future please do a little research before acting in haste, since removal of vandalism to a BLP is not subject to the 3RR. Arzel (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Indian Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 121.243.204.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:121.243.204.78 is suspected to be a sock puppet of User talk:DemolitionMan, and is well aware of the 3 revert rule, which have been violated as below. I propose either a ban or a page protection for this redirect page: PAGE: Indian Empire [142]

• [143] 14/06/2008 05:34
• [144]16/06/2008 11:46

• [145]16/06/2008 15:46

• [146]16/06/2008 19:58

--Rockybiggs (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I edited the above report to clarify that the edit war is on Indian Empire, a redirect page. The IP editor keeps changing it to point to Maurya Empire instead of British Raj. EdJohnston (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Page protected For two weeks. There were not enough reverts by the IP within 24 hours to break 3RR. I suggest that Rockybiggs consider opening up a WP:SSP if he believes User:Demolition Man is involved. If the IP is shown to be a sock, he could qualify for a long block. EdJohnston (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Cluj-Napoca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Transylvanian11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• [147] 17/06/16:09
• [148] 17/06/16:12
• [149] 17/06/16:27
• [150] 17/06/17:41
• [151] 17/06/17:54
• [152] 17/06/23:24 -- Biruitorul ^Talk 23:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As the redlink gives away this is a very new editor (few days old) and he was never told about 3RR on his talk page or warned according to his talk page history. Hopefully once he is familiar with the rules he won't do stuff like this. Hobartimus (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I did leave an edit summary about it, but all right, now that he has been warned. Biruitorul ^Talk 07:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Warned Stifle (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Welsh language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Timeineurope (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 12:42, 15 June 2008

• 1st revert: 07:19, 17 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 10:35, 17 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 13:57, 17 June 2008
• 4th revert: 07:22, 18 June 2008
• 5th revert: 10:49, 18 June 2008

(Fourth and 5th revert just minutes past 24 hours, indicating an attempt at gaming the system)

• Diff of 3RR warning: 16:07, 17 June 2008
• Warning blanked: 06:50, 18 June 2008
• Attempt at discussion blanked (showing that user is not interested in discussing this issue with other editors): 10:59, 18 June 2008
• Issue is being discussed at Talk:Welsh language#Irrelevant discursus on French, but User:Timeineurope has not responded there. He doesn't even use edit summaries to indicate why he thinks the footnote should be kept.

Blocked for twenty-four hours; obvious three-revert rule violation. -- tariqabjotu 12:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Park Controls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Msbfreaky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The creator of the page, User:Msbfreaky keeps removing the speedy deletion tag from the article and has done it 4 times already, reverting two different users. I left a warning on his talk page but the speedy tag is still absent. I request that the tag be restored (I had restored it twice myself already) and User:Msbfreaky be blocked (or maybe given one more final warning first).

• Previous version reverted to: VERSIONTIME

• 1st revert: [153]
• 2nd revert: [154]
• 3rd revert: [155]
• 4th revert: [156]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [157]

Comment – Page deleted Stifle (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Oort cloud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 155.150.142.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 16:40, 18 June 2008

User:155.150.142.156 is a creationist who is adding creationist material to the article Oort cloud despite repeated warnings. Serendi^podous 17:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 16:48, 18 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 16:50, 18 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 17:09, 18 June 2008
• 4th revert: 17:16, 18 June 2008
• 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th reverts: [158], [159], [160], [161]
• Diff of 3RR warning: 16:58, 18 June 2008

Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours The issues in the content dispute are not relevant. You were both edit waring. --Selket ^Talk 18:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Archives of Sexual Behavior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 03:20, 18 June 2008

• 1st revert: 03:37, 18 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 03:43, 18 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 05:00, 18 June 2008
• 4th revert: 18:17, 18 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 14:20, 6 June 2008

In addition, the contributor's own 3RR warning of another editor, in edit summary here, at 05:00, 18 June 2008, reveals he is quite aware of 3RR and should be, as he has been blocked for this twice before. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. I lost track of myself on this one and restored the material a fourth time. But please also do answer my questions about why you are asserting a WP:BLP and WP:V problem here; in particular, what individual(s) do you contend is improperly criticized by this content? Dicklyon (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Longer block for a repeat offender. Other editor warned. --Selket ^Talk 18:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on Survivalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Carl.bunderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 09:10, 13 June 2008

• 1st revert: 00:55, 15 June 2008
• 2nd revert: 04:31, 15 June 2008
• 3rd revert: 05:58, 15 June 2008
• 5th revert: 08:27, 15 June 2008
• 6th revert: 09:03, 15 June 2008
• 7th revert: 18:47, 15 June 2008
• 8th revert: 21:24, 15 June 2008
• 9th revert: 02:14, 16 June 2008
• 10th revert: 03:56, 16 June 2008
• 11th revert: 04:26, 16 June 2008
• 12th revert: 05:14, 16 June 2008
• 13th revert: 05:38, 16 June 2008
• 14th revert: 05:49, 16 June 2008
• 15th revert: 06:25, 16 June 2008
• 16th revert: 07:14, 16 June 2008
• 17th revert: 19:14, 16 June 2008
• 18th revert: 02:14, 17 June 2008
• 19th revert: 04:09, 17 June 2008
• 20th revert: 05:54, 17 June 2008

• Diffs of 3RR warnings and previous blocks for 3RR violations:

• Blocked on 05:01, 20 April 2008
• Blocked on 05:38, 1 February 2008
• Warning on 08:45, 21 January 2008
• Warning on 11:18, 21 December 2007

—Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenHarrisonJr (talk • contribs) 01:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Page protected by El C. I have blocked Billylenks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 24 hours for spamming past a final warning. Removal of spam is not subject to 3RR, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The StevenHarrisonJr account seems to have been registered solely to add the report. — Athaenara ✉ 02:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What he was removing was not spam. Carl.bunderson has a record of edit warring and violating 3RR. He also needs to be blocked so he learns and does not repeat this type of behavior. Also, since it is a matter of opinion whether that was spam or not, both users should be blocked to be fair. StevenHarrisonJr (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming. Billylenks and 68.185.64.39 were adding the links. Is StevenHarrisonJr either or both of them? — Athaenara ✉ 03:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, Carl.bunderson was violating 3RR as he has done in the past. He needs to be blocked so he learns his lesson for the future: that edit warring is not the way to go. Carl.bunderson is not an administrator and should be subject to all the rules that other users are subject to. I am neither of them. I am a third party and I think all three of them should be blocked for violating 3RR. All three of them need to learn a lesson here, especially Carl.bunderson who didn't learn it last time he was blocked for 3RR. StevenHarrisonJr (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

All three, but you reported only one *nod* — Athaenara ✉ 03:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I reported this one because he has been blocked before and has a record of edit warring and 3RR. The other two are new users and not as aware of 3RR. Carl.bunderson set a bad example for the other two. Also, I knew that when I reported this user the other two would be blocked also. I was expecting all three to get blocked because I do not see a reason for Carl.bunderson not be blocked. He is a regular user and needs to follow the 3RR rule like everyone else. Only administrators can break the 3RR rule to revert vandalism, etc. StevenHarrisonJr (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Continued on User talk:StevenHarrisonJr#In re 3RR report. — Athaenara ✉ 04:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)