Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive44

User:Emokid200618 reported by User:Gdo01 (Result:blocked indef for other reasons)

Three-revert rule violation on Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Emokid200618 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 16:02, April 12, 2007
• 1st revert: 16:05, April 12, 2007
• 2nd revert: 16:11, April 12, 2007
• 3rd revert: 16:15, April 12, 2007
• 4th revert: 16:25, April 12, 2007

Comments

This user has been blocked multiple times before with incrementing values. The last block was 72 hours. The user has also stated here that the user does not care about violating 3RR. Recommend a longer block or an indefinite one. Gdo01 21:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please provide diffs for reverts, not oldids. Heimstern Läufer 21:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This editor has since been blocked indefinitely for evading a block with sockpuppets.--Chaser - T 09:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:melonbarmonster reported by User:LactoseTI (Result:48h)

Three-revert rule violation on Turtle ship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). melonbarmonster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 20:54, April 12, 2007
• 1st revert: 20:54, April 12, 2007
• 2nd revert: 21:14, April 12, 2007
• 3rd revert: 21:32, April 12, 2007
• 4th revert: 21:53, April 12, 2007

Comments

Blocked for violating 3RR before. All reverts include some insistence about the ship being "ironclad." Some of the reverts were actually vandalism (removing cited sources). After leaving a note on his page, incivil [[1]]. User removed cited statements (after removed the citations) with misleading summaries (saying they were "vandalism") [[2]]

Not sure whether it's appropriate to add back the reference myself (he does not like references which don't support his ideas), but at this point I guess it's obvious that he's not interested in article quality, so would just be an edit war anyway. —LactoseTI^T 22:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There's simply no 3rr. Furthermore, Lactose has already admitted that I didn't delete his references on my talk page. In spite of his admission he's again falsely claiming this accusation again. If you look at the talk page and history of this wiki-article, you'll see that Lactose has continually made disruptive edits and reverts rather than participating in the talk page and engaging in progressive and responsive edits as I have done. This 3rr report is simply vindictive and further disruptive behavior by Lactose.melonbarmonster 22:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood something--I never said you didn't remove the references (look at the diff's). Reporting someone for edit-warring and reverting 4 times is not vindictive. (I wish I had realized your reverts didn't stem from lack of knowledge but lack of desire to move forward earlier, unfortunately it took until your 4th revert for me to realize it.) —LactoseTI^T 23:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turtle_ship&diff=122326394&oldid=122325406melonbarmonster 23:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat complex case, but it does appear to me that all the edits given above are in fact reverts, and it's clear melonbarmonster is edit warring. Blocking for 48 hours due to repeat offense. Other admins: review if necessary, complex cases can always use another set of eyes. Heimstern Läufer 02:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User:ElKevbo reported by User:arla364 (Result:no vio)

Three-revert rule violation on Capella University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). VIOLATOR_USERNAME (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: [3]
• 2nd revert: [4]

User:ElKevbo was blanking the article on Capella University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as well as making [personal attacks] on others. Instead of discussing his concerns on the [talk page] he instead improperly used his position as a Wikipedia editor to block others who were reporting his vandalism.

User:ElKevbo was even [warned by another editor] that his whitewashing and blanking were innappropriate.

It also must be noted that User:ElKevbo was following the advice of another user User:Pizzaman0000 and [Pizzaman6233] who has been warned multiple times for engaging in [personal attacks].

Finally, it must be noted that the user User:ElKevbo blocked was rightfully persuing the proper channels to resolve the conflict which User:ElKevbo escalated. For example, in addition to the [Capella talk page], the situation was reported on the [incident board].Arla364 22:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm filing an RFCU. This editor's only two edits are on this page and they are very similar to the editor whose 3RR violation led to him or her being blocked a few hours ago. --ElKevbo 22:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• This is absurd. Only two reverts given; not even an effort to make this look like a real 3RR report. And coming from an account clearly created solely to make this report. Please don't waste our time with this. Heimstern Läufer 02:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Groovyman reported by User:Goodnightmush (Result:no block)

Three-revert rule violation on Keith Olbermann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Groovyman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to (or very, very closely to): 15:25, April 9, 2007
• 1st revert: 01:08, April 12, 2007
• 2nd revert: 10:02, April 12, 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:19, April 12, 2007
• 4th revert: 22:41, April 12, 2007

Comments

He has been around for 2 months, I don't know if that means he is still a "new user" or not. I changed the version he kept putting back about two (and a half) times, incorporating some of what he wanted in. Twice more his version was changed by (several) other users. Please note that, although I have edited the page 3 times in last day, once was just to revert vandalism. I'm not requesting a block specifically, just some kind of intervention, as I'm afraid to put back the collaboration of several users and ip's for fear of violating 3RR myself. Goodnightmush^Talk 23:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• No block for now: user not warned until after most recent revert. If it continues, please update this report. Heimstern Läufer 02:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User: LactoseTI reported by User:Melonbarmonster (Result:no vio)

Three-revert rule violation on Turtle ship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LactoseTI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 18:26, 12 April 2007
• 1st revert: 20:15, 12 April 2007

Comment: reinserted comment about controversy

• 2nd revert: 21:06, 12 April 2007

Comment: reinserts comment about Admiral Yi’s war diary

• Previous version reverted to: 20:15, 12 April 2007
• 3rd revert: 21:37, 12 April 2007

Comment: reinsertion of comment about Japanese ship.

Three-revert rule violation on Troy, Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LactoseTI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 23:54, 12 April 2007
• 4th revert: 23:58, 12 April 2007

Comment: reinserted vandalism, “the only gay person in troy, and is known for not being able to walk in a straight line, and is madly in love with * 5th revert: 23:58, 12 April 2007 Comment: Second revert in the same minute, reinserted vandalism,

• Previous version reverted to: 06:32, 11 April 2007
• 6th revert: 00:07, 13 April 2007

Comment: Deleted text, melonbarmonster 01:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at... The Troy, Michigan was related to me removing spam, not adding it (although one tripped up with the script and I re-added some unintentionally, which I immediately corrected--that happens in the fight against spam).

You replaced one vandalism for another.melonbarmonster 01:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The script goes back to the previous revert. In verifying nothing went wrong, I realized there was a chain of vandalism there and reverted back to the most recent, cleanest version I could find. Though I don't really see a need to explain, I'm sure any admin who looks at this will realize immediately what you're trying to do here. —LactoseTI^T 01:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides that, 3RR applies to one article at a time, and reverts together in a single block don't even count at all... or you'd be guilty of about 15 reverts instead of 4. You are allowed 3 reverts, not 4. —LactoseTI^T 01:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The 3RR rule is an electric fence.melonbarmonster 01:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• No violation. 3RR applies only to the same article. Heimstern Läufer 02:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Neoelitism reported by User:Yummifruitbat (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on M/S Sea Diamond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Neoelitism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/142.157.201.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 13:37, 12 April 2007
• 1st revert: 14:08, 12 April 2007
• 2nd revert: 22:13, 12 April 2007
• 3rd revert: 23:27, 12 April 2007
• 4th revert: 00:32, 13 April 2007
• 5th revert: 02:53, 13 April 2007

Comments

142.157.201.134 and Neoelitism are quite clearly one and the same individual (see their respective contribs).

24 hours, obviously the same editor. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Ahwaz reported by User:Mardavich (Result:1 month)

Three-revert rule violation on Nasser_Pourpirar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ahwaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 19:08, 11 April 2007
• 1st revert: 19:17, 11 April 2007
• 2nd revert: 19:20, 11 April 2007
• 3rd revert: 22:21, 11 April 2007 (previous version reverted to: 22:08, 11 April 2007)
• 4th revert: 22:51, 11 April 2007

Comments

User:Ahwaz has been blocked for 3RR, incivility, and sockpupetry 16 times by now, in less than a year. [5] He's just returned to editing after a 1-month block for edit-waring [6], yet he's resumed edit-waring and broken 3RR again, even after he was explicitly told the last time he was blocked, that he was very close to being blocked indefinitely if he doesn't improve his behavior.[7] --Mardavich 02:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Another month. Heimstern Läufer 04:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User:70.113.114.144 reported by User:Buddhipriya (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on The Argumentative Indian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.113.114.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version (before edit war): [8]

• 1st revert: [9]
• 2nd revert: [10]
• 3rd revert: [11]
• 4th revert: [12]
• 5th revert: [13]
• 6th revert: [14]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [15]

Comments: Edit war by a Hindu nationalist IP user, who is also relying on a blog to support his POV pushing. Another editor has tried to be reasonable with him on the talk page without success. Buddhipriya 04:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Gun Powder Ma reported by User:Eiorgiomugini (Result:FP is watching)

Three-revert rule violation on Four Great Inventions of ancient China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 13:19, 7 April 2007
• 1st revert: 00:14, 9 April 2007
• 2nd revert: 01:04, 9 April 2007
• 3rd revert: 01:15, 9 April 2007
• 4th revert: 01:57, 9 April 2007
• 5th revert: 02:25, 9 April 2007

Comments

A total of 6th revert, clearly had violated the 3RR rules. Funny things is that that guy even made a report on other while received without any result. When a reporter himself had violated the 3RR rules he should had blocked as well. Eiorgiomugini 10:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Those are edits. They aren't all reverting back to the same version of the article - at least not the one you've cited. Result: no violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waggers (talk • contribs) 12:47, 13 April 2007

Unfortunately those ain't just edits as you can see, an editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted for your info. That's how three-revert rule appiled from Wikipedia:3RR. Eiorgiomugini 16:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there no respone from any of the admins. Is that mean I should made another troll report on this. Regards Eiorgiomugini 18:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC) ===User:Francis Tyers reported by User:Baristarim (Result:)===

Three-revert rule violation on Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Francis Tyers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 15:27, April 10, 2007

• 1st revert: Revision as of 09:59, April 13, 2007
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 10:16, April 13, 2007
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 10:34, April 13, 2007
• 4th revert: Revision as of 10:52, April 13, 2007
• 5th revert: 12:10, April 13, 2007

Comments

Established user, very well knows about 3RR - been warned here anyways. Baristarim 12:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've taken both users to task and will watch the situation. In fact, Baristarim was in violation of 3RR himself. I'd say we can handle this without blocks for the moment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've agreed to not edit article/template space for the duration of this day. - Francis Tyers · 13:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I stroke the report. I generally don't bring things to 3RR, but I really don't like scorched redirects (I have had bad memories :)) Baristarim 13:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Netscott reported by User:Radiant! (Result:24 hrs)

Three-revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Straw polls (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Straw polls|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Netscott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: 09:56, April 13, 2007 (to [16])
• 2nd revert: 10:01, April 13, 2007 (same as above)
• 3rd revert: 13:05, April 13, 2007 (hiding text, in effect reverting to that same version again)
• 4th revert: 13:10, April 13, 2007 (removal of other text, after hiding it [17], in effect reverting to that same version again)
• 5th revert: 13:01, April 13, 2007 (removal of unrelated text added last week [18], note earlier revert warring over this text [19] [20])

Comments

This user has previously been blocked for 3RR [21].

The user objects to all content on Wikipedia:Straw polls that does not match his opinion, calling it "soapboxing" [22] or "propaganda" [23], and requests that other people cease editing the page [24].

Other recent revert warring by this user on Wikipedia:Resolving disputes (note talk page) and m:Polling is evil (note this warning). See also this thread on WP:AN last week, in particular this remark by User:Cryptic.

>Radiant< 13:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. This user is attempting to game this 3RR system by fabricating reverts (note the level of detail he's gone into to justify that the diffs he's provided are reverts). This user himself has a long history of violating 3RR. He himself just recently evaded a block for 3RR violation and has previously done so as well: 3RR vio 2, 3RR vio 3. I admit that edit warring is wrong and that both Radiant! and I have been engaging in it. If I am to be blocked for that then I would recommend that User:Radiant! be blocked as well. (→Netscott) 14:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Also please note that both User:Radiant! and I have engaged in volumious discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion, Wikipedia talk:Straw polls and Wikipedia_talk:Resolving_disputes#Disputed_section as we attempt to resolve this ongoing dispute about Wikipedia guidelines properly reflecting Wikipedia practice surrounding polling. (→Netscott) 14:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, guys. Uncool. Two experienced editors like you should have been able to talk this out long before it got to 3RR. Tough call. It's going to take some looking into, and I'd appreciate another admin's opinion on this. Kafziel ^Talk 14:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like netscott was trying to game the system. I would expect him to be very aware of the WP:3RR and as an administrator, be held to a higher standard. I personally think an appropriate WP:3RR block is in order here. If it had been any other editor, they most likley would have been blocked. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat confused by this comment, as Netscott is not, and has never been, an administrator. Orderinchaos 04:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually Crislk02 if we want to talk about gaming the system, I would recommend reviewing User:Radiant!'s behavior illustrated in this report. (→Netscott) 14:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well neither of us is editing on these pages currently. Probably a better solution would be for Wikipedia:Straw polls to be protected and for us to engage in mediation because this dispute has revolved around us. I hate to admit it but this has even carried over to Meta where Radiant! reverted four times yesterday: rv 1, rv 2, rv 3, rv 4. (→Netscott) 14:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Decision: I am very unhappy about this, but I have blocked Netscott for 24 hours. I have also protected the page (I'm sure it's the "wrong version") and although I know Radiant! can still edit it, I implore him not to. It was a pretty tough call not to block both editors, so please don't prove me wrong. I definitely suggest you guys find better mediation than 3RR. Kafziel ^Talk 15:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin I'm a little concerned by this block - 2 of these edits are clearly not reverts (one is simply commenting out a single line while the other is a one-line content edit). I think this decision should be reviewed, although it was taken in complete good faith by the blocking admin and they handled the above exchange extremely well. It stands *regardless* that users should seek far more appropriate ways of dealing with conflict - both of the users involved have a long history of positive contributions to the encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 04:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:131.193.9.108 reported by User:Michaelbusch (Result:24 hrs)

Three-revert rule violation on N. R. Narayana Murthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

• Previous version reverted to: 21:31
• 1st revert: 19:28
• 2nd revert: 19:43
• 3rd revert: 21:00
• 4th revert: 21:13
• 5th revert: 21:31
• 6th revert: 21:42
• 7th revert: 21:46

• Diff of 3RR warning: 21:27

Comments

There has been edit-warring about Murthy's actions regarding the playing of the Indian nation anthem during a recent visit of President Kalam to Infosys. I had attempted to move this to a discussion on the article's talk page, but 131.193.9.108 has been repeatedly adding back a version that blatantly violates WP:NPOV and perhaps Wikipedia:No personal attacks and ignoring warnings. I am afraid, however, that I may myself have violated WP:3RR in removing this material. I request Administrator evaluation of my own actions, as well as a block of 131.193.9.108. Michaelbusch 21:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

• • I have blocked the IP for 24 hours several hours ago because of edit waring since the IP was presistant and refused to discuss the changes, but I would also like to see your side of the story on why this section shouldn't be in the article and how it is not NPOV and vandalism. Since you have called yourself out and stepped out of the edit war after the last time the IP placed the section in, I don't see a point in blocking you as that would be punitive and pointless at this point. I will, however, suggest using caution when reverting another user's edits without discussing it with them on their talk page, this way you can see why they keep adding it into the article and get their side of the story and prevent further conflict. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 00:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jiffypopmetaltop reported by User:IronDuke (Result:No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on Al Sharpton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jiffypopmetaltop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to:

05:44, 26 March 2007

• 1st revert: 00:49, 13 April 2007 Removes some of Sharpton’s role in riot
• 2nd revert: 05:59, 13 April 2007 Removed Duke case info
• 3rd revert: 20:45, 13 April 2007 Removed Vieques info, misleading edit summary
• 4th revert: 20:57, 13 April 2007 adding tags to paragraphs he had attempted to alter in the past.
• 5th revert: 23:26, 13 April 2007 Removes “Distanced himself from the crime” a line from a paragraph he has deleted in the past.

Comments

The edits here all involve removing or altering bits user has objected to in the past. IronDuke 02:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not seeing a clear intent to edit war here, most of these edits are pretty different. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

With respect, if you checked a little further into the history of the article, you would see a great deal of edit-warring and blind-reverting. Also, when you say "most of these edits are pretty different," I hope you are aware that this is entirely irrelevant to the question of violating 3RR. IronDuke 15:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This is crazy. I am fixing references, removing unsourced material (wp:blp) and trying to improve this article. Anything I remove is unsourced or written in a pov manner. I probably reformatted 12 or 13 references today. Not to mention removing vandalism. I swear that I am acting in the best of faith and by the book.Jiffypopmetaltop 06:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Jiffy, much of what you are doing on the page (recently) is good. However, the good is interspersed with the not-so-good. IronDuke 15:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

All of the edits above are completely legit. Jiffypopmetaltop 06:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Maestro25 reported by User:TJ Spyke (Result:article protected)

Three-revert rule violation on WWE No Mercy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Maestro25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 18:53 April 13, 2007
• 1st revert: 14:57 April 13, 2007
• 2nd revert: 20:35 April 13, 2007
• 3rd revert: 20:59 April 13, 2007
• 4th revert: 21:18 April 13, 2007

Comments

User is intent on starting an edit war over a very trivial issue (he keeps removing the "-" is Fatal Four-Way match). He is ignoring the evidence presented on both the talk page of the article and at WP:PW. I have shown that WWE uses both "Fatal Four Way" and "Fatal Four-Way", that third party sources use both (but mainly use the dash), that the dash makes it grammatically correct, and that using the dash has been the de facto standard for as long as I can remember in PPV articles here at WP. Since I have a feeling he will just continue the reerting (he stopped yesterday after he reached 3 reverts), I decided to report him here. I feel silly about such a trivial issue, but he insists on changing the standard used here even though no one agrees with him. TJ Spyke 01:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Article protected by AuburnPilot. Please discuss rather than revert warring, and I'm referring to everyone here. Heimstern Läufer 06:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • He still violated 3RR. He won't discuss the issue. He will only say that since WWE doesn't use the dash, neither should we (even though I pointed out to him that WWE sometimes uses it and sometimes doesn't). TJ Spyke 10:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Lovelight reported by User:Rx StrangeLove (Result:1 week)

Three-revert rule violation on Template:911ct (edit | [[Talk:Template:911ct|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lovelight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: [25]
• 1st revert: [26]
• 2nd revert: [27]
• 3rd revert: [28]
• 4th revert: [29]
• 5th revert: [30]
• 6th revert: [31]

Not all reverts are listed here. Still at it:

• 7th revert:[32]
• 8th revert:[33]

• 9th [34]

Comments

Lovelight again, been blocked for these actions before. S/he's singlehandedly trying to force a name change on this template, along with adding a bunch of names to the supporters list this time. It just goes on and on. As you can see it's been happening all day. RxS 05:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Rarely have I seen this much revert warring in so short a time. 1 week, taking into account previous violations. Heimstern Läufer 06:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Biophys reported by User:Vlad fedorov (Result: Warning)

Three-revert rule violation on Boris Stomakhin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: [35] 21:03, 2 February 2007
• 1st revert: [36] 14:21, 13 April 2007
• 2nd revert: [37] 14:35, 13 April 2007
• 3rd revert: [38] 05:44, 14 April 2007
• 4th revert: [39] 14:12, 12 April 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: diff 14:46, 13 April 2007

I have warned him diff. Vlad fedorov 06:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

For BLP concerns see here http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov#Outside_view_by_Alex_Bakharev - outside view of Alex Bakharev and here Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10 Boris Stomakhin. Vlad fedorov 06:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Biophys claims that the article is protected, although protection term has elapsed. He perfectly knows what is WP:3RR since I was blocked once because of dispute with him.Vlad fedorov 06:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Neither one of you has violated 3RR yet, but you're both pushing it. Please complete your mediation case and come to an agreement, no one's going to get what they want through edit warring. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Gun Powder Ma reported by User:Eiorgiomugini (Result: no action)

Three-revert rule violation on Four Great Inventions of ancient China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 13:19, 7 April 2007
• 1st revert: 00:14, 9 April 2007
• 2nd revert: 01:04, 9 April 2007
• 3rd revert: 01:15, 9 April 2007
• 4th revert: 01:57, 9 April 2007
• 5th revert: 02:25, 9 April 2007

No action. Reverts are 5 days old. 3RR is designed to stop ongoing reverts. Resubmit if reverts recommence.Rlevse 14:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Iranzulqarnain reported by User:Arcayne (Result:48 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on 300 (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Example user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=300_%28film%29&diff=122746962&oldid=122697157]

• 1st revert: [40]
• 2nd revert: [41]
• 3rd revert: [42]
• 4th revert: [43]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [44]

Though the user was warned along with the welcome template by Slowking Man, the user continued to revert. When Slowking Man inquired about the reverts on the offemder's page, Iranzulqarnain responded by accusing Slowking of "helping racist in the world", and then posted a similar remark on the oh-so-calm 300 Discussion Page.

Block 48 hours, clear 3RR vio.Rlevse 14:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:88.113.167.176 reported by User:ST47 (Result:no vio)

Three-revert rule violation on User talk:88.113.167.176 (edit | [[Talk:User talk:88.113.167.176|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Example user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 10:20, April 14, 2007
• 1st revert: 10:22, April 14, 2007
• 2nd revert: 10:23, April 14, 2007
• 3rd revert: 10:25, April 14, 2007
• 4th revert: 10:26, April 14, 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 10:26, April 14, 2007

No vio, wiki policy is that you can revert your own talk page. I myself learned this the hard way.Rlevse 14:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User: Codex Sinaiticus reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Noah’s Ark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Example user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: 15:32, April 13, 2007
• 2nd revert: 15:40, April 13, 2007
• 3rd revert: 15:42, April 13, 2007
• 4th revert: 18:39, April 13, 2007
• 5th revert: 05:20, April 14, 2007
• 6th revert: 07:32, April 14, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orangemarlin (talk • contribs) 17:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

• Diff of 3RR warning: 20:03, April 13, 2007

Comments

Editor is engaged in an edit war over an NPOV tag. There is no consensus for such a tag, and it has been reverted by several editors. He claims he has support of one other editor, but that support is tepid. He has done further reverts and is disruptive. He has also deleted the warning on his talk page.

Yet another crusader in our midst. 24h. yandman 17:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Rm uk reported by Isarig (Result: No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on Hezbollah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Example user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 04:30, 26 January 2007
• 1st revert: 14:26, 13 April 2007
• 2nd revert: 14:37, 13 April 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:49, 13 April 2007
• 4th revert: 05:03, 14 April 2007 - explicitly described as a revert in the edit summary: "brought back geoffrey's contribution"

Not a new user, has been warned about 3RR before: [45][46]

Comments

Don't really see a 3RR violation here, it looks like the edits are pretty different, and part of an attempt on talk to find compromise wording. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:R9tgokunks reported by User:Tulkolahten (Result: 1 week)

Three-revert rule violation on Kraj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). R9tgokunks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: reversions
• 1st revert: 17:23, 14 April 2007
• 2nd revert: 17:49, 14 April 2007
• 3rd revert: 18:06, 14 April 2007
• 4th revert: 18:29, 14 April 2007
• 5th revert: 18:39, 14 April 2007

Comments

This users was warned several times by several editors and by administrator that his edits about etymology are unsourced, but he continues. He is alos edit warring on several articles like Alsace. He was blocked for an unbeknownst to him, disruptive edit, for one week. -- User:Tulkolahten 13:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I was warned once, and i have listened to the warning, and stopped all editing on the concerned articles:

"R9t, I've given RCS a strict civility warning because he's really been attacking you rather badly. But you are now well over 3RR on the Kraj article. I won't block you myself, because I was myself reverting you, but I warn you to please stop all contentious edits now, or I'll report you and you'll most certainly get blocked for another long period."

--Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"OK, I will stop on those pages, I have stopped reverting. But people are strange... they are vandalizing it but calling me a vandal when i RE-add the information they removed..."

--Hrödberäht(gespräch) 20:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: I reverted vandalism by Tulkolahten (talk · contribs) as he had removed content, which was content I added, and the reason was misleading:

  "rv, get out with poor etymology here"

  , but really, it was probably reverted because he didn't like it personally.
• 2nd revert: Again reverted vandalism by Tulkolahten (talk · contribs) he removed content, which was content I added, and the reason was because he didn't like it personally, and added a misleading edit summary,

  "rv nonsense, that guy don't know what Czech language is"

  along with a personal attack making it seem like i didnt known what the Czech language even was.

  ..."that guy don't know what Czech language is"

  . In truth, I didn't say anything about the Czech language, so i am confused as to why he would add something irrelevant while continuing his reversions.
• 3rd revert: Was not a revert. i re-worded information, and re added that information back to the article.
• 4th revert: I reverted vandalism by RCS (talk · contribs) he removed content, which was content I added, and reverted due to a misleading edit summary,

  "rv vandalism"

  . I was actually the one who re-added the vandalized information that was removed by RCS and Tulkolahten. and he had a misleading, and a copy, of an edit summary already done, for the purpose of makeing me seem stupid and like an ill-informed vandal.

  {{User|R9tgokunks}}, listen to what Future Perfect said, it makes perfect sense

  . actually Future Perfect said :

  partial rv, please don't add unsourced etymologies.

  and i did not add any etymologies back to the article but apparently RCS thinks i was adding unsourced etymologies again.
• 5th revert: Again I reverted vandalism by Tulkolahten (talk · contribs) as he had removed content, which was content I added, and the reason was misleading:

  "rv vandalism"

  , but really, it was probably reverted because he didn't like it personally, and he was actually the one removing the information... and instead claimed myself, the one who added the information, was a vandal. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 21:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

One week, long history of edit wars. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:R9tgokunks reported by User:John254 (Result:1 week)

Three-revert rule violation on Alsace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). R9tgokunks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: complex partial reversions
• 1st revert: 16:16, 14 April 2007
• 2nd revert: 17:57, 14 April 2007
• 3rd revert: 18:26, 14 April 2007
• 4th revert: 18:42, 14 April 2007
• 5th revert: 19:05, 14 April 2007

John254 19:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I was warned once, and i have listened to the warning, and stopped all editing on the concerned articles:

"R9t, I've given RCS a strict civility warning because he's really been attacking you rather badly. But you are now well over 3RR on the Kraj article. I won't block you myself, because I was myself reverting you, but I warn you to please stop all contentious edits now, or I'll report you and you'll most certainly get blocked for another long period."

--Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"OK, I will stop on those pages, I have stopped reverting. But people are strange... they are vandalizing it but calling me a vandal when i RE-add the information they removed..."

--Hrödberäht(gespräch) 20:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

First, of all, most of the reverting was centered around the History table i made on that page, and other users kept changing words that they did not like personally.

• 1st revert: I dont think this one matters to the report? But still, the reason was that I was reverting due to the POV inserted by Paris75000. He also kept changing "Reverted" to "Back" which was bad grammar, and it seems he is doing it intentionally to make me angry. It also had bad grammar and had weasel words ... "totally", "only")
• 2nd revert: Further reverting due to the POV inserted by Paris75000. He continued to keep changing "Reverted" to "Back" which was bad grammar, and it seems he is doing it intentionally to make me angry.It also had bad grammar and had weasel words ... "totally", "only")
• 3rd revert: Reverted due to the personal attacks against me...:

"it is Argentoratum, you bloody fool, now stop putting wrong infos in the article !"

• 4th revert: Tried to compromise the situation by removing the table i made. I thought that the problem could cease to exist if i removed it.
• 5th revert: Was not a revert...it was a removal of what User:Paris75000 again added his own opinions, and added a second category for the same era in which Alsace was ruled by France, which was for the reason that he wanted to show another line consisting of Alsace being French-ruled. I Also reverted bad grammar: "Alsace totaly under control to France" and had weasel words "totaly"[sic], " [[French language only") -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 20:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Already blocked 1 week for vio reported above. Heimstern Läufer 22:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Raul654 reported by User:UBeR (Result: 12h block)

Three-revert rule violation on Global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Raul654 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: 20:15, 13 April 2007 (revert of [47])
• 2nd revert: 09:51, 14 April 2007 (revert of [48])
• 3rd revert: 13:03, 14 April 2007 (revert of [49] and [50])
• 4th revert: 14:45, 14 April 2007 (revert of [51])
• 5th revert: 14:54, 14 April 2007 (revert of [52])

Comments

• Would another uninvolved admin consider looking at this, too? My first reading is to think this report is valid, yet I'm rather hesitant to believe that an arbitrator would have really violated 3RR. I'll have another check, too. Heimstern Läufer 22:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, arbitrators are human, too, and should not be held to a different standard than mere editors. If this is a 3RR violation, you should block, after all, we know there is no admin cabal Isarig 22:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but I want to be sure this is correct. Requesting another set of eyes. Heimstern Läufer 23:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• 6th revert: [53] Note the personal attack.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Tie (talk • contribs)

I add, that Raul has been repeatedly uncivil on this page and related pages. He is upset and it shows. --Blue Tie 23:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That revert was totally unrelated to the other reverts. Also his comments were justified. Count Iblis 01:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've got to agree with Heimstern here, I see a pretty clear 3RR violation as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it. Some of the rv's he's doing almost contradict. Combine with the incivility and he might need to cool down... The question becomes who's going to block him?--Wizardman 23:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ask Raul654 to respond to the report here. If a violation is found then we should consider a ban from editing the particular article for a period of time, as opposed to a full-fledged block which would prevent him from performing his other responsibilities. Newyorkbrad 23:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, sounds like the most reasonable solution. Heimstern Läufer 23:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to defend the subject of the report, or his conduct, but isn't it about time we pensioned off the Three Revert Rule in favor of declaring edit warring to be generally blockable behavior? --Tony Sidaway 23:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

And instead of just admins/arbitrators/crats having the priviledge of avoiding a block, maybe all users would just be given a ban on the article in question. That would be fair too, wouldn't it? --Blue Tie 23:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it would, yes. It's a remedy I've used several times before and should become more widespread. But that's a discussion for another page, most likely. Newyorkbrad 23:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that everyone should either be treated equally or admins should be held to a higher standard. But also think the current policy is a bit rough. For everyone's interest, I have suggested a change [here].

Nothing personal against Raul654 - I've edited the Yom Kippur War article with him and found him to be a very fair-minded editor there - but the admin behavior here is a disgrace. There should be no double standard for admins/arbitrators and mere editors - yet here you are, quaking in your boots and not daring to block a fellow admin {"The question becomes who's going to block him?"), and inventing "creative" solutions that run contrary to WP policy in order to avoid doing the obvious and required deed. Isarig 23:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, "cabal" behavior would be if everyone here were simply to say "Huh? I don't see a problem, nothing to see here, move along." However, unusual circumstances do merit discussion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. cabal behavior is fellow admins all agreeing that a clear violation has occurred, but instead of blocking the violator (which some of you are clearly afraid to do), you invent a solution ("why don't we just ban him from that one article) which a mere editor would not be granted. You claim there is some 'unusual circumstances' here- but the only "unusual" thing as far as I can see is that the violator is a fellow admin. Isarig 23:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, people might have also been inclined to take into account this sort of thing. Newyorkbrad 01:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

How abotu a short block (12-24 hours at most), just to let him cool down? Shouldn't harm his other responsibilities too much.--Wizardman 23:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That's probably where I would lean right now. Heimstern Läufer 23:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look like Raul is on, so if there's no objections I'll block him in a few minutes.--Wizardman 23:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Just for measure the 1st revert isn't one - it gets self-reverted immediatly afterwards. (not that it really matters) --Kim D. Petersen 23:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is. The self revert was only partial. Part of the original revert remained. As I see it. --Blue Tie 23:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That's largely academic in any case, even one partial self-revert doesn't take away the edit warring and incivility. Given that there does seem to be a pretty clear consensus, I'm willing to place the block. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him. I only did it for 12 hours so that it doesn't take away too much from other responsibilities. Can someone leave a messag on his talkpage? I have to go else I'd do it. Case semi-closed though.--Wizardman 23:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I left the note. I'm open to suggestions if it should be better worded. Heimstern Läufer 23:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I like how no-one bothered to wait for his response. Really encouraging, that. – Steel 00:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think he should be unblocked. We usually only block people for disruptive edits. Sometimes there can be a 50-50 split where both sides are guilty of edit warring. In this case, however, the reverts were made to protect an edit that has wide support from the editors (there are only a few editors who want to hide the fact that in the scientific community the skeptics on global warming have almost no support).

Another factor to consider here is that he may have forgotten count the reverts he made on April 13 when he edited on April 14. This mistake is easily made (I made exactly such a mistake too recently and I wasn't blocked for that). Then he would not have considered the first edit on April 14 as a revert and he would only have counted his reverts starting from the second revert he made on April 14. Count Iblis 01:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. As an admin, I've violated the 3RR and been blocked for it, no questions asked. We should all be responsible for our actions and if we break a clear and unambiguous rule, we should suffer the same consequences as anyone else. The point of the 3RR is that it doesn't matter who's right or who's wrong - if you've degenerated into stale revert-warring, you just need to stop. FCYTravis 06:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Side note to this 3RR Report. I notice that UBeR also reported a personal attack in one of those links, in violation of WP:NPA - as someone who is interested in keeping the peace round here, I have just removed a statement from Talk:Global Warming made by UBeR, which I considered to be a personal attack on Raul654's integrity. The statement "Raul654 likes to spin things his way" suggests to me that UBeR is accusing Raul of bias, which I consider a breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Thor Malmjursson 04:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit: Following contact from User:Blue Tie - I have struck part of that statement and redact the accusation completely. However, I will leave the piece about the attack by UBeR sincce that does still apply - just not that UBeR reported the personal attack here. Thor Malmjursson 10:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

To comment upon the side note, the first time I recall seeing UBeR was at this investigation which followed with this and this. I offer no defense of Raul654 - if he violated 3RR he deserves the block. Durova^Charge! 06:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO, this is a harmful block that will serve nothing but alienating the best Wikipedian that we have here (no offense to other good Wikipedians.) When same people speak about blocks being preventative rather than punitive at one time or about "fair treatment for all" at another, choosing which of the two more suites the action they prefer, it is revolting.

When it has been repeatedly discussed and shown that so called "cool-off blocks" of established users always have the opposite effect, it amazes me that some still proposes the "cool-off" blocks.

Also, Tony's proposal of abandoning a 3RR formally and leaving this to the arbitrariness of certain eagerly blocking admins should not be even considered. Having 3RR as an electric fence does not prevent admins from blocking for general edit warring (usually just under 3RR for days) if the warring becomes a significant disruption. But having a clear rule of what is not allowed helps the fairness in that it greatly reduces arbitrariness from blocking.

At the same time, the block should only be made to stop an edit war. I believe a message to Raul that he is community banned from the article for 24-hr would have achieved just that without aggravating him for no reason. Blocks are the last resort and with users like Raul I can't imagine the need to resort to the last resorts.

My message is not that some are "more equal" than the others. My message is that there must be clarity between the goals and the actions. The goals of the revert-warring blocks is to stop revert wars. If this could be done without blocks, it should be done without blocks. Collateral damage from blocks of these kind is huge. The more committed the user is, the worse is his perception of being blocked. Still block all right when necessary, but I fail to see the necessity here and see a great deal of potential harm. --Irpen 07:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, he was edit warring, so by your statement that this is the only good reason to block, he should be blocked. But by wikipedia standards, edit warring or not, 3rr is a bright line test. That might be changeable, but for now it is what it is. If your solution of banning rather than blocking is good for him though, it should be good for all on wikipedia without regard to position. I would never want to see a system where admins, arbitrators and others are given gentle treatment while other users are blocked. That would not fly with me.

I would also add, that when a person of his position and authority start posting on the boards in uncivil ways, then their value on the project goes way down even if heretofore they have added value. It should not be winked at. --Blue Tie 07:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, article-banning rather than blocking is a good idea for any editor known for the rich history of content creation and known to be reasonable overall to expect him to heed to such ban. This is not about position but about content writing. I don't care if the user is an admin (or even an arbitrator.) I care about writing and reputation. There are plenty of reputable non-admins and there are plenty of disreputable admins. Additionally, experienced users with a distinguished history likely know what they are doing. So, maybe there is a reason why the violated the technical rule (sockings, copyvio, etc). It's worth to ask. Nothing would happen if the necessary block is instituted 2-3 hours later. --Irpen 07:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Equal treatmeant requires that he be blocked. Hardly the first admin blocked under the 3RR unlikely to be the last.Geni 11:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No, equal treatment requires that he should be treated just like everyone else, but that does not imply that he should be blocked, see e.g. here Count Iblis 13:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocks should not be normal. However, 3RR violation does get as close to automatic as anything except dirty word account names. It's not such a big deal, though, and should not be seen as a sign of much of anything. Loads of folks run afoul of 3RR at one point or another, so let's not allow this to become the knot in the stomach or cause celebre, eh? Geogre 17:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Psantora reported by User:Miaers (Result: Stale)

Three-revert rule violation on University of Wisconsin System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Psantora (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: [54]
• 2nd revert: [55]
• 3rd revert: [56]
• 4th revert: [57]

Comments

Repeatedly messing up the images and deleting useful comments. Didn't stop after discussion. Miaers 02:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment As I'm sure an admin will notice, the first "revert" is anything but; it's an editor making useful edits. Miaers himself then violated 3RR and was blocked for two weeks. Cheers, PaddyM 03:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as it is more than 3, it is a violation. I was blocked even for removing copyvio images. Miaers 03:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• • 3RR blocks are meant to be preventative. As this report is about two weeks old, a block now could only be punitive. No action. Heimstern Läufer 06:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no rule on the time lag for violation. He was not reported 2 weeks ago because I was wrongly blocked 2 weeks ago. I don't think User:Psantora has realized he had violated 3RR. He needs to be blocked for the violation to prevent hime from any violation in the future. Miaers 13:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Heimstern is correct.Rlevse 14:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

PaddyM alerted me to this 3RR violation report... Here are some relevant links in my defense: Miaers' 3RR violation report and discussion on Miaers' talk page after repeated accusations of my violation of 3RR while he was blocked for 2 weeks. As PaddyM pointed out, the first "revert" that Miaers links to is my first contribution to the article (with completely original contributions). It is not a "revert" by any stretch of the imagination. This accusation is the first post Miaers made since coming off his two week block and has been attacking me on administrators' talk pages. In addition, he has removed (again) the dialog concerning these edits from the talk page of the article in question. I would appreciate it if someone could keep an eye on Miaers and prevent him from continuing to slander my contributions to Wikipedia. Paul^C/_T+ 19:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You first revert reverted the original contents. You violated 3RR. As for the discussion, it happened in your talk page. It should be there. I consider it a personal attack to put it on the system article talk page. Miaers 20:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone clarify whether the first revert counts in 3RR? I don't think it is reasonable to let someone damages the article 4 times without being blocked while the one who restores back get blocked. Miaers 22:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Lovelight reported by User:Mivonks (Result:Already blocked)

Three-revert rule violation on Template:911ct. User:Lovelight :

8-rr violation:

• 1st revert: [58]
• 2nd revert: [59]
• 3rd revert: [60]
• 4th revert: [61]
• 5th revert: [62]
• 6th revert: [63]
• 7th revert: [64]
• 8th revert: [65]

Comments: Already blocked for one week. Heimstern Läufer 23:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:SchmuckyTheCat reported by User:Pointe (Result:indef block of Pointe)

Three-revert rule violation on Category:Hong Kong media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs).

• Previous version reverted to: 16:58
• 1st revert: 15:03
• 2nd revert: 15:14
• 3rd revert: 15:21
• 4th revert: 15:34

Coment:

• Secessionists using Wikipedia to promote Hong Kong and Macau separaptism.
  • It has been alleged that User:Pointe is the reincarnation of banned User:Instantnood. See thread at the bottom of WP:ANI. I don't know Instantnood's record well enough to corroborate, but if this is so, then Pointe should be blocked, and SchmuckyTheCat's edits are exempt from 3RR as reversions of a banned user. Newyorkbrad 00:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that takes balls. A banned user reporting me for 3RR but willing to go to 7RR [66] themselves. Methinks Instantnood has a whole lot of disposable sock accounts he's willing to go through. SchmuckyTheCat 01:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Req for checkuser on Pointe is pending, Instantnood has 4 confirmed socks. Likely result is indef block Pointe as his sock.Rlevse 01:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Pointe confirmed as sock by checkuser. SchmuckyTheCat exempt from his reverts for reverting an even worse reverted who was a sock evading a block of a banned user. Rlevse 03:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Harvardy reported by User:Davidpdx (Result: indefinite)

Three-revert rule violation on User:125.212.108.206:

• Previous version reverted to: April 13, 18:49

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

Comments

This user is a sock/meat puppet of User:Johnski a hard banned user who is making counter accusations on a IP User page after I posted a note that I believe this user was a sockpuppet of his. The user is notorious for using multiple sockpuppets to make edits to [Dominion of Melchizedek] and related articles. There was a arbitration decision against him stating he and his known sockpuppets should be banned due to the disrupitve nature of his edits. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Johnski/Proposed_decision I am asking you to take care of this so that he does not continue to vandalism Wikipedia. Davidpdx 02:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely blocked Harvardy under the remedy at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Johnski. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Blue Tie reported by User:75.17.56.162 (Result: protection)

Three-revert rule violation on Global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Blue Tie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: complex partial reverts, each removes previously added text
• 1st revert: 19:53, 14 April 2007
• 2nd revert: 20:52, 14 April 2007
• 3rd revert: 03:36, 15 April 2007
• 4th revert: 04:50, 15 April 2007
• 5th revert: 05:08, 15 April 2007

I'm willing to talk about these. I looked at the first 4 and I only saw one that might actually be a revert, not sure. But I have worked hard not to engage in edit wars. --Blue Tie 14:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I note also that this is a single user anon account, apparently used once for this purpose only. I suggest that this is a person who has a regular account that they did not want to use or reveal who they are. Perhaps upset at the 3rr over Raul. --Blue Tie 15:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Demiurge reported by User:Rostov-on-Don (Result: No block)

User:Demiurge has falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet and has engaged in numerous acts of WP:3RR re Tim Pat Coogan's page over the past 36-48 hours at least. Plase block.Rostov-on-Don 11:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

See below:

• (cur) (last) 10:57, 15 April 2007 Demiurge (Talk | contribs) (Revert to the revision prior to revision 122960371 dated 2007-04-15 10:57:34 by Rostov-on-Don using popups)
• (cur) (last) 10:57, 15 April 2007 Rostov-on-Don (Talk | contribs) (rv vandalism by User:Demiurge; rv to last edit by User:Rostov-on-Don)
• (cur) (last) 10:55, 15 April 2007 Demiurge (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 122959880 dated 2007-04-15 10:52:57 by Demiurge using popups)
• (cur) (last) 10:55, 15 April 2007 Rostov-on-Don (Talk | contribs) (rv vandalism by User:Demiurge)
• (cur) (last) 10:52, 15 April 2007 Demiurge (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 122835362 dated 2007-04-14 21:18:53 by Demiurge using popups)
• (cur) (last) 10:29, 15 April 2007 Rostov-on-Don (Talk | contribs) (rv vandalism)
• (cur) (last) 21:18, 14 April 2007 Demiurge (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 122723429 dated 2007-04-14 11:18:27 by Demiurge using popups)
• (cur) (last) 13:44, 14 April 2007 216.194.3.69 (Talk)
• (cur) (last) 11:18, 14 April 2007 Demiurge (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 122721950 dated 2007-04-14 11:05:27 by Demiurge using popups)
• (cur) (last) 11:07, 14 April 2007 Rostov-on-Don (Talk | contribs)
• (cur) (last) 11:05, 14 April 2007 Demiurge (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 122516694 dated 2007-04-13 16:06:00 by Shadowbot using popups)
• (cur) (last) 16:10, 13 April 2007 Rostov-on-Don (Talk | contribs)
• (cur) (last) 16:06, 13 April 2007 Shadowbot (Talk | contribs) (BOT--Reverting edits by Rostov-on-Don to revision 120974183 (irishabroad\.com))
• (cur) (last) 16:05, 13 April 2007 Rostov-on-Don (Talk | contribs)
• (cur) (last) 14:14, 7 April 2007 Demiurge (Talk | contribs) (rv blocked User:[email protected])

• Rostov-on-Don (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of indefinitely-blocked [email protected] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (proof [71] [72]) and so reverting their edits is exempt from the 3RR. I've already requested a block on WP:AN/I. Demiurge 11:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Not just indefinitely blocked, community banned. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No block on Demiurge, sockpuppet blocked instead. – Steel 12:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Smus reported by User:ProtectWomen (Result: warn)

• 1st revert: Revision as of 22:41, 14 April 2007
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 23:57, 14 April 2007
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 07:04, 15 April 2007
• 4th revert: Revision as of 09:17, 15 April 2007

Granted, this user is dealing with a separate sockpuppet issue and making reverts at will on the page, these are 4 reversions of 4 legitimate referenced edits.--ProtectWomen 11:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Smus had stated he will no do again. So I warned.Rlevse 14:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Darz kkg reported by User:Okkar (Result: 48 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Burmese Indians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Darz kkg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: 01:13, 15 April 2007
• 2nd revert: 05:50, 15 April 2007
• 3rd revert: 05:53, 15 April 2007
• 4th revert: 11:19, 15 April 2007

Comments: The facts and information included in this article are either false or unverifiable and written with extremely racist overtone and against Wikipedia NPOV policy (if you read the whole article you will no doubt realise that it is aggressively pushing for particular POV). Therefore I have tagged the article accordingly and request for verifications. However, the author in question presistently reverted the article back and left inflamatory personal attacks in the history list, I have warned the author using appropiate warning templates on his talk page. He edited his talkpage and removed the warning and any reasonable explanation that i have left, instead he replaced the talk page with racist accusations. He is playing the "race" card in order to get upper hand in the dispute, and it can be seen quite apperant in his remarks. I have tried to reason with him to provide "verifiable facts" according to Wikipedia guidelines but as of current, the way he is reacting, we are not getting anywhere. Okkar 11:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR vio and incivil summaries, 48 hour block.Rlevse 18:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Darz kkg reported by User:Okkar(Result: no vio)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Islam in Myanmar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Darz kkg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: 01:11, 15 April 2007
• 2nd revert: 05:46, 15 April 2007
• 3rd revert: 11:17, 15 April 2007

Comments: The facts and information included in this article are either false or unverifiable and written with extremely racist overtone and against Wikipedia NPOV policy (if you read the whole article you will no doubt realise that it is aggressively pushing for particular POV). Therefore I have tagged the article accordingly and request for verifications. However, the author in question presistently reverted the article back and left inflamatory personal attacks in the history list, I have warned the author using appropiate warning templates on his talk page. He edited his talkpage and removed the warning and any reasonable explanation that i have left, instead he replaced the talk page with racist accusations. He is playing the "race" card in order to get upper hand in an NPOV dispute, and it can be seen quite apperant in his remarks. I have tried to reason with him to provide "verifiable facts" according to Wikipedia guidelines but as of current, the way he is reacting, we are not getting anywhere. Okkar 11:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No violation, 3RR requires a 4th revert to violate the policy.Rlevse 14:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:AJackl reported by User:Smee (Result:No action)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Landmark Education jargon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). AJackl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 01:59, 13 December 2006

• 1st revert: 19:27, 15 April 2007
• 2nd revert: 19:51, 15 April 2007
• 3rd revert: 19:58, 15 April 2007
• 4th revert: 20:07, 15 April 2007

• Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.

• Diff of 3RR warning: 20:15, 15 April 2007

Comments

1. User had been warned previously by un-involved editor User:AgentCDE, that: Your edit appeared to be vandalism, and I reverted it as such. DIFF
2. User continues to be disruptive, and has violated 3RR without discussion on talk page in-between.

Smee 20:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

ANy admin that looks at the page history will see that Smee is the vandal here. This page was decided in conjunction with a series of editors and at least one admin Jossi to be non-notable as an article and redirected to Landmark Education. I did not do a 3RR - I justified my moves on the talk page and explained my reasoning. Smee has - without dealing with my TALK PAGE responses with any content addressing my concerns- continues to add content that the editors on the Landmark Education page were determined to be non-notable. I am happy to answer any questions any editor has about this but will make no further changes until either other editors have weighed in or someone has a question for me. Smee has a history of mis categorizing conflicts as if Smee is the victim in fact Smee seems to be intentionally propogating his minority POV and selling it. Please see the history of the Landmark education page. This 3RR complaint is consistent with SMEE's harassment in order to propogate Smee's POV.Alex Jackl 20:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The DIFFs speak for themselves, both the warning of vandalism from an un-involved editor, and the obvious violations of 3RR. The material was merged into the article Landmark Education as a consensus. After this material was then removed from the article, I re-started the article Landmark Education jargon to start a dialogue on the talk page, and see if I could come up with more sourced citations, whic I have, so far (7). The reverting and disruptive vandalism blanking of this article by this user needs to stop. Smee 20:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

No action, article is now on AFD and the only solutions would be a. blocking both of you or b. protecting the article. Neither of these are feasible because you need to be around for the AFD and protecting it would prevent any possible improvements. John Reaves (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! This will get resolved through the AFD process. Alex Jackl 20:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Pasquino reported by User:ems57fcva (Result: 31 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Frame-dragging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pasquino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 18:31, April 14, 2007

• 1st revert: 18:38, April 14, 2007 (partial revert)
• 2nd revert: 18:53, April 14, 2007
• 3rd revert: 18:58, April 14, 2007
• 4th revert: 05:12, April 15, 2007
• 5th revert: 15:56, April 15, 2007

The first four reverts were by an anonymous user. The recent trouble this user had been giving us on frame-dragging resulted in the page being semi-protected. After that, User:Pasquino did the same edit again. A look at Pasquino's comtributions shows that this account had been inactive since last December, when there was similar problems at that article. This user/anon has so far refused request to discuss the edit. --EMS | Talk 20:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Added note: A 3RR warning was left at User talk:87.20.237.18. --EMS | Talk 21:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

This same user appears to be operating a wide number of anon accounts with differing IPs, as well as the User:Pasquino account. Most/all of these accounts have been used only to edit that one article. I would like some guidance on the blocking policy here. Given that every recent edit is 3RR and copyvio all in the face of repeated warnings, is a set of permanent blocks on these accounts in order? Maury 21:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs) has blocked the user for 31 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 00:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Pgdn963 reported by User:AlistairMcMillan (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Iriver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pgdn963 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 20:43, April 15, 2007

• 1st revert: 22:07, April 15, 2007
• 2nd revert: 02:44, April 16, 2007
• 3rd revert: 02:48, April 16, 2007
• 4th revert: 02:57, April 16, 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 20:45, April 15, 2007

• I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 00:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Badmonkey reported by User:Athaenara (Result:Article protected)

Three-revert rule violation on Anchor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Badmonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: 02:36, April 16 2007 (UTC)
• 2nd revert: 07:11, April 16 2007 (UTC)
• 3rd revert: 08:51, April 16 2007 (UTC)
• Diff of 3RR warning: 09:09, April 16 2007 (UTC)

Comments

This user, who resumed edit warring after Anchor article was unprotected, has also been reported on the conflict of interest noticeboard for repeatedly restoring commercial company linkspam. — Athænara ✉ 09:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Defense: Those are not all reverts, several are edits in an attempt to find a compromise. Furthermore, any reverts in this context are attempts to correct vandalism; Athaenara is solicited by Russeasby and engaged in attempts to bias the article against a particular brand, and has been removing citations and links to published sources. bad·monkey _{talk to the {:()} :: 09:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to find a compromise by discussing it on the talk page, not by continually re-editing the article. The article is protected for the time being, but edit warring after it is unlocked will result in a block. Kafziel ^Talk 12:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[In re "Defense"] False. I am one of nearly three dozen members of the neutral point of view Third opinion project where a WP:3O request was posted in late March. — Athænara ✉ 09:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Badmonkey only reverted three times, and you need four for a 3RR report. mrholybrain's talk 12:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Not true. 3RR is not a guarantee of 3 free reverts every day. Kafziel ^Talk 12:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Rayis reported by User:Gerash77 (Result:No violation; article protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

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

• 1st revert: 07:57, 15 April 2007
• 2nd revert: 04:54, 16 April 2007
• 3rd revert: 05:40, 16 April 2007
• 4th revert: 05:43, 16 April 2007
• Aware of 3RR [73]

The part about Rooz being "funded by Hivos", and critics argument "it works in the interest of that nation, and does not represent factual accuracy of the events" was reverted four times as seen.--Gerash77 12:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Firstly, I never reverted to any older versions, None of those are the same versions of the article. --Rayis 13:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• This is completely unjust, I was not the one who broke 3RR and it was him, please see below where I elaborate: --Rayis 13:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Gerash77 reported by User:Rayis (Result:No violation; article protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Rooz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gerash77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 22:13, 12 April 2007
• 1st revert: 04:37, 16 April 2007
• 2nd revert: 10:18, 16 April 2007
• 3rd revert: 10:41, 16 April 2007
• 4th revert: 10:47, 16 April 2007

• Aware of 3RR See above, he has reported me!

The user has kept on reverting to his own POV version, while I was trying to reword the material which was OK to keep, while discussing what to do with the rest in talk. I removed the dubious statements which an admin Avraham (talk · contribs) also didn't find reliable [74] [75] (as they were blogs and/or in another language), and asked for the user to provide translation of the references he was providing, but he failed to do so and instead he reverted back to his own version. Anyone who would review this would see that I never broke the 3RR, but he indeed did to keep his POV --Rayis 13:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Those versions are not identical; it seems that he was trying to change them to be acceptable to you. Rather than reverting him, you should have left them as they were and taken the discussion to a talk page. Kafziel ^Talk 13:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well he did revert using popup tools without actually addressing the concerns to keep his POV there so he wasn't as cooperative as you make it sound like there, and I was discussing it in the talk page throughout! see talk:Rooz: he was not willing to translate the information claiming I know Persian so I should just accept his conclusions from the text personally! --Rayis 13:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Aaliyax reported by User:JediLofty (Result:Incomplete, no violation, no warning)

• Three-revert rule violation on

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

• Previous version reverted to: 13:46, 16 April 2007

User:John Stattic reported by User:JohnnyBGood (Result: user warned, blocked for 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Virginia Tech massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). John Stattic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 21:07, 16 April 2007

• 1st revert: [76]
• 2nd revert: [77]
• 3rd revert: [78]
• 4th revert: [79]
• 5th revert (after warning placed on his talk page by admin): [80]

• The user has now been warned per 3RR not to let this happen again. Nishkid64 00:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I've added a 5th revert done by this user now, after the warning was placed on his talk page. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 21:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Revival42 reported by User:192.150.20.11 (Result:page protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

The Revival Fellowship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Revival42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 21:42, 13 April 2007

• 1st revert: 17:59, 13 April 2007
• 2nd revert: 18:13, 13 April 2007
• 3rd revert: 21:42, 13 April 2007
• 4th revert: 04:44, 14 April 2007 * Note this revert was done by an IP address that is most likely Revival42 circumvating the warning that given.
• 5th revert: 14:11, 14 April 2007 * Repeat of above
• 6th revert: 9:05, 16 April 2007 * Note this revert was done by a suspected meatpuppet.

• The user was warned per 3RR not to let this happen again. But after the warning the user used an IP address for the 4th and 5th revert and then blanked out the warning on their talk page. Further reverts were done by meatpuppets/and or use of proxies whose only contribution to wikipedia was to revert the change to that article.

• The page has been fully protected. Please discuss on the article's talk page. Nishkid64 16:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User: Fm.illuminatus reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result: see following)

• Three-revert rule violation on

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

• Previous version reverted to: 09:43, April 172007

• Diff of 3RR warning: [81]

User: Fm.illuminatus reported by Slrubenstein | Talk (24 hrs)

• Three-revert rule violation on

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

• Previous version reverted to: [82]

• 1st revert: title=Evolution&diff=123562778&oldid=123489030
• 2nd revert: [83]
• 3st revert: [84]
• 4th revert: [85]
• 5th revert: [86]
• 6th revert: [87]
• 7th revert: [88]

• Blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation. Crum375 18:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Xiaodingjin reported by User:John Smith's (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

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

• Previous version reverted to: 18:11, 16 April 2007

• 1st revert: 11:55, 17 April 2007
• 2nd revert: 17:19, 17 April 2007
• 3rd revert: 17:30, 17 April 2007
• 4th revert: 18:36, 17 April 2007

The first revert has some intervening edits, but as you can see he is clearly reinserting a particular URL.

• Diff of 3RR warning: 18:31, 17 April 2007

• After he reverted the fourth time I asked him to self-revert and said that if he did I would not report him. 18:39, 17 April 2007

However he has not self-reverted.

Ordinarily I would not be so harsh on a new user as to report him, but he is also the author of the very link he is trying to insert. Thus I believe there is an even greater reason for him to be reported - he has ignored past requests from me to not keep inserting his own material, as well as comments from other users (relayed by me on his talk page) that it is a conflict of interest to do so. John Smith's 17:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 21:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Canadian Bichon Frise reported by User:Ruhrfisch (Result:Indef block; SPA)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Bichon Frisé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Canadian Bichon Frise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 19:36, April 16, 2007

• 1st revert: 14:44 April 17, 2007
• 2nd revert: 15:13, April 17, 2007
• 3rd revert: 17:29, April 17, 2007
• 4th revert: 17:43, April 17, 2007
• 5th revert: 19:12, April 17, 2007

Seems to be SPA, probable COI issues too. Ruhrfisch 19:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Neustriano reported by User:Barryob (Result: 31 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Template:UKFormation (edit | [[Talk:Template:UKFormation|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Neustriano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 18:59, 25 February 2007

• 1st revert: 17:14, 17 April 2007
• 2nd revert: 20:33, 17 April 2007
• 3rd revert: 20:40, 17 April 2007
• 4th revert: 21:40, 17 April 2007

• I have blocked the user for 31 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 21:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:HanzoHattori reported by User:Crockspot (Result: 31 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Battle of Hue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). HanzoHattori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

This user apparently took issue with edits previous to mine, and in the process, undid several hours of reference formatting and verification that I did on the article. I reverted, and asked the user not to undo my non-content formatting and verification work. The user has now reverted four times, removing valid work that I spent hours doing. He/she uses abusive edit summaries as well, and marked one of his major reverts as a minor edit, with no other summary. This user has been blocked in the past for violating 3RR, so it can be assumed that they are aware of the policy.

• 1st revert: [89]
• 2nd revert: [90]
• 3rd revert: [91]
• 4th revert: [92]

• I have blocked the user for 31 hours per WP:3RR. The first revert he showed is a "partial revert" and can still be considered for 3RR. HanzoHattori had three other reverts in the article, therefore resulting in a 3RR violation. Also, note that resorting to name-calling and such is not tolerated here. I'm leaving the same warning at Crockspot's talk page. Nishkid64 21:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you, I understand. I'll try to be more civil with this user when he comes off the block. - Crockspot 21:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:X4n6 reported by User:Corvus cornix (Result:31 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Nikki Giovanni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). X4n6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: [93]

• 1st revert: [94]
• 2nd revert: [95]
• 3rd revert: [96]
• 4th revert: [97]

31 hour block.Rlevse 00:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact a poem is readily available on the Internet does not mean it is free of copyright. This should have been worked on the talk page of the article first. X4n6 reverted 4x, which is a 3RR vio, and Corvus 3x, which is not a 3RR vio. Also, Corvus' removal is of a new poem, which is probably copyrighted, would be exempt from the 3RR rule.Rlevse 00:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Ariana310 reported by User:MichaelRXD (Result:No violation)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ariana310 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: [98]

• 1st revert: [99]
• 2nd revert: [100]
• 3rd revert: [101]
• 4th revert: [102]

This user seems to be aware of the 3RR rule and had committed 4 reverts without even an appology.MichaelRXD 01:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the reverts were reverts of vandalism. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Revival42 reported by User:192.150.20.11 (Result: page protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

The Revival Fellowship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Revival42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: [103]

• 1st revert: [104]
• 2nd revert: [105]
• 3rd revert: [106]
• 4th revert: [107]
• 5th revert: [108]

This is the 2nd time user has broken the 3RR rule. She was aware before (see previous report above), broke it, got warned. She was then warned again by User:FisherQueen to stop: [109] which she ignored and continued her blanking.

• I have fully protected. There are too many parties involved, and doing individual 3RR blocks would be counterproductive. Please continue the discussion at the article talk page. Nishkid64 16:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Bagrationi reported by User:Baristarim (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

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

• Previous version reverted to: 22:39, April 17, 2007

• 1st revert: Revision as of 14:56, April 18, 2007
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 15:06, April 18, 2007
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 15:17, April 18, 2007
• 4th revert: Revision as of 16:11, April 18, 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: [110]

Comments:

This user is most probably a sock of a banned user. Check the history of the page, and PersianPride91 (talk · contribs), another barely registered account which edited the same page and did the same edit yesterday. He has been slowly editing certain articles, and I suspect that he has been using a number of accounts. I will try to see what I can dig upBaristarim 14:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. If you feel there's a sockpuppetry case involved, please go to WP:RFCU and file a CheckUser case against PersianPride91. Nishkid64 16:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Gatoclass reported by User:Urthogie (Result: user warned)

• • Three-revert rule violation on

Allegations of Israeli apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gatoclass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Previous version reverted to: [111]

Comments

• User has reverted 4 timesa
• The content they are trying to add has not been thoroughly discussed on the talk page, making the editing environment of this controversial topic all the more worse.
• The edits also violate Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:NPOV.
• The user is making up claims about his source to justify the inclusion
• The user has been warned previously.
• The user is editing without the consensus of any of the other 10 or so editors on the talk page.

• The user has not made 4 reverts in any recent 24-hour period, but I have warned him/her per 3RR not to let this happen again. Nishkid64 20:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User:TingMing reported by User:Jerrypp772000 (Result: no violation)

• Three-revert rule violation on

User:TingMing (edit | [[Talk:User:TingMing|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TingMing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 20:31, 16 April 2007

• 1st revert: 06:22, 18 April 2007
• 2nd revert: 19:40, 18 April 2007
• 3rd revert: 19:47, 18 April 2007
• 4th revert: 20:09, 18 April 2007
• 5th revert: 20:22, 18 April 2007

Comments

• This user is a suspected sock of Nationalist (talk · contribs), I have never warned him for violating 3RR on his/her userpage but I've warned him that for violating an article.--Jerrypp772000 20:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• There is no evidence that I am a sock puppet of Nationalist. Jerrypp772000 has a consistent record of claiming anyone who is against him of being a sock of Nationalist. You can just check the "Check user on Nationalist" to see that he has claimed numerous people of being socks of Nationalist just because they went against Jerrypp772000. Although some did check out, some like Morphi and Blue Russian did not. He has no right to keep vandalizing my own user page. I have been harrassed by his terrible misconduct. TingMing 20:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Please see this for reference. "Suspected" not "confirmed."--Jerrypp772000 21:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Jpgordon evaluated the RFCU case as "possible". TingMing is entitled to keep his userpage clean, and repeatedly adding a tag that (even if it says suspected) is misleading is not the best way to handle this. I'd suggest you leave this matter alone for now until you can find more evidence against the user that could warrant a block. Nishkid64 21:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks anyways.--Jerrypp772000 21:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User:TingMing reported by User:Jerrypp772000 (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Guantian, Tainan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TingMing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 09:51, 22 March 2007

• 1st revert: 06:24, 18 April 2007
• 2nd revert: 19:44, 18 April 2007
• 3rd revert: 20:08, 18 April 2007
• 4th revert: 20:50, 18 April 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 19:48, 18 April 2007, 20:10, 18 April 2007

• I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 21:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User:B.Soto reported by User:Fordmadoxfraud (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Rob Liefeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). B.Soto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 21:35, 18 April 2007

All reverts are the same.

Diff of userpage 3RR warning.

Comments

• User consistently reverts any attempt to modify the inherently POV phrase "most hated man in comics" (in edits without summaries) and to remove {{fact}} tags when they were used as a compromise alternative to deletion.
• The citation referenced is unacceptable.
• Three separate editors have attempted to keep the constant reversion in check: User:Mordicai, 209.214.97.66 and myself.

• I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. For future reference, please provide diffs to make it easier for admins dealing with your requests. Nishkid64 21:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. This was the first time I've ever had to use this. Ford MF 21:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Urthogie reported by User:Gatoclass (Result:48 hours)

First, let me just say thanks for letting me off with a warning a few minutes ago for inadvertently violating 3RR. Contrary to what User Urthogie said about me in his report, I have never remotely approached 3RR before or received a warning for it in almost a year of editing. The violation on this occasion was caused by plain ignorance on my part - I thought the 3RR rule meant you couldn't revert the same user three times on the same page in 24 hours, but it seems that is not the case.

Now, I have never reported a 3RR before, and normally I just don't bother because I figure it only creates bad feeling. But in this case I am going to report user Urthogie because of his sheer hide.

This guy has been wholesale reverting everyone on the Allegations of Israeli Apartheid page for days if not weeks on end. As you can see from his talk page[112] he has already received multiple warnings and apparently been let off time after time. Yet in spite of being treated with great leniency by others, he immediately reports me for inadvertently violating 3RR once by a mere 30 minutes!

Not only that, but this very day that he has reported me for just barely violating 3RR, he himself has made at least 5 reverts on the same page in the last 24 hours! I haven't counted them all but they include wholesale reverts of multiple edits by different editors (such as this one[113] and this one[114]), which he has repeatedly been asked not to do, to no avail.

Quite frankly I feel this guy deserves much more than just a 24 hour ban for his serial edit warring and hypocrisy, but I hope you will at least see fit to give him that much.

• First revert: 21:15, 17 April 2007
• 2nd revert: 21:23, 17 April 2007
• 3rd revert: 21:38, 17 April 2007
• 4th revert: 16:08, 18 April 2007
• 5th revert: 18:54, 18 April 2007
• 6th revert: 19:59, 18 April 2007

Thankyou. Gatoclass 21:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the second time this month Urthogie has violated 3RR on that same article. He is blocked for 48 hours. Kafziel ^Talk 22:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Brian0918 reported by User:Ragib (Result:No action taken)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Brian0918 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 10:49, 18 April 2007

• 1st revert: 10:59, 18 April 2007
• 2nd revert: 11:22, 18 April 2007
• 3rd revert: 11:25, 18 April 2007 Previous version reverted to: [115]
• 4th revert: 14:47, 18 April 2007 Previous version reverted to: [116]

• Note: The user added a non-FA to the TFA page. When it was removed and he was notified that the main page nominations page is only for FA's, he reverted back the content repeatedly. Also, reverted partially other changes in the page. His point has been refuted repeatedly by others including Raul654, the main page FA director.

• Also, user has disputed that his partial edit doesn't count. However, WP:3RR clearly says that reverts do not have to be to the same content. --Ragib 22:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Also note that Ragib has been extensively involved in the dispute and made a revert himself. However, I have previously nominated FAC articles for FA before, without any complaint. People complained this time (which is fine), but rather than try to work out a guideline or policy, they just reverted me. Also note that I was genuinely unaware that WP:3RR had been modified to tally all article reverts rather than reverts of the same content (as had always been the case to my knowledge). Such a change is a step backwards, in my opinion, since it is possible for multiple individuals to constructively improve an article by reverting eachothers edits and making alternative suggestions (as we have done extensively on Atheism). The dispute has been settled though, as Raul654 finally decided not to allow FACs to be requested, and I've updated WP:TFA to reflect his decision. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 22:35Z

• • As an administrator, you claim to be ignorant of WP:3RR? My *sole* revert has been *before* I was involved in the talk page, so "extensively involved" is a misstatement. For whatever reason you edit-warred is irrelevant per WP:3RR, and you *were* clearly told about the TFA page issue, but yet decided to revert extensively. --Ragib 22:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • No, I claim to be ignorant of every slight temporary wording change made to various policies. I've handled many 3RR cases in my day, and we never counted unrelated reversions. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 22:45Z

This is really a non-issue. Brian edit warred and he shouldn't have. He knows better. He won't do it next time. The issue itself has been settled. I'm dismissing this 3rr complaint. Raul654 22:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• I would've taken discussion over a revert war any day. It all started when my suggestion was deleted (along with all the replies to it) for a baseless reason. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 22:48Z
  • And so that justifies your edit war? Nope. --Ragib 22:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, my edit war... I was edit warring with myself, clearly... As Raul654 considers this matter closed, I will too. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 22:54Z

• • • • Fortunately, article histories are available for anyone to see, and count any reverts. --Ragib 22:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: Added the "Previous version reverted to" for the 3rd and 4th reverts, as the previous versions were different from the first two. - KNM ^Talk 22:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I see I missed the rest of this. This is an interesting resolution to this case, which was clear, blatant, and disruptive edit warring in the face of multiple (seven, no less) editors discussing on talk and disagreeing with Brian0918's edits. First, it is not accurate that he was unaware of how 3RR reads, because I notified him (after his second and third revert) and he acknowledged my posts, disagreed, and argued. [117] [118] It is equally untrue that people just reverted him without discussion; multiple editors were trying to reason with him on the talk page, and there was discussion all along. I'm concerned about the pattern, and about the double standards that are being employed throughout Wiki and with respect to admins, particularly in light of the recent discussions about 3RR of global warming on WP:AN. This is a clear double standard, with admin protection. I hope if I ever edit war as blatantly as this, and then go to the talk page with a WP:POINT about nominating atheism for the main page on Christmas, I won't be blocked, because this was blatant disuptive editing, Brian0918 was advised, and a clear double standard is being employed. The pattern here is alarming; non-admins are blocked for single edits on global warming or intelligent design, while an admin can blatantly edit war and get away with it on atheism. Most alarming is that Raul654 is involved in protecting all three. Please, consistency and avoidance of conflict of interest for the betterment of the encyclopedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I echo SandyGeorgia on this. I hate these double standards that are blatantly being applied and this also why I have little respect for administrators. Why can't ANI actually discipline an admin who is clearly in the wrong for a change, or will all of you adminstrators continue to consistently protect disruptive admins from discipline? It's clear bias by ANI and it isn't funny at all. If this message from me annoys people who work at ANI then good - perhaps you'll get off your backsides and stop applying double standards finally. Hmm or maybe you'll block me for saying that? I wouldn't be surprised. ANI is a farce. LuciferMorgan 09:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User:DocGratis reported by User:Wikidudeman (Result: 8 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

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

• Previous version reverted to: 17:49, 18 April 2007

• 1st revert: 18:23, 18 April 2007
• 2nd revert: 19:09, 18 April 2007
• 3rd revert: 22:48, 18 April 2007
• 4th revert: 23:16, 18 April 2007

Comments

This user was warned prior to the 4th revert but continued.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've stayed out of this last round of argument, but was editing the page last week, and it appears to me that in this round today User: DocGratis (with whom I didn't particularly agree over much of this) was restoring the consensus wording that we worked for a while to reach. User: Wikidudeman, however, seemed not willing to wait for other editors to comment and changed the wording away from consensus several times, despite an ongoing discussion on talk and hidden text requesting that it not be changed without discussion. So if one is blocked, I'd say the other should be too. Tvoz |talk 06:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • three people agreeing to something a week ago isn't a "consensus" today when others step forward to disagree. Moreover, This is a 3rr noticeboard for reporting violations of 3rr. It isn't about discussing my purported attempts not to "wait for other editors".Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Limboot reported by User:Merzbow (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

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

• Previous version reverted to (1, 2, 3, 4): 2007-04-16T21:52:46
• Previous version reverted to (5, 6): 2007-04-18T11:27:25

• 1st revert: 2007-04-17T21:31:29
• 2nd revert: 2007-04-18T06:29:14
• 3rd revert: 2007-04-18T10:49:27
• 4th revert: 2007-04-18T11:00:06
• 5th revert: 2007-04-18T12:45:37
• 6th revert: 2007-04-18T21:41:17

• Diff of 3RR warning: 2007-04-18T11:19:19

Gave him ample warning and coaching at reverts 3 and 4, yet he continued. There's a big language barrier here with this new user; maybe we can find a Dutch-speaking editor to talk to him? - Merzbow 05:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

24 hours, he can apparently speak English well enough to be pretty uncivil. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Padraig3uk reported by User:163.167.129.124 (Result: Page protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Template:Northern Ireland cities (edit | [[Talk:Template:Northern Ireland cities|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Padraig3uk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 09:27 19 April

• 1st revert: 20:13 18 April
• 2nd revert: 21:14 18 April
• 3rd revert: 21:12 18 April
• 4th revert: 08:16 19 April

This user is, by edit warring, systematically removing NI flags from UK templates, without discussion or reaching consensus; thereby making these templates, which appear on many articles, inconsistent and ugly. See edit history for lack of any agreement.

• Comment, I removed the Ulster banner from the template as it is not the Flag of Northern Ireland, this flag has no legal status for the past 35yrs, I pointed this out to User:163.167.129.124 and linked to the Northern Ireland flags issue on his talk page, yet he deleted my comment prior to making this report. Also the editor User talk:84.71.220.180 that was engaing in this alledged edit war also reverted this rule but has not been reported here.--padraig3uk 09:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Rebuttal: Northern Ireland flags issue does not justify User:Padraig3uk's actions. Similarly, St. George's cross, St. Andrew's saltire and the Red Dragon flag have no legal standing. Also, User:84.71.220.180 is not in breach of the 3RR, having only made 3 edits. 163.167.129.124 10:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The Flags of Enland,Scotland and Wales are recognised under British law and the British Government as National Flags, they don't recognise the Ulster Banner as under British Law only the Union Flag is recogised as offical for use in Northern Ireland.--padraig3uk 10:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Protected, the whole history of that page is an edit war, with not a one comment on the talk page. Take it there, please. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)