위키백과:관리자 알림판/3RRARchive55

사용자:사용자가 보고한 동작남:캄팔락(결과:조치 없음)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

Mohammed_Zahir_Shah(토크 내역 편집으로 로그 보기 링크 삭제 보호).Beh-nam(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고시간 : 2007년 8월 13일 19시 8분 (UTC)[응답]

• 이전 버전이 다음으로 복구됨: [1]

• 1차 되돌리기: [2]
• 2차 되돌리기: [3]
• 세 번째 되돌리기: [4]
• 4번째 되돌리기: [5]
• 5번째 되돌리기: [6]

여러 편집자가 사용자 참여 시도:사용자가 계속 하는 논란의 여지가 있는 편집과 관련하여 Behnam.우리의 편집은 사용자를 참여시키려는 노력에도 불구하고 몇 번이고 반복되었다.이용자의 활동은 이 기사를 훨씬 뛰어넘어, 대다수의 편집자들이 이 글과 관련 기사를 작업하는 데 극도로 문제가 되고 있다.

기사 토론 페이지: [7] 사용자:베남 토크 페이지: [8]

내 주장을 위해 다른 부분을 입력하는 것.해당 사용자가 내 토크 페이지에 남긴 댓글이다.그것은 나와 다른 사람들이 공공 기물 파손이 아니라면 부적절한 행동이라고 보는 이면의 동기를 그림으로 그리는 데 도움이 될 것이다.

내 강연: [9]

이 사용자는 계속해서 소싱된 재료를 제거하고 있었고 나는 소싱된 재료의 제거를 중지하라고 여러 번 말했다.소싱된 재료의 제거는 엄격히 기물 파손으로 간주되며 기물 파손은 3RR 위반 없이 제거될 수 있다.그래서 이 3RR 위반은 반복적인 반달리즘을 제거하고 있었기 때문에 무효다. --Behnam 19:16, 2007년 8월 13일 (UTC)[응답]

또한 사용자:캄팔락은 이 근원을 반복적으로 제거해 왔다.이 4개의 반전을 그에게서 보시오.사용자가 소스 정보를 제거할 경우 그것은 공공 기물 파손이며 다른 사용자가 소스 정보를 제거할 수 없다는 것을 이해할 때까지 이를 다시 시도할 수 밖에 없다.여기 그가 소싱한 자료의 반전이 있다.

• 1차 되돌리기: [10]
• 2차 되돌리기: [11]
• 세 번째 되돌리기: [12]
• 4회 되돌리기: [13]

--Behnam 20:44, 2007년 8월 13일 (UTC)[응답]

• 아무런 조치도 취하지 않음 - 지금은 역사적이다.스파르타즈 19:28, 2007년 8월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

- 위키백과에서 온 렉시 케이 무료 백과사전 개정 역사

• 사용자가 계속해서 대부분의 기사를 삭제하고 나열된 잘못된 정보와 웹 사이트를 제공함!그것은 공공 기물 파손과 나쁜 상식이다.비교한 페이지 [14]

사용자는 이 페이지와 다른 페이지에 대해 여러 번 주소를 받았으며 다른 편집자의 설명을 무시한다.Chuck Sirloin은 계속해서 편집하고 삭제하며 잘못된 정보를 제공한다.

• 첫 번째 되돌리기: (cur) (마지막) 2007년 8월 16일 00:37, Chuck Sirloin (Talk 기여) (1,351바이트) (WP와 일치하도록 주요 다시 쓰기:BLP, 대화 페이지, 추가 참조 참조(실행 취소)
• 2차 되돌리기: (커브) (마지막) 2007년 8월 16일 00:38, 척 설로인 (토크 기여) m (1,347바이트) (수정 참조) (언도)
• 3차 리턴(커브) (마지막) 2007년 8월 16일 00:41, 16 Chuck Sirloin (토크 기여) (1,554바이트) (삭제 대상으로 지정됨; 위키백과:삭제/렉시 케이에 대한 기사.TW 사용)(실행 취소)
• 4차 리턴(커브) (마지막) 15:06, 2007년 8월 17일 척 설로인 (토크 기여) (1,554바이트) (rm 비소스 정보, WP: 참조:BLP 살아있는 사람들의 전기 규칙이 헷갈린다면 (undo)
• 5ht revert(커브) (마지막) 15:46, 2007년 8월 17일 척 시로인 (토크 기여) (1,839바이트) (again, 제거되지 않은 정보, 소스와의 새로운 라인 추가)대화 페이지를 참조하십시오.) (실행 취소)
• 6번째 리턴(커브) (마지막) 15:55, 2007년 8월 17일 척 설로인 (토크 기여) (1,839바이트) (rv 비소싱 정보) (언도)

User:Brickocean months by User:Rjecina(결과:무한 - 삭스푸펫)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

Bachka의 인구통계 기록(대화 기록 편집 보호 로그 보기 보기)Brickocean month(대화 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고시간 : 2007년 8월 13일 20시 42분 (UTC)[응답]

되돌리기:

• 1차 되돌리기: [15]
• 2차 되돌리기:[16]
• 세 번째 되돌리기: [17]
• 4회 되돌리기: [18]

그는 오늘 4번이나 인터넷 출처와 확인된 글에서 아무런 이유 없이 진술을 삭제했다.그는 모든 반전을 통해 "1948년 유고슬라비아/세르비아 민족 청소[3] 유고슬라비아 바치카의 인구는 807,122명(포함)이었다"는 진술을 삭제했다.이 사용자는 의심의 여지 없이 오늘에야 위키의 "새로운" 회원이 되었고 이 13시간 동안 그는 3번의 되돌리기 전쟁을 시작했다.이 짧은 시간 동안 그는 다른 기사에서 3RR 규칙을 깼다. (세르비아 중부 지방의 Vlach 언어)

• 막힌 양말스파르타즈 2007년 8월 14일(UTC) 19:31[응답]

User:Brickocean months by User:토도르보히노프(결과:막힘 양말)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

템플릿:불가리아의 민족 집단(편집 [[토크:템플릿:불가리아 talk]]의 민족 그룹은 삭제 링크를 보호하며 로그 보기를 감시한다.Brickocean month(대화 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고시간 : 2007년 8월 13일 19시 23분 (UTC)[응답]

• 이전 버전이 다음으로 복구됨: 2007년 8월 12일 19:37

• 1차 되돌리기: 09:37, 2007년 8월 13일
• 2차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 13일 10시 47분
• 3차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 13일 11시 3분
• 4회 되돌리기: 21:22, 2007년 8월 13일
• 5회 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 13일 21시 43분
• 6회 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 13일 22시 13분

• 명확한 사용자:보나파르트 양말

WP 대기:RCU, 비난 그만해 2007년 8월 13일(UTC) 브릭코션 월 20:18 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 막힌 양말 스파르타즈 2007년 8월 14일(UTC) 19:31[응답]

사용자:218.133.184.93이 사용자에 의해 보고됨:Arthur_Rubin (결과:48시간)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

Copeland-Erdős 상수(편집 대화 기록 보호 링크 삭제 로그 보기 보기). 218.133.184.93(대화 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고시간 : 2007년 8월 13일 21시 48분 (UTC)[응답]

• (정확한 버전은 찾을 수 없지만, 이 모든 버전은 동일하며, 첫 번째 버전이 역전이 아니더라도 나머지 버전은 동일함)

• 1차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 13일 20시 10분
• 2차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 13일 21시 10분
• 3차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 13일 21시 30분
• 4회 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 13일 21시 36분
• 5회 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 13일 21시 40분
• 6회 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 13일 21시 41분

• 새로운 사용자에게 필요: 마지막으로 보고된 되돌리기 전에 발표된 3RR 경고의 확산.

당신의 보고서가 제대로 배치되지 않으면 무시될 것이다.

• 3RR 경고의 확산: 2007년 7월 20일 17:23

댓글

적어도 4번의 반전이 더 있었다.— 아서 루빈 (대화) 2007년 8월 13일 (UTC) 23:13[응답]

• 2007년 8월 14일(UTC) 루나 산틴 스파르타즈 19:34에 의해 48시간 차단[응답]

사용자:Str1977 사용자가 보고함:MichaelCPRICE(결과:위반 없음)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

Ebionite(대화 기록 편집 보호 링크 삭제 로그 보기)Str1977 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고된 시간: 22:08, 2007년 8월 13일 (UTC) 회신:[응답]

• 1차 환원: 00:03, 2007년 8월 13일 샤셀도니아 교회에서 "복원 교회"로 (4차 및 6차 환원 경로와 동일)
• 2차 되돌리기: 00:05, 2007년 8월 13일 전체 통로 삭제
• 3차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 13일 00:19, 기타 변경사항 중 "펠라로 가는 비행"에 대한 텍스트 삭제
• 4회 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 13일 14:01, 바울린 기독교는 "카톨릭 교회"로 개종했다.
• 5번째 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 13일 21:00, 전체 단락을 삭제하여 삭제한 바울린 기독교에 대한 언급, 다른 변경 사항들 중 가장 많이
• 6회 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 13일 21시 45분 바울린 기독교가 "발전하는 정통 기독교"로 바뀌었다.

사용자는 잘못된 현대적 설명을 사용할 것을 고집하며, 토크 페이지 대화에도 불구하고 다른 구절 전체를 삭제한다.에비오나이트 운동을 정의한 '폴린 기독교'로 에비오나이트 분열에 대한 모든 언급을 제거해 기사를 무의미하게 만든다.

• 논평 에비온사이트 기사의 역사 부분은 그것을 좀 더 간결하게 만들고 일부 사설 논평을 제거하기 위해 여러 편집자들에 의해 재작업되고 있다는 점에 유의해야 한다.이러한 예상된 몇 가지 되돌리기는 암묵적인 티격태격 논쟁보다는 명확성을 위해 편집하는 정상적인 과정에서 이루어졌다.고소인은 다른 편집자들을 자극해 3RR로 만들려 한 전력이 있으며, 최근 다른 기사에서 3RR 블록에 대한 보상을 받으려 하고 있다.2007년 8월 14일 오바다 03:30 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 기사에서의 오바다아의 나쁜 행실에 대해서는 냄비가 주전자를 검은색으로 부르는 경우인 마이클 C일 수도 있다. 가격 11:14, 2007년 8월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

• 티격태격은 암시하지 않았다. --마이클 C. 가격 05:17, 2007년 8월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

• 설명:내가 보고한 반전을 좀 따져볼게.나는 단지 세 번의 실제 반전을 볼 수 있다.
  • 1번, 4번, 6번 모두 '파울린 기독교'와 '카톨릭 교회'라는 용어의 적절성을 중심으로 한 같은 구절을 가리키는 말이다.
  • 그러나 5절은 그 구절(보도 편집자가 암시하는 바와 같이)이 아니라 '폴린 기독교'라는 말도 포함된 또 다른 구절을 가리킨다.그것은 전혀 되돌릴 수 없으며, 이전에 다른 사람이 편집한 내용과 무관한 내용 편집일 뿐이다.
  • 2번과 3번도 내용 편집이며, 위와 완전히 다른 구절은 별도로 계산해서는 안 된다.
  • 두 번째에 대해서는 이 편집에 의해 몇 분 후 부분적으로 자기반복되었다는 점도 고려해야 한다.
  • 마지막으로 위에서 주어진 시간들에 대해 조금 혼란스럽다.내 위키피디아는 이 모든 편집에 대해 다른 날짜를 제공한다.누가 설명해줄래?Str1977 09:23, 2007년 8월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

• 코멘트 나는 5번째 역귀환이 1번째, 4번째, 6번째 구절과 같은 구절에서 왔다는 것을 의미하지 않았다. 1번째, 4번째, 6번째 구절만 동일한 것으로 확인되었기 때문에 상당히 반대였다.그러나 3RR은 기사에 대한 모든 변경에 적용되므로 이는 무관하며, 따라서 2번째와 3번째도 포함된다.나는 두 번째 되돌리기가 부분적으로만 되돌아갔다는 것에 동의한다.시대적으로 보면, 내게는 괜찮아 보이지만, 내 PC는 GMT가 아닌 영국 여름 시간대에 있는데, 디스플레이가 한 시간 정도 꺼지는가?만약 그렇다면, 그것은 단지 상대적인 변화일 뿐이고 어떤 3RR 주장에도 영향을 미치지 않아야 한다. --Michael C. 가격 09:49, 2007년 8월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

네, 한 시간.나는 그들이 그 문제에 영향을 미친다고 말하지 않았다. 단지 나는 이것에 대해 혼란스러웠다.설정을 조정하십시오.

IMHO 나의 편집은 되돌리는 것이 아니라 갈등하는 글에서 꽤 표준적인 (열선내리기는 하지만) 편집이다. 사실, 되돌리는 것은 기사의 한 부분으로 제한되지 않고, 한 부분이 되돌리는 것과 관련이 없는 다른 문제가 있는 지문은 대개 하나의 되돌리는 것으로 간주된다.Str1977 10:18, 2007년 8월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 여기서 어떤 종류의 되돌리기 전쟁도 볼 수 없다 - 위반된 스파르타즈 19:39, 2007년 8월 14일 (UTC)[응답하라]

사용자:RookZERO가 사용자에 의해 보고됨:정확도(결과:페이지 보호 / 48시간 블록)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

Eurabia(대화 기록 편집 보호 링크 삭제 로그 보기)RookZERO(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고시간 : 2007년 8월 14일 00:24 (UTC)[응답]

• 이전 버전이 03:44, 2007년 8월 9일로 변경됨

• 1차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 13일 22시 27분
• 2차 되돌리기: 00:01, 2007년 8월 14일
• 3차 되돌리기: 00:07, 2007년 8월 14일
• 4회 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 14일 00:17

2007년 8월 14일 00:24 (UTC)에 대한 정확한 답변

• 나는 3일 동안 페이지를 보호했다. 링크 문제를 해결하려면 기사 대화 페이지를 이용하라.스파르타즈 2007년 8월 14일 (UTC) 19:42 [응답]
• 앞서 편집자는 앨리슨 4장 19절, 2007년 8월 15일자 (UTC)[응답하라] 등 3편의 기사를 편집하기 위해 차단했다.

• 코멘트, 나는 이것이 중대한 오심이라고 말해야 한다.아직 공식적으로 증명되지는 않았지만, Rook은 오늘날의 많은 사람들과 마찬가지로, 많은 시간을 퍼마블한 유저의 롤링 IP 양말과 싸우며 보냈다.각하.당신이 금지된 사용자와 그들의 ip 양말을 무한히 되돌릴 수 있는 것을 고려할 때, 나는 The ip's가 확인될 때까지 Rooks가 망명에서 풀려날 것을 지지한다.존 04:48, 2007년 8월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

Rook이 4RR 및 WP용으로 차단됨:오늘 완전히 다른 주제에 대한 NPA.하지만 테렌즈 보고 때문에 그를 괴롭혔어.2007년 8월 15일 미수 07:03 (UTC)[응답]

사용자: BIGCANDICEFAN 보고:바순(결과:최종 경고)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

Dave_Finlay(대화 내역 편집 보호 로그 보기 보기 링크 삭제)BIGCANDICEFAN(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고시간 : 2007년 8월 14일 00:36 (UTC)[응답]

• 이전 버전이 다음으로 복구됨: 22:59

• 1차 되돌리기: 22:59
• 2차 되돌리기: 1시 30분
• 3차 되돌리기: 23:51 DIFFTIME
• 4회 되돌리기: 00:11

• 새로운 사용자에게 필요: 마지막으로 보고된 되돌리기 전에 발표된 3RR 경고의 확산.

당신의 보고서가 제대로 배치되지 않으면 무시될 것이다.

• 3RR 경고의 확산: 00:03(BIGCANDICEFAN 그 다음 제거).

사용자가 지속적으로 Dave Finlay의 링 닉네임을 제거함 - 그것들은 존재하지 않는다고 주장함.나는 그에게 구글 검색이 얼마나 흔한지를 보여주는 링크를 주었다.다른 사용자도 자신의 사용에 대한 참조를 복원하고 삽입했다.이것들 또한 되돌렸다.그러나 또 다른 사용자도 그들이 상식이라고 말했다.빅캔디스팬은 이것을 부인하고 있다.그는 이어 "그 어떤 링크도 그 별명만큼 쓸모없지 않으며 그 별명은 WWE에 있지 않다"고 말했다.COM은 연습생이라서 안 나와."토크페이지에.나는 그에게 그들이 WWE에서 사용할 수 있도록 토크 페이지의 직접적인 링크를 주었다. 그는 다시 돌아왔다.바스턴^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:36, 2007년 8월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

• 이 사용자가 얼마나 새로운 사람인지에 따라 나는 최종 경고에 응했다.다음 번에는 블록이 될 것이다.스파르타즈 2007년 8월 14일(UTC) 19:53[응답]

User:W. Frank가 보고한 내용:Domer48(결과:12시간)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

게리 애덤스(대화 기록 편집 보호 링크 삭제 로그 보기).W. 프랭크(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고시간 : 2007년 8월 14일 18시 17분 (UTC)[응답]

• 이전 버전이 다음 버전으로 되돌림: 2007년 8월 14일 15:

• 1차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 14일 15시 38분

• 2차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 14일 16시 22분

• 3차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 14일 17시 44분

• 4회 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 14일 18시 7분

• 새로운 사용자에게 필요: 마지막으로 보고된 되돌리기 전에 발표된 3RR 경고의 확산.

당신의 보고서가 제대로 배치되지 않으면 무시될 것이다.

• 12시간스파르타즈 20:07, 2007년 8월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:220.253.45.202가 사용자가 보고함:럭키루이(결과:미처리)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

Ghost(대화 기록 편집으로 로그 보기 보기 삭제 링크 보호)220.253.45.155(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고시간 : 2007년 8월 15일 00:25 (UTC)[응답]

• 이전 버전이 다음으로 복구됨: [19]

• 첫 번째 되돌리기: [20]
• 2차 되돌리기: [21]
• 세 번째 되돌리기(삭제형 삭푸펫):[22]
• 4번째 되돌림: [23]
• 5번째 되돌리기: [24]

가능한 3RR의 통지: [25]

사용자: 사용자가 보고한 Misou:Foobaz 및 사용자:AndroidCat[26](결과:미처리)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

사이언톨로지(대화 기록 편집 보호 링크 삭제 로그 보기)Misou(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고시간 : 2007년 8월 15일 00:38 (UTC)[응답]

• 이전 버전이 다음으로 복구됨: 21:05, 2007-08-14(UTC)

• 1차 되돌리기: 22:57, 2007-08-14(UTC)
• 2차 되돌리기: 23:01, 2007-08-14(UTC)
• 3차 되돌리기: 23:36, 2007-08-14(UTC)
• 4차 되돌리기: 23:48, 2007-08-14(UTC)
• 5차 되돌리기: 04:14, 2007-08-15(UTC)
• 6번째 되돌리기: 04:29, 2007-08-15(UTC)
• 7번째 되돌리기: 05:09, 2007-08-15 (UTC) 가능한 양말 또는 고기 조각, 위키백과:중재/COFS/증거 요청

• 새로운 사용자에게 필요: 마지막으로 보고된 되돌리기 전에 발표된 3RR 경고의 확산.

당신의 보고서가 제대로 배치되지 않으면 무시될 것이다.

• 3RR 경고의 확산: 08:44, 2007-07-20

안녕. 저기 위에 있는 소위 말하는 되돌리는 것은 - 하지만, 나를 보고하는 두 사람을 아는 것은 전혀 놀랍지 않아 - 그들은 같은 영역, 같은 주제, 같은 내용을 다루지 않기 때문에 가짜야.BTW, 이 이전 이야기에서 내가 4RR과 WP에 대해 RookZERO를 보고한 것이다.NPA 위반(48시간 차단됨)은 여기를 참조하십시오.

어쨌든, 대화 페이지를 참조하십시오.우리는 논란의 여지가 있는 변화에 대해 "협상"에 들어갔고 되돌리기 게임을 떠났다.그 가짜 거짓말은 날 쏘기 위해 미숙한 행정관들에게 정기적으로 사용된다.이 주제에 대해 자세히 알아보려면 여기를 확인하십시오.2007년 8월 15일 미수 07:01 (UTC)[응답하라]

"…두 남자가 날 보고한다는 걸 알고 있는 건 놀랄 일도 아니지."WP 위반 방법:AGF 및 WP:일거에 NPA.네가 허용한 세 번의 반전을 훨씬 넘어서 기사를 개선하려는 시도를 막고 있어서 보도하는 것이지, 내가 개인적인 복수를 해서가 아니다.나는 전에 너를 옹호한 적이 있고, 앞으로도 그렇게 하기를 고대하고 있어.요점은, 나와 다른 동료들이 함께 작업할 수 있는 편집 작업을 해야 한다는 겁니다.Foobaz·o< 2007년 8월 15일 (UTC) 20:19[응답]

들어봐, 만약 내가 편집을 하고 있는데 누군가가 와서 코멘트 없이 그것들을 되돌리고, 토크 페이지 사용을 거부하고, 그리고 나서 내 편집 내용을 "문화"라고 부른다면, 나는 이것에 대해 괜찮지 않아.당신은 지난 몇 달 동안 - 그와는 반대로 - 어떤 공정함도 보여주지 않았고 - 나는 당신이 WP에 반대하는 것을 본 적이 없다.사이언톨로지스트에 대한 NPA들.그래서 나는 네가 너의 행동을 정당화하기 위해 무슨 말을 하든 별로 신경 안 써.당신이 열거한 반전은 a) 같은 주제에 관한 것이 아니고, b) 글의 같은 부분에 관한 것이 아니며, c) 순수 POV 푸싱의 반전에 관한 것이다.그것이 네가 지지하는 것이다.난 "싸움"이나 이런 터무니없는 소리 때문에 나온 게 아니야.나는 중립적이고 정확한 백과사전을 원한다.우리가 같은 입장이고 여기서 시간 낭비를 그만둘 수 있다는 것을 보여줘.2007년 8월 16일 미수 01:18 (UTC)[응답하라]

위키피디아에 따르면:3역전 규칙, "역전이란 매번 동일하거나 다른 자료를 포함하든 다른 편집자의 행동을 취소하는 것을 의미한다."이것을 포함한 많은 편집 전쟁에서, 양측은 그들의 버전이 올바른 버전이라고 확신하고 있다.당신은 사람들의 편집 내용에 동의하지 않기 때문에 WP:3RR을 위반할 자유 출입증을 받지 못한다.관련된 다른 편집자들 중 누구도 세 번의 반전을 깨지 못했다.Foobaz·o< 01:49, 2007년 8월 16일 (UTC)[응답]

좋아, 위키백과 정책을 적용하려고 하는구나.계속 그렇게 해, 정말 멋져!2007년 8월 16일 미수 05:43 (UTC)[응답]

PS, 룩제로가 48시간 동안 막혔어, 계속 찾아봐.2007년 8월 16일 미수 05:45 (UTC)[응답하라]

사용자:212.182.158.110이 사용자에 의해 보고됨:Dynaflow(결과:미처리)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

버지니아 폴리테크닉 연구소와 주립대(편집 대화 기록 보호 링크 삭제 로그 보기). 212.182.158.110(대화 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고된 시간: 2007년 8월 15일 01:31 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 이전 버전은 다음 버전으로 되돌렸다: 2007년 8월 12일 (첫 번째 되돌리기는 여기서 마지막 편집과 함께 추가된 변경사항의 축소판이며, Talk 페이지의 토론에 따라 다른 사용자에 의해 되돌렸다.첫 번째 복귀 후, 나는 AGF를 할 수 있었지만, 나머지 복귀는 그것을 날려버렸다.필요한 경우 첫 번째 되돌리기를 초기 버전으로 간주하십시오.이것은 엄격한 24시간 3RR이 아니라, 전쟁 편집 의지를 보인 사용자의 방해로 차단할 수 있어야 한다.)

• 1차 되돌리기: [27]
• 2차 되돌리기: [28]
• 세 번째 되돌리기: [29]
• 4회 되돌리기: [30] (소지, 고기, 또는 양말뿌리개)
• 5번째 되돌리기: [31]

• 새로운 사용자에게 필요: 마지막으로 보고된 되돌리기 전에 발표된 3RR 경고의 확산.

당신의 보고서가 제대로 배치되지 않으면 무시될 것이다.

• 3RR 경고의 확산: [32]

사용자가 보고한 Giovanni33(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 페이지 이동 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그):Tbeatty(결과:

• 조지 W 부시 비판 3반칙 위반

• 1차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 12일 10시 53분 현재 개정
• 2차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 12일 11시 9분 현재 개정
• 3차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 12일 12시 15분 현재 개정
• 4회 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 14일 09시 14분 현재 개정
• 5회 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 14일 17:06 기준 개정

일반적으로 이것은 아직 기술적 위반이 아니다. 사용자:Giovanni33은 3RR 정책을 이해하고 있으며, 그가 전쟁을 편집하고 있으며, 기술적인 위반이 없도록 그의 편집 전쟁 반전을 계속하기 위해 더 많은 편집자를 모집하고 있었다는 것을 인정한다.[33][34].이것은 노골적인 게이밍 the System 위반이다. --Tbeatty 03:45, 2007년 8월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

또한, 그는 광범위한 블록 로그[35]에 따라 이전에 시스템을 조작한 적이 있다.가장 최근에는 2007년 6월 28일 24시간 30분 리턴으로 게임. --Tbitty 03:56, 2007년 8월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지오반니는 편집 전쟁의 오랜 역사를 가지고 있으며, 여러 번 중단하라는 말을 들었다.나는 2주 동안 차단을 하고 있다.Heimstern Laufer (대화) 04:05, 2007년 8월 15일 (UTC)[응답하라]

사용자:사용자가 보고한 Flavius Belisarius:보노네스(결과: 24시간 차단)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

터키(대화 기록 편집 보호 링크 삭제 로그 보기)Plavius Belisarius(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고된 시간: 03:45, 2007년 8월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

• 1차 되돌리기: [36]
• 2차 되돌리기: [37]
• 세 번째 되돌리기: [38]
• 4회 되돌리기: [39]

댓글 - 인신공격도 주목해야 한다. --Vonones 03:45, 2007년 8월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

• 24시간 차단. --골베즈 08:40, 2007년 8월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:DigiFilmMaker가 보고함:지롤라모 사보나롤라(결과:미처리)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

Red Digital Cinema Camera Company(대화 내역 편집 보호 링크 보기 로그 보기)DigiFilmMaker(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고시간 : 05:09, 2007년 8월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

• 이전 버전이 다음 버전으로 되돌림: 23:06, 2007년 8월 14일

• 1차 되돌리기: 01:11, 2007년 8월 14일
• 2차 되돌리기: 02:55, 2007년 8월 14일
• 3차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 14일 22시 34분
• 4회 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 14일 23시 6분

• • 사용자 페이지에 여러 개의 {{스팸}}개의 경고가 표시되고 사용자가 공백으로 표시했다.(사용자 대화 페이지 기록을 참조하십시오.)
• 3RR 경고의 확산: 익명 편집자에 의해 수행됨

또한 의심스러운 Sock-puppet 계정: James8445(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고시간 : 2007년 8월 15일 22시 5분 (UTC)[응답]

• 1차 되돌리기: 03:30, 2007년 8월 15일
• 2차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 15일 15시 16분

• 3RR 경고의 확산: 2007년 8월 15일 18:03.

두 계정 사이의 계정 동작은 매우 동시대적이며, 편집 요약과 마찬가지로 편집도 거의 동일하다.두 계정 모두 다른 실질적인 수정 사항 없음.지롤라모 사보나롤라 22:05, 2007년 8월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

• 문제 없음, 다른 사람이 검토하도록 하려면 수정하십시오.스파르타즈 10:34, 2007년 8월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

위에 언급됨.지롤라모 사보나롤라 22:05, 2007년 8월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:VitasV 보고 사용자:Dr.사용자(결과: 24시간)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

닥터 후 이야기 연대기(대화 기록 편집 보호 링크 삭제 로그 보기 보기)VitasV(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고된 시간: 2007년 8월 15일 08:37 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 이전 버전이 2007년 8월 12일 16:42 또는 2007년 8월 11일 21:36으로 되돌아감

다른 사용자가 사용자에게 다음과 같이 반복적으로 말함.비타스V는 '닥터 후'라는 영화 제목을 잘못 바꾸고 있는데 자꾸 엉뚱한 이름으로 바꾸기만 한다.

• 1차 되돌리기: 04:37, 2007년 8월 14일
• 2차 되돌리기: 09:06, 2007년 8월 14일
• 3차 되돌리기: 09:16, 2007년 8월 14일
• 4회 되돌리기: 00:08, 2007년 8월 15일

• 완전히 새로운 사용자가 아니다.이 사용자는 특히 동일한 웹페이지와 관련하여 3월부터 예의 바름, 편집, 콘텐츠 공백에 대한 경고를 받고 있지만, 대화 페이지에서 경고를 삭제한다.[40]

특정 3RR 경고 직후 사용자:VitasV가 다시 돌아감:

• 이 24시간 내에 1차 복귀: 2007년 8월 14일 15:08
• 2차 되돌리기: 00:08, 2007년 8월 15일
• 3차 되돌리기: 09:32, 2007년 8월 15일
• 경고 09:39, 2007년 8월 15일
• 4회 되돌리기: 09:41, 2007년 8월 15일

박사 보고누구.

• 24시간 스파르타즈 10:40, 2007년 8월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Dillip rajev 보고:PCPP(결과:미처리)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

Palun Gong(대화 기록 편집 보호 링크 삭제 로그 보기)Dilip rajev(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고된 시간: 2007년 8월 15일 08:43 (UTC)[응답]

• 1차 되돌리기: [41]
• 2차 되돌리기: [42]
• 세 번째 되돌리기: [43]
• 4회 되돌리기: [44]
• 5회 되돌리기: [45]
• 6번째 되돌리기: [46]
• 7번째 되돌리기: [47]
• 8번째 되돌림: [48]

딜립은 파룬궁과 파룬궁 박해에 관한 오코푸치우스와 나의 편집본을 반복적으로 되돌려서 이틀 안에 몇 장의 논쟁적인 단어에 대한 전체 페이지와 통지를 되돌렸다.그는 또한 나를 반달이라고 불렀고, 사용자라고 말했다.새뮤얼 루오(Samuel Luo)가 사용자 확인으로 나를 협박했다[49].그는 이전에 1년 조금 전에 3RR을 위반했다[50]--PCPP 08:43, 2007년 8월 15일 (UTC)[응답하라]

사용자:AquariusBoy01이 사용자에 의해 보고됨:Art_281(결과: 해결된 것으로 나타남)

이 사용자는 다음과 같은 기사를 만들었는데, 그의 기사 버전은 문장, 단편, 참고문헌이 없었다.그래서 좀 더 자세한 내용과 참고자료로 편집했는데 그는 계속 '기사를 소유한다'고 되뇌고 있다.그냥 참고자료로 더 디테일한 걸 추가했을 뿐이고 참고자료와 디테일한 부분이 더 잘 어울린다고 했는데 자꾸 되돌아가고 있다.어떻게 해야 할지 모르겠어, 내가 해야 할 일을 하고 있으니까 그에게 경고해 줘.고마워!

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

Milena Roucka(모델)(토크 내역 편집으로 로그 보기 삭제 링크 보호).AquariusBoy01(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고시간 : 2007년 8월 15일 15시 54분 (UTC)[응답]

• 이전 버전이 다음으로 복구됨: 버전시간

• 새로운 사용자에게 필요: 마지막으로 보고된 되돌리기 전에 발표된 3RR 경고의 확산.

당신의 보고서가 제대로 배치되지 않으면 무시될 것이다.

• 3RR의 확산 경고: DIFFTIME

• 우리는 그것을 해결했다.

사용자:BigDunc가 사용자가 보고함:코니피스(결과:페이지 보호됨)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

버밍엄 펍 폭탄 테러(편집 대화 기록 보호 링크 삭제 로그 보기)BigDunc(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고시간 : 2007년 8월 15일 21시 9분 (UTC)[응답]

• 이전 버전이 다음으로 복구됨: 버전시간

• 1차 되돌리기: [51]
• 2차 되돌리기: [52]
• 세 번째 되돌리기: [53]
• 4회 되돌리기: [54]

Comment BigDunc는 새로운 사용자가 아니다.그는 위키 가이드라인을 잘 알고 있는 것 같다.그러나 그는 문제의 기사에 너무 애착을 갖게 되었다.그는 지난 12시간 동안 3명의 편집자 개개인의 기고를 편집/반환했다.그는 이전에 편집 전쟁으로부터 경고를 받은 적이 있다.[55]

• W 프랭크가 아일랜드 공화당의 기사들을 파괴적으로 편집하는 것을 고려해 볼 때 공평하게 보호되는 페이지스파르타즈 22:49, 2007년 8월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

User:Cz mike by User:Isarig(결과:24시간)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

해안도로 대학살(편집 대화 기록 보호 링크 삭제 로그 보기)Cz 마이크(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고시간 : 2007년 8월 15일 21시 31분 (UTC)[응답]

• 이전 버전이 다음 버전으로 되돌림: 21:50, 2007년 8월 14일

• 1차 되돌리기: 01:21, 2007년 8월 15일
• 2차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 15일 11시 27분
• 3차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 15일 16시 15분
• 4회 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 15일 21시 23분
• 5회 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 15일 21시 34분
• 6회 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 15일 23시 5분

• 새로운 사용자에게 필요: 마지막으로 보고된 되돌리기 전에 발표된 3RR 경고의 확산.

당신의 보고서가 제대로 배치되지 않으면 무시될 것이다.

• 3RR 경고의 확산: [56]

사용자는 달랄 무그라비와 바루치 골드스타인에서 추가 편집 전쟁과 추가 3RR 위반에 관여한다.

방금 이 사용자를 직접 보고하려던 참이었습니다.다수의 관련 항목을 놓고 편집전을 벌이고 있으며, 신규 사용자임에도 경고가 발령됐다.Tewfik^Talk 23:03, 2007년 8월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자가 계속 되돌아가고 있다는 점에 유의하십시오. 마지막 2회 되돌리기(5 & 6회)는 3RR이 제출된 후입니다.— Isarig가 추가한 이전의 서명되지 않은 논평(토크 • 기여)

또한 중단이 계속 진행 중이기 때문에 어떤 조치도 빠른 시일 내에 취해져야 한다는 것을 경고하기 위해 왔다.Tewfik^Talk 23:09, 2007년 8월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:209.171.84.178 보고:테리어스팬(결과: 24시간)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

TAXI(광고 대행사) (토크 히스토리 편집 보호 링크 감시 로그 보기).209.1984.84.19 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고시간 : 2007년 8월 15일 21시 9분 (UTC)[응답]

• 이전 버전이 다음으로 복구됨: 18:01, 4월 7일

• 1차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 15일 14시 57분
• 2차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 15일 15시 49분
• 3차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 15일 15시 54분
• 4회 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 15일 17시 22분

• 새로운 사용자에게 필요: 마지막으로 보고된 되돌리기 전에 발표된 3RR 경고의 확산.

당신의 보고서가 제대로 배치되지 않으면 무시될 것이다.

• 3RR 경고의 확산: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A209.171.84.178&diff=151410567&oldid=151409995 15:57, 8월 15일]

24시간 동안 차단됨.다른 IP가 문제가 되면 나에게 알려 주거나 WP로 이동하십시오.반보호용 RFPP.마스트셀 22:41, 2007년 8월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Burgas00이 사용자가 보고함:이사리그(결과: 48시간)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

제닌 전투(토크 히스토리 편집 보호 링크 삭제 로그 보기).Burgas00(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고된 시간:

• 이전 버전이 다음으로 복구됨: 2007년 8월 14일 17:47

• 1차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 14일 23시 13분
• 2차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 15일 17시 4분
• 3차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 15일 19시 28분
• 4회 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 15일 19시 44분

• 새로운 사용자에게 필요: 마지막으로 보고된 되돌리기 전에 발표된 3RR 경고의 확산.

당신의 보고서가 제대로 배치되지 않으면 무시될 것이다.

• 3RR 경고의 확산: 2007년 8월 15일 20:16, 신규 사용자가 아니라 경고했음에도 불구하고, 3RR을 위반했다는 사실을 부인하고 경고를 삭제하는 것으로 대응했다.

코멘트 해당 사용자는 2007년 8월 15일(UTC) 2차 리턴 후 내가 준 uw 테스트 경고에 대한 응답으로 이 사실을 알았다.

• • 48시간 동안 차단, 3RR 위반, 블록 로그 및 인신공격에 기록된 이전 기록.마스트셀 22:38, 2007년 8월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:사용자가 보고한 펑키누사이에리:에계기(결과 : 24시간)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

중동(대화 기록 편집 보호 링크 삭제 로그 보기).펑키누세이리(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고시간 : 2007년 8월 15일 22시 59분 (UTC)[응답]

• 이전 버전이 다음으로 복구됨: 21:41

• 1차 되돌리기: 21:41
• 2차 되돌리기: 22:24
• 3차 되돌리기: 22:35
• 4회 되돌리기: 22:44

• 이 사용자가 이 특정 삭제에 대해 관리자[58] 및 기타 사용자로부터 경고를 받은 것은 처음이 아니다.또 다른 편집자들은 그를 모욕한 적이 없는데도 불구하고 계속 이름을 부른다.에계기 22:59, 2007년 8월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

• 24시간.스파르타즈 09:29, 2007년 8월 16일 (UTC)[응답]

User:Nospam3333333, User 보고:Oli Filth(결과: 24시간 차단)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

클라이드 N. Wilson(대화 기록 편집으로 로그 보기 보기 삭제 링크 보호).Nospam3333(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고시간 : 2007년 8월 16일 00:44 (UTC)[응답]

• 이전 버전이 다음 버전으로 되돌림: 05:52, 2007년 8월 15일

• 1차 되돌리기: 07:07, 2007년 8월 15일
• 2차 되돌리기: 01:12, 2007년 8월 16일
• 3차 되돌리기: 01:33, 2007년 8월 16일
• 4회 되돌리기: 01:37, 2007년 8월 16일

• 3RR 경고의 확산: 01:28, 2007년 8월 16일

사용자:Att 281이 사용자가 보고함:물병자리 보이01(결과:조치 없음)

그는 토리 윌슨의 이동 섹션이 "*토네이도 DDT 실행(2003-04)을 빼앗아갔다는 것을 계속 되짚고 있다.

되돌리는 것도 아니고 되돌리는 것도 아니고, "이 페이지 편집"에 가본 적도 없고, 되돌린 적도 없고, 역사를 보라.아트 281 00:26, 2007년 8월 16일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:AquariusBoy01이 사용자에 의해 보고됨:Art_281(결과:조치 없음)

그는 계속 그녀의 기사인 "Trenado DDT"를 붙이는데, 그 움직임은 3년 전부터 사용되지 않고 있고, 그 안에 시간이 있는데도 불구하고, 너무 오래되어 그 움직임을 보이지 않는다.

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

Torrie Wilson(대화 기록 편집 보호 링크 삭제 로그 보기).AquariusBoy01(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고시간 : 2007년 8월 16일 00:31 (UTC)[응답]

• 이전 버전이 다음으로 복구됨: 버전시간

• 1차 되돌리기: DIFFTIME
• 2차 되돌리기: DIFFTIME
• 세 번째 되돌리기: DIFFTIME
• 4회 되돌리기: DIFFTIME

• 새로운 사용자에게 필요: 마지막으로 보고된 되돌리기 전에 발표된 3RR 경고의 확산.

당신의 보고서가 제대로 배치되지 않으면 무시될 것이다.

• 3RR의 확산 경고: DIFFTIME

이 두 요청 모두 제대로 처리되지 않아, 두 요청 모두 CitiCat ^♫ 06:04, 2007년 8월 16일(UTC)에 차단되기 전에 해결할 수 있는지 알아보려고 한다[응답].

User:Jmfangio by User:Ksy92003(결과:작업 없음)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

위키백과 대화:주석/크리스넬슨 요청(편집 [[Talk:위키백과 대화:설명 요청/크리스넬슨 대화] 기록 보호 로그 보기 링크 삭제).Jmfangio(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고시간 : 09:01, 2007년 8월 16일 (UTC)[응답]

• 이전 버전이 01:37, 2007년 8월 16일로 변경됨

• 1차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 16일 01:41
• 2차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 16일 01:44
• 3차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 16일 01:48
• 4회 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 16일 01:51

• 이 사용자는 이전에 WP:3RR을 위반했으며 지난 주에 두 번(금요일 및 화요일) WP:3RR에 대해 차단됨

• 그때도 같은 이슈였다 - 당신은 코멘트를 조정했다.나는 그것을 게시한 지 몇 초 만에 댓글을 삭제했다.그런 다음 회신할 수 있도록 다시 삽입하십시오.WP에 정통해야 할 사항:이전의 "인터랙션"에서 TPG를 참조하십시오. 그리고 이것은 기사가 아닌 토크 페이지이므로, 나는 더 이상 갖고 싶지 않은 토론을 계속하기 위해 당신이 재입고하는 나의 의견을 계속 삭제하겠다.후안 미겔 팡시오 ►챗 09:09 (UTC) 2007년 8월 16일 (UTC)[응답]
• 관련 편집이 포함된 것으로 보이지 않는다 - 여기 있다.후안 미겔 팡시오 ►챗 09:14 (UTC) 2007년 8월 16일 (UTC)[응답]

Jmfangio, 내가 너의 코멘트에 대해 내 코멘트를 입력했다는 것을 알아야 해.당신이 그것을 제거했든 안했든, 내 의견은 여전히 당신의 의견에 대한 답이었다.너의 논평이 삭제되어 내 코멘트의 가치가 낮아졌다.댓글을 올렸기 때문에 댓글을 남긴 이유가 무엇인지 알 필요가 있다.당신의 코멘트를 삭제함으로써, 내 코멘트는 그다지 말이 되지 않는다.나는 심지어 WP에 의해 완벽하게 받아들여지는 당신의 의견을 무시한 채 타협을 생각해냈다.TPG, 그것도 자네를 만족시키지 못했어.내가 답하고 있던 코멘트를 볼 수 있어야 그 토론을 읽는 사람들이 내가 왜 그런 말을 했는지 알 수 있다.

그리고 어젯밤에 크리스 넬슨이 여기에 댓글을 남겼지만, 그러고 싶어서 삭제한 것 같아.복원하셨는데, 편집 요약이 무엇이었는지 기억하십니까?"이것 좀 봐야겠어."네가 무슨 말을 했든 철회하지 않았든, 넌 여전히 그 말을 했고, 나는 여전히 그 말에 응했다.나는 너의 코멘트에 크리스 넬슨의 코멘트에 네가 한 것과 똑같은 일을 했다. 그것은 너의 기준으로도 완벽하게 받아들여졌다.네 코멘트를 다 썼을 때 불법이라고?Ksy92003(토크) 09:18, 2007년 8월 16일 (UTC)[응답]

• 조치 없음.진짜 남자들 그게 중요한 거야?페이지를 지금 상태 그대로 두고 가서 유용한 작업을 찾아 보십시오.스파르타즈 09:21, 2007년 8월 16일 (UTC)[응답]

• 스파르타즈에게 너무 고맙다. 나는 이 편집자(그리고 다른 편집자)가 템플릿 토크를 제외한 모든 대화 페이지에 나를 끌어들이지 않기를 바랐다.Infobox NFLactive.운이 없다.어젯밤에 비슷한 상황을 보호하느라 막혔어.이해해줘서 고마워, 답장이 왔으니, 나는 그 페이지를 뺄 거야.LMK 더 필요한 정보가 있으면 스파르타즈와 내가 제공하겠다.후안 미겔 팡시오 ►챗 09:28 (UTC) 2007년 8월 16일 (UTC)[응답]

그래서 차단되는 것은 검토 관리자에게 개인적으로 중요한지에 따라 달라지는가?말할 것도 없이...정책의 위반아니면 아마 지난 일주일 정도 동안 두 번이나 그 일로 인해 차단된 사실일 것이다.Mmkay.►Chris Nelson 09:28, 2007년 8월 16일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• • 네가 너무 좋게 말했기 때문에, 내가 원래 한 말은 내가 지금까지 본 것 중 가장 극소수의 반전 전쟁이라는 거야.이것은 손가방 4보만큼 큰 혼란은 아니다.솔직히 편집자가 원하지 않을 때 억지로 참여하도록 하는 것은 경계선 괴롭힘이다.분쟁 해결의 첫 단계는 해제하는 것이다.편집자가 하는 것을 막는 것은 단순히 켜져 있지 않고 나는 편집자가 분리하려고 하는 것을 막지 않을 것이다.스파르타즈 09:37, 2007년 8월 16일 (UTC)[응답]

대화를 계속하고 싶지 않다고 사용자를 차단하라는 것이 아니다.그가 위반한 정책(이번 주에 세 번째)에 대해서는 그를 차단해야 한다.Jmfangio가 자신의 의견을 토크 페이지에서 완전히 삭제하도록 허용해서는 안 된다.그들은 토론의 일부분이고 일단 그것이 밖으로 나오면 그것은 더 이상 "그의"가 아니다.어제 내가 내 것 중 하나를 삭제하려고 했는데 젬팡기오가 "이것을 봐야 한다"고 복원했다는 것도 지적하고 싶다. 위선적이라고 말할 수 있는가?『크리스 넬슨 09:40, 2007년 8월 16일 (UTC)』[응답]

• 참고: 다른 언급된 편집자 - 이제 보지 않음.후안 미겔 팡시오 ►챗 09:29 (UTC) 2007년 8월 16일 (UTC)[응답]

User:Watermint 보고:전원 사용(결과: 위반 없음)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

일본해 논쟁(편집 이야기 역사 링크를 보logs 견해를 삭제하도록 도와 준단다)의 이름.워터민트(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고시간 : 2007년 8월 13일 19시 8분 (UTC)[응답]

• 이전 버전이 다음으로 복구됨: [59]

• 1차 되돌리기: [60]
• 2차 되돌리기: [61]

그는 엔드로이트의 소켓 인형이다.그는 계속 되돌아간다.그는 계속해서 정당한 편집을 막았다.2007년 8월 16일 (UTC) 11:31, Leakpower[응답]

• 참고:관리자님, 저를 확인하십시오.나는 다른 사용자들의 속바지가 아니다. 그리고 나는 3r-규칙을 어긴 적이 없다.게다가, 사용자 대화로는 Kukri에 의해 Leakpower가 차단되었다.Lefpower#경고 제거.나는 Leakpower가 User의 속편이라고 의심한다.Bason0 이 요청대로.나는 이 사용자에 의한 인신공격에 문제를 일으켰다.안녕,--Watermint 15:37, 2007년 8월 16일 (UTC)[응답]
• 참고: 사용자를 차단한 경우:하루 일찍 전원을 켜두고 이 사용자가 사용자 대화의 한 조각이라는 점을 체크 사용자 사례에 추가하십시오.베이슨0. 16:36, 2007년 8월 16일 (UTC)[응답]

보고서 외관상으로는 위반이 없다.스파르타즈 17:36, 2007년 8월 16일 (UTC)[응답]

User:L 보고된 사용자:Iceage77(결과:위반 없음 )

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

BBC에 대한 비판 (토크 히스토리 편집 보호 링크 삭제 로그 보기).L(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고시간 : 2007년 8월 16일 15시 39분 (UTC)[응답]

• 1차 되돌리기: [62]
• 2차 되돌리기: [63]
• 세 번째 되돌리기: [64]
• 4번째 되돌리기: [65]
• 5회 되돌리기: [66]
• 6번째 되돌리기: [67]

이 모든 편집은 콘텐츠 분쟁과 관련이 있다.아무도 공공 기물 파손을 되돌리지 않는다.Iceage77 2007년 8월 16일 15:39 (UTC)[응답]

• 블로그스팟 링크를 제거하면 가까운 것 같지만 4개의 유사한 반전이 보이지 않는다.지금으로서는 위반은 없다.스파르타즈^Humbug! 17:39, 2007년 8월 16일 (UTC)[응답]
  • WP:3RR로부터: "편집자는 이 규칙을 위반하기 위해 세 번 이상 페이지에 동일한 되돌리기를 수행할 필요가 없다; 편집자가 24시간 내에 특정 페이지에 한 모든 되돌리기를 계산한다."아이스라지77 2007년 8월 16일 (UTC) 17:42, 응답

• 7번째 되돌리기: [68]

이것은 다양한 다른 편집자들이 배치한 동일한 정보를 삭제하는 또 다른 복귀작이었다.2007년 8월 16일 개화 18:57 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이미 6번째 리턴을 추가하여 그것을 포함시켰다.아이스라지77 21:04, 2007년 8월 16일 (UTC)[응답]

User:Ksy92003 User:Jmfangio가 보고함:Navou(결과: 이미 보고 및 해결됨)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

위키백과 대화:주석/크리스넬슨 요청(편집 [[Talk:위키백과 대화:설명 요청/크리스넬슨 대화] 기록 보호 로그 보기 링크 삭제).Ksy92003(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그) Jmfangio(토크 · 기여 · 로그 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고시간 : 2007년 8월 16일 17시 24분 (UTC)[응답]

• 이전 버전이 다음으로 복구됨: 16/8/3:44

• 1차 되돌리기: 8월 16일 03:44
• 2차 되돌리기: 8월 16일 03:47
• 3차 되돌리기: 8월 16일 03:50
• 4회 되돌리기: 8월 4일:30일 16시
• 5차 되돌리기: 16일 8월 4일:34

내가 두 편집자를 모두 보고하는 것에 주목하라. 이것은 현재 콘텐츠 이슈를 언급하는 행동적 이슈에 더 가깝다.나는 콘텐츠 논쟁에 관여하지 않고 그 내용에 대해 의견이 없다.2007년 8월 16일 나보 17:39 ^banter (UTC)[응답하라]

나는 오늘 이 문제를 좀 더 일찍 다루었다. (내 토크 페이지에서 수 백만 번 편집된 내용을 좀 더 자세히 참조)토크 페이지 코멘트를 계속 복원하는 것이 그 특정한 논의에서 손을 떼려는 젬팡요의 시도를 효과적으로 좌절시키고 있다고 느꼈기 때문에 나는 그때 차단하지 않았다.적어도 3RR에서는 다루어야 하지만 3RR에서는 다루어지지 않는 관련 편집자 중 한 명에게 추가적인 실행 문제가 있는 것으로 보인다.스파르타즈^Humbug! 17:43, 2007년 8월 16일 (UTC)[응답]

응, 그런 식으로 나타나는데, 팽요오에게도 이런 선택권이 있다는 걸 이해하겠어. 그리고 그냥 코멘트를 남기고 그냥 무시해.이것을 좀 더 조사해 본 후, 전반적인 평가에 대해 너의 의견에 동의하겠다.내가 할 수 있다면 오늘밤에 또 다른 장소를 게시할 것 같다.2007년 8월 16일 나보 17:48 ^banter (UTC)[응답하라]

참고로, 내가 실수하지 않는 한, 나는 단지 세 번의 반전을 했을 뿐이다; 네 번째는 3RR로 이어질 수 있는 것이다.Ksy92003(토크) 17:53, 2007년 8월 16일 (UTC)[응답하라]

다섯 개의 반전이 위에 연결되어 있다.부분적으로든 전체적으로든.나보 21:13, 2007년 8월 16일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:HillChris1234가 사용자가 보고함:레이먼드_arritt(결과: 24시간)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

지구 온난화(대화 기록 편집 보호, 로그 보기 보기 삭제)HillChris1234(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고시간 : 2007년 8월 16일 20:18 (UTC)[응답]

재료 추가 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=151668008&oldid=151667940 19:51, 2007년 8월 16일

• 1차 되돌리기 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=151669311&oldid=151668536 2007년 8월 16일 19:58
• 2번째 리턴 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=151669708&oldid=151669311 20:00, 2007년 8월 16일
• 3번째 리턴 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=151670556&oldid=151670258 20:04, 2007년 8월 16일
• 4번째 리턴 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=151671723&oldid=151670946 20:09, 2007년 8월 16일

• 새로운 사용자에게 필요: 마지막으로 보고된 되돌리기 전에 발표된 3RR 경고의 확산.

당신의 보고서가 제대로 배치되지 않으면 무시될 것이다.

• 3RR 경고의 확산: 2007년 8월 16일 20:00

지구온난화 논란에 여기에 나타난 것과 같은 내용을 추가하기 시작했다.

*@Raymond_arritt #2는 역전이 아니다. 실제로 3일 때 4로 제시된 것이 실망스럽다. 너는 그 때 더 잘 알 수 있을 만큼 충분히 경험이 있다. 스파르타즈 20:33, 2007년 8월 16일 (UTC)Struck Spartaz 20:54, 2007년 8월 16일 (UTC)[응답]

부분적인 되돌림이었다.중간 개정이 생략된 점에 유의하십시오.부분반환에 관련된 소재를 강조하기 위해 이렇게 포맷했지만, 어떻게 혼동될 수 있는지 이해했다.중간 편집에서 변경된 내용을 보여 주는 차이점이 있다.[69] 레이먼드 아릿 20:38, 2007년 8월 16일 (UTC)

고맙게도 지금 가지고 있지만 코레사트가 나를 완패시켰다.그는 24시간이 있다.나의 이전 직책의 함축성에 대한 나의 사과 - 그것은 부적절했고 나는 그것을 이해했다.스파르타즈^Humbug! 20:54, 2007년 8월 16일 (UTC)[응답]

별일 아닙니다.우선 좀 더 명확하게 설명했어야 했다.레이먼드 아릿 21:34, 2007년 8월 16일 (UTC)

사용자:75.92.137.83이 사용자가 보고함:Someguy0830(결과: 24시간)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

Ben 10(대화 내역 편집 보호 로그 보기 링크 삭제).75.92.137.83(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고시간 : 2007년 8월 17일 00:04 (UTC)[응답]

• 1차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 16일 08:35
• 2차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 16일 16시 32분
• 3차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 16일 16시 43분
• 4회 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 16일 16시 58분

• 3RR 경고의 확산: 2007년 8월 16일 16:52, 8월 16일

24시간 자란다 02:03, 2007년 8월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Ksy92003이 사용자:Jmfangio에 의해 보고됨(결과:Jmfangio의 경우 48, Ksy92003의 경우 블록 없음)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

딕 레인(미국 축구) (토크 히스토리 편집으로 로그 보기 삭제 링크 보호).Ksy92003(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고된 시간: 01:55, 2007년 8월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

• 1차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 16일 17시 57분
• 2차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 16일 19시 15분
• 3차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 16일 21:16
• 4회 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 16일 21시 33분

• 이것은 계속되는 분쟁의 증상이다.우리는 지난 며칠 동안 많은 전쟁을 편집해 왔다.그의 편집은 WP로부터 멀어졌다.AGF와 그의 WP 진입 거부가 있었다.Dr. Dr. I는 현상유지를 요구해왔다 - 무엇이 체류 중이고 무엇이 아닌지는 제외된다.이것은 상대방에게 용납될 수 없는 것으로 보인다.이 사용자가 내 허락도 없이 자신의 토크 페이지에 내 댓글을 베끼는 바람에 요전 날 24시간 전화가 끊겼다.이것은 즉시 중단되어야 한다.우리 둘 다 (내가 동의한) 논쟁 콘텐츠의 편집을 중지하는 데 동의해야 한다 - 만약 그렇지 않다면 - 나는 기꺼이 내 편집 내용을 이 논쟁과 위키백과 관련 기사로 제한시킬 것이다:코멘트/크리스넬슨의 편집이 본 분쟁 및 그가 속한 다른 분쟁에 한정된다는 전제하에 제출한 의견/크리스넬슨에 대한 요청(RFCC는 그러한 것 중 하나가 아님)후안 미겔 팡시오 ►챗 01:55 (UTC) 2007년 8월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

Jmfangio는 틀렸다."첫 번째 되돌리기"는 내가 그 페이지를 처음 편집한 것이다.그러므로 나는 3RR을 위반하지 않고 오직 3번만 되돌렸다."1차 되돌리기" 편집을 보고 되돌리기가 아닌지 확인하십시오.Ksy92003(토크) 01:58, 2007년 8월 17일 (UTC)[응답하라]

첫 번째 편집은 내가 볼 수 있는 한 되돌리는 것이 아니다. Jmfangio는 네 번의 반전을 통해 역사를 살펴봤고, 이번이 세 번째 블록이기 때문에 48번의 반전을 했다.자란다 01:59, 2007년 8월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Dohanlon이 보고함:지롤라모 사보나롤라(결과: 24시간)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

Century of the Century(토크 히스토리 편집 보호 링크 삭제 로그 보기)Dohanlon(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고시간 : 02:04, 2007년 8월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

• 이전 버전이 다음 버전으로 복구됨: 2007년 8월 10일 17:44

• 1차 되돌리기: 08:00, 2007년 8월 11일
• 2차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 12일 17시 1분
• 3차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 14일 10시 38분
• 4회 되돌리기: 08:57, 2007년 8월 16일
• 5회 되돌리기: 08:57, 2007년 8월 16일
• 6회 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 16일 21시 5분
• 7회 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 16일 21시 5분
• 8회 되돌리기: 21:06, 2007년 8월 16일
• 9회 되돌리기: 21:06, 2007년 8월 16일

• 새로운 사용자에게 필요: 마지막으로 보고된 되돌리기 전에 발표된 3RR 경고의 확산.

당신의 보고서가 제대로 배치되지 않으면 무시될 것이다.

• 3RR 경고의 확산: 2007년 8월 16일 21:51, 16

24시간, 기록 보기, 사용자 차단:레긴문트는 3rr도 위반했다.자란다 02:07, 2007년 8월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

2007년 8월 17일 (UTC) 02:12, 내 잘못 레긴문트의 차단을 풀었다.

User:Soulgany101 User:Zeraeph(결과:조치 없음)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

알렉시티미아(편집 대화 기록 보호 로그 보기 로그 보기 링크 삭제)Soulgany101(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고된 시간: 02:53, 2007년 8월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

• 이전 버전이 다음으로 복구됨: 버전시간

• 1차 되돌리기: 02:04, 2007년 8월 17일
• 2차 되돌리기: 02:06, 2007년 8월 17일
• 3차 되돌리기: 02:10, 2007년 8월 17일
• 4회 되돌리기: 02:25, 2007년 8월 17일

• 새로운 사용자에게 필요: 마지막으로 보고된 되돌리기 전에 발표된 3RR 경고의 확산.

당신의 보고서가 제대로 배치되지 않으면 무시될 것이다.

• 3RR의 확산 경고: DIFFTIME

• 완료되지 않음 결과는 아무런 조치도 취하지 않았다.이 요청은 많은 섹션이 완료되지 않아 형식이 잘못되었다.사용자가 경고를 받았다는 증거가 없음.사용자 요청에도 똑같이 전쟁 되돌리기가 유죄라는 강한 의혹.닐 ム 10:50, 2007년 8월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:RookZERO가 사용자에 의해 보고됨:미소우(결과:조치 없음, 편집자가 사용자:토크에 대해 상담함)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

사이언톨로지(대화 기록 편집 보호 링크 삭제 로그 보기)룩제로(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):미소우

AN/I에서 크로스포스팅:

이것은 예측 가능하고 또 다른 4RR 정도일 것이다.2007년 8월 17일 미수 01:55 (UTC)[응답하라]

이 차단은 그에게 통하지 않는다.Vaila:

Diff 1, :Diff 2, :Diff 3, :Diff 4, (sneaky1) :Diff 5 (sneaky2)

미수 03:08, 2007년 8월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

그런데, 시시각각으로 더 많은 반전이 일어난다(그리고 그렇다, 나도 이 기사의 현상을 유지하려고 노력하고 있다).누가 좀 얼릴 수 있을까??) 2007년 8월 17일 미수 03:23 (UTC)[응답하라]

만약 누군가가 그것을 동결한다면, 나는 미소의 버전이 아닌 것을 제안한다. 왜냐하면 이것은 이전에 사용되었던 최후의 수법이기 때문이다.AndroidCat 03:37, 2007년 8월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

• 간단한 메모 몇 개만 하면...나는 페이지 보호를 요청했다.또한 페이지 보호는 일반적으로 페이지가 발견된 상태에서 수행되며, 어떤 버전을 선호하지 않는다.보호 정책 및 메타 M:잘못된 버전.안녕하십니까, 2007년 8월 17일(UTC) 03:53[응답]

• 조치 없음.2007년 8월 17일 나보 12시 55분 (UTC)[응답하라]

User:देसीफ्राल reported by User:문투완디(결과:위반 없음 )

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

화이트 사용자(대화 기록 편집 보호 링크 삭제 로그 보기 보기) 및 원 드롭 규칙(대화 기록 편집 보호 대화 기록 삭제 로그 보기 보기)

• देसीफ्राल (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고된 시간: 06:13, 2007년 8월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

• 문투완디의 [70]은 06:21, 2007년 8월 16일에 역전되었다.
• 문투완디는 03:57, 2007년 8월 17일자로 수정본으로 되돌아갔다.
• 문투완디는 2007년 8월 17일 05:50에 되돌아왔다.
• 문투완디는 2007년 8월 17일 05:54에 되돌아왔다.

한 번 되돌리는 것은 다른 기사에서 나온 것이지만, 사용자가 [71]에서 가능한 위키스토킹으로 주목받기 때문에 필요하다고 생각한다.

또한 사용자는 편집 요약 [72]에서 오해의 소지가 있는 편집 요약과 함께, 토크 페이지는 이 기사를 그대로 두기로 합의했다고 인용된다.나는 다른 편집자들에게 기사 편집을 중단하라고 말하는 것이 위키백과의 정신이라고 믿지 않는다.문투완디 06:21, 2007년 8월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 아직 자세히 보지 않았지만 사용자는 스토킹하지 않고 문투완디에 의한 지속적인 POV 푸싱과 미인증 자료의 소개를 다루고 있다.문투완디는 이미 이러한 종류의 기사에 대한 편집 전쟁으로 차단되었고(바로 최근) 다시 3RR을 위반했을 수도 있다.확실히 article article edits edits् edits의 다른 기사에서 편집한 내용은 3RR 위반에 해당하지 않는다. -- 4dee ᛇᚹ 0 06:19, 2007년 8월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

위반은 없다.블랑구옌 (바나나부켓) 06:31, 2007년 8월 17일 (UTC)[응답하라]

사용자:Rhun이 보고함:조카(결과: 12시간)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

Srbosjek(대화 기록 편집 보호 로그 보기 보기 링크 삭제)Rhun (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고된 시간: 06:14, 2007년 8월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

• 이전 버전이 다음 버전으로 되돌림: 09:10, 2007년 8월 16일

• 게다가 사용자:Rhun은 그의 반전에 소스 재료를 계속 삭제한다.

• 1차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 16일 13시 34분
• 2차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 16일 14시 20분
• 3차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 16일 15시 30분
• 4회 되돌리기: 04:54, 2007년 8월 17일
• 5회 되돌리기: 07:06, 2007년 8월 17일

• 새로운 사용자에게 필요: 마지막으로 보고된 되돌리기 전에 발표된 3RR 경고의 확산.

당신의 보고서가 제대로 배치되지 않으면 무시될 것이다.

• 3RR 경고의 확산: 2007년 8월 15일 15:02, 15
• 12시간 거리.닐 ム 10:46, 2007년 8월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

User:MUSASHIKOGAINI 보고:훙치공(결과: 24시간)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

중국 전투(대화 기록 편집 보호 링크 삭제 로그 보기).무사시코가니(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고시간 : 2007년 8월 17일 07:39 (UTC)[응답]

• 이전 버전이 다음으로 복구됨: [73]

• 1차 되돌리기: 2007-08-17T06:17:57
• 2차 되돌리기: 2007-08-17T06:56:48
• 3차 되돌리기: 2007-08-17T06:59:45
• 4차 되돌리기: 2007-08-17T07:01:49
• 5차 되돌리기: 2007-08-17T07:17:26
• 6차 되돌리기: 2007-08-17T07:29:11

• 3RR 경고의 확산: 2007-08-17T07:29:29 (편집 시 사용자 Talk 페이지가 만들어졌기 때문에 diff 대신 버전 링크)

• 결과: 24시간 블록.닐 ム 2007년 8월 17일 (UTC) 10시 39분[응답]

User:Proabivouac이 보고함:파형에서(결과:블록 없음)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

위키백과:관리자 게시판/사건(편집 [[Talk:위키백과:관리자의 게시판/사고 대화] 기록 삭제 링크 보호 로그 보기).Proabivouac(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고시간 : 2007년 8월 17일 07시 52분 (UTC)[응답]

• 이전 버전이 다음으로 복구됨: [74]

• 1차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 17일 07:26
• 2차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 17일 07:29
• 3차 되돌리기: 07:37, 2007년 8월 17일
• 4회 되돌리기: 07:39, 2007년 8월 17일

• 새로운 사용자에게 필요: 마지막으로 보고된 되돌리기 전에 발표된 3RR 경고의 확산.

당신의 보고서가 제대로 배치되지 않으면 무시될 것이다.

• 3RR 경고의 확산: 07:41, 2007년 8월 17일

보아하니 금지된 사용자의 속바구니:커비타임.바로 어제 등록한 그는 커비타임이 양말 끈으로 걸어 다니는데 헌신한 매트57을 알 길이 없다. 위키피디아:Checkuser/Case/Kirbytime에 대한 요청(사용자:사용자 금지 후 Matt57을 위해 Sockpuppet 페이지를 만든 Cheszmastre:그의 각하는 그에게 양말 퍼펫을 씌워 놓았다.Proabivouac 07:56, 2007년 8월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

그것이 사실이라고 해도(그것이 사실이 아니라고 해도), 그것은 3rr를 위반하는 것을 용서하지 않는다.--The The Wavy 07:58, 2007년 8월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

신고 트롤이 차단되었다.블랑구옌 (바나나부켓)

감사합니다.이것은 내가 하루 종일 본 법질서의 첫 번째 모습이다.Proabivouac 08:04, 2007년 8월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Dillip rajev 보고:오코푸치우스 (결과: 24시간)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

파룬궁 박해(토크 히스토리 편집 보호 링크 삭제 로그 보기)Dilip rajev(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고시간 : 2007년 8월 17일 08시 10분 (UTC)[응답]

• 이전 버전이 다음으로 복구됨: 버전시간

• 1차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 16:41, 16
• 2차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 16일 18시 27분
• 3차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 16일 20시 43분
• 4회 되돌리기: 00:40, 2007년 8월 17일

이러한 각각의 경우, 리턴은 둘 이상의 중간 편집이 포함되었고, 종종 둘 이상의 다른 편집자가 사용한다는 점에 유의하십시오.물론 나는 많은 변화를 주었지만 투명성을 높이기 위해 많은 편집으로 세분화했다.

딜립은 FG 관련 기사만 편집한다.그와 나는 과거에 편집 문제로 충돌한 적이 있다.그는 매우 성급하고, 이미 적어도 두 번 (#1, #2) 기물 파손과 양말 투척으로 나를 거짓으로 고발했는데, 나중에야 굴욕적인 사과만 하면 된다.엊그제 여러 차례 편집요약에서 한 줄 경솔한 발언을 하면서 편집자의 변화에 개입하는 것을 완전히 무시한 채 건전하게 되돌리는 편집을 했다.그는 내가 알고 있는 한두 명의 다른 편집자들과 싸워왔고, 또한 다른 사람들로부터 그것을 식혀 달라는 정중한 요청을 받았으며, 진정한 절제 효과는 없었다.나는 그의 행동이 매우 파괴적이라고 생각한다.우리는 이야기를 하고 있지만, 나는 그가 그의 뜨거운 머리를 식히기 위해 긴 시간 동안 벤치에 있어야 한다는 것을 느끼지 않을 수 없다.

• Diff 또는 3RR 경고:22:11, 2007년 8월 16일

2007년 8월 17일 08시 10분(UTC)[응답하라]

• PS, 나는 방금 그에 대한 또 다른 불만을 발견했다. 오호쿠치우스 08:21, 2007년 8월 17일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 24시간 거리.닐 ム 10:44, 2007년 8월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

User:User가 보고한 Haraharahamahadeva)가 보고함:프리야나트(결과: )

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

Mahavatar Babaji(대화 기록 편집 보호 링크 삭제 로그 보기)하라하라마하데바(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고시간 : 2007년 8월 17일 18시 50분 (UTC)[응답]

• 이전 버전이 다음 버전으로 되돌림: 2007년 8월 17일 17:57, 17

• 1차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 17일 18시 8분
• 2차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 17일 18시 21분
• 3차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 17일 18시 33분
• 4회 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 17일 18시 40분

또한, 동일한 사용자가 사용자 이름을 만들기 불과 몇 분 전에 동일한 되돌리기를 한 것으로 추정된다.그는 IP 사용자:84.126.1111.206을 사용하여 6회 회전을 했다.

• 새로운 사용자에게 필요: 마지막으로 보고된 되돌리기 전에 발표된 3RR 경고의 확산.

당신의 보고서가 제대로 배치되지 않으면 무시될 것이다.

• 3RR 경고의 확산: 2007년 8월 17일 18:33

첫번째가 되돌리는 것인지는 확실하지 않다.그것은 그 재료의 초기 추가가 아닌가?톰 해리슨 2007년 8월 17일 (UTC) 20:11 (응답)

그렇구나, 그래.나는 이제 IP주소에 의한 초기 변화를 보여주기 위해 그것을 바꾸었는데, 이것은 새로 만들어진 계좌인 하라하라마하데바에 의해 11분 후에 이루어진 첫 번째 되돌림과 정확히 같다.나는 그것이 충분한지 아니면 체크 유저가 필요한지 모르겠다. 하지만 그것은 분명히 같은 사용자다.◆ 프리야나트톡 21:42, 2007년 8월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:217.134.81.133 사용자가 보고한 내용:바이오피스(결과: 보호됨)

• 3회 되돌리기 규칙 위반:

Jeffrey Nyquist(대화 기록 편집 보호 링크 삭제 로그 보기 로그 보기). 217.134.81.133(대화 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그):보고시간 : 2007년 8월 17일 21시 39분 (UTC)[응답]

• 이전 버전이 다음 버전으로 되돌림: 2007년 8월 3일 19:08로 변경됨

• 1차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 16일 22시 26분
• 2차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 17일 15시 39분
• 3차 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 17일 16시 43분
• 4회 되돌리기: 2007년 8월 17일 18시 35분

• 3RR 경고의 확산: 2007년 5월 25일 17:06

IP 주소가 가변적인 사용자다.이 글은 그의 편집 때문에 두 번이나 왜곡되었다.예: 23:50, 2007년 6월 8일 바이오피스 21:39, 2007년 8월 17일(UTC)[응답]을 참조하십시오.

Just a side note. This anonymous user terrorised some other users so much by vandalizing their user pages, [75] so they complained about WP as a "very hostile place": [76]Biophys 00:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You both were edit-warring, so I protected the page. Also, I find Lastingwar (talk · contribs) rather suspicious. -- tariqabjotu 03:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Al-Andalus reported by User:Egyegy (Result: 24h (Al), 36h (Eg))

• Three-revert rule violation on

Arab (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Al-Andalus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 20:18

• 1st revert: 04:21
• 2nd revert: 07:28
• 3rd revert: 07:55
• 4th revert: 09:25

• I have tried to in different ways to compromise with this user [77] [78] [79]. All of my attempts have been reverted to his preferred version. In the 3rd revert, he called me a "Vandal" after I explained myself on the talk pages and here [80]. He seems to think no body else is allowed to edit the infobox except for him. Egyegy 23:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Andalus (talk · contribs) blocked for twenty-four hours, per the evidence above. Egyegy (talk · contribs) blocked for thirty-six hours, per the edit-warring on Arab and Middle East. -- tariqabjotu 03:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Funkynusayri reported by User:Egyegy (Result: 48h (Fun), 36h (Egy))

• Three-revert rule violation on

Middle East (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Funkynusayri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 6:03

• 1st revert: 16:03
• 2nd revert: 23:19
• 3rd revert: 23:25
• 4th revert: 23:29

• He just came back from a block for making this deletion. The discussion took place a long time ago and sources were given, but he dismissed them and does not provide any sources. Egyegy 23:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• He broke 3rr on another article at the same time as this [81] [82] [83] [84]. Unrelated but a pattern. Egyegy 00:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funkynusayri (talk · contribs) blocked for forty-eight hours, per the evidence above (revert-warring on two articles). Egyegy (talk · contribs) blocked for thirty-six hours, per the edit-warring on Arab and Middle East. -- tariqabjotu 03:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Apelinq reported by User:Naruto134 (Result: Warning)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Keizer Ghidorah (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Apelinq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st revert: [85]
• 2nd revert: [86]
• 3rd revert: [87]
• 4th revert: [88]

This user Apelinq keeps redirecting a page of a Godzilla kaiju called Keizer Ghidorah. He thinks this monster is a another monster known as King Ghidorah though they're not the same because the DVD box on the back has the logo of Keizer Ghidorah known as Monster X II (that's what the company refers him to). He keeps thinking a person on this site called Sci Fi Japan says the monster is King Ghidorah, but that's false. Apelinq keeps redirecting the page claiming King Ghidorah and Monster X II are the same. --Naruto134 00:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user is new; I warned him/her about the three-revert rule instead. -- tariqabjotu 03:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Postal68 reported by User:Satori Son (Result: 24 hours )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Bruce Springsteen (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Postal68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 21:00, August 16, 2007

• 1st revert: 21:06, August 16, 2007
• 2nd revert: 21:15, August 16, 2007
• 3rd revert: 22:29, August 16, 2007
• 4th revert: 16:15, August 17, 2007
• 5th revert: 18:52, August 17, 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 21:37, August 16, 2007

  Blocked for 24 hours. Sean William @ 17:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:MSJapan reported by User:Muntuwandi (Result: 48 hours for both )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Religion (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). MSJapan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

• 1st revert: 15:50, 17 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 16:09, 17 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 00:07, 18 August 2007
• 4th revert: 00:25, 18 August 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: User has been given the opportunity to revert but has not taken it. 01:06, 18 August 2007

• Ignore this request, Muntuwandi is a troll, and has received numerous warnings, I'd say a block is coming soon for him. Editors are doing wikipedia a favor by reverting his edits --देसीफ्राल 02:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 48 hours for both editors - Muntuwandi had 4 reverts in 24 hours and 10 minutes so was clearly gaming the 3RR Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

User:Hare-Yukai reported by User:HongQiGong (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

The Battle of China (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Hare-Yukai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 2007-08-17T22:05:50

• 1st revert: 2007-08-18T04:15:16
• 2nd revert: 2007-08-18T05:13:34
• 3rd revert: 2007-08-18T05:30:19
• 4th revert: 2007-08-18T05:39:21
• 5th revert: 2007-08-18T06:01:55
• 6th revert: 2007-08-18T13:07:23
• 7th revert: 21:51, 18 August 2007

I only count 6 reverts (number 7 is unrelated) but that's enough. 24 hours Spartaz^Humbug! 11:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:220.255.34.134, User:220.255.49.242 reported by User:Cocoma (Result: semi-protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Campus SuperStar (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 220.255.34.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 05:19

• 1st revert: 14:49
• 2nd revert: 15:58
• 3rd revert: 16:15
• 4th revert: 16:58

• The user following the IP of 220.255.34.134 and 220.255.49.242 have been bypassing the discussion on Campus SuperStar. It have been noted that their edits are simply reverting the article to its original state without a valid reason. Persistant reverting are still on-going after notice. Cocoma 17:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Since its an ip the simplest solution is to semi-protect for a week to try and force discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lahiru k reported by User:Nat.tang (Result: No violation)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Sri Lanka (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Lahiru_k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 18:09, 18 August 2007

• 1st revert: 13:52, 17 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 14:27, 17 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:44, 17 August 2007
• 4th revert: 16:26, 18 August 2007
• 5th revert: 17:31, 18 August 2007
• 6th revert: 17:49, 18 August 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 16:48, 18 August 2007

I didn't violate WP:3RR and the Sri Lanka page also now been protected.[89] --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 22:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly an edit war going on, but there is a 24hr gap right in the middle of those 6 reverts. As the page is now protected, I don't see any further action needed. Kuru ^talk 22:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:IPSOS reported by User:Watchtower Sentinel (Result: No violation; 24h for WS)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Hariakhan Baba (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). IPSOS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: [90]

• 1st revert: 13:16, 18 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 18:21, 18 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 18:26, 18 August 2007

NOTE: No warning necessary since the editor being reported is not a new user and is well-aware of 3RR as he himself expressed in this edit summary. He has also been duly advised by SysOp Theresa Knott as to the inanity of his edit-warring as far back as 12:16, 10 August 2007. - Watchtower Sentinel 19:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the link you're using to illustrate his awareness of 3RR is a fairly clear warning to you that the fourth revert is what triggers the problem. Oddly, you seem to have simply reverted him again anyways. Ms. Knott's message does not seem to explicitly mention 'inanity' or 'edit-warring' at that. Kuru ^talk 22:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User: Nospam3333 reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: 72 hours )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Clyde N. Wilson (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Nospam3333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

• 1st revert: [91]
• 2nd revert: [92]
• 3rd revert: [93]
• 4th revert: [94]

The User was blocked for the three-revert rule violation on the same article on August 16 after receiving a warning (which he has reverted from his talk page). Since coming back he reverted the same material from the same article three times yesterday and once today. Although the fourth revert came outside the 24 hour period, it seems clear what the Users intent is. The User’s reverts have a single theme – the unreliability of the Southern Poverty Law Center as a source. His only 16 edits of articles since he registered include 14 reverts related to the SPLC as a source, an edit to the SPLC article itself, and an edit unrelated to the SPLC.

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: [20:28, 15 August 2007 North Shoreman]

Tom (North Shoreman) 19:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a legitimate debate going on over this article. It is, in my opinion, not in compliance with the policy on biographies. The SPLC quote is is harmful in nature and is from a controversial source. The second quote is original research by North Shoreman yesterday, and is an out of context clip added only for the purpose of constructing an argument for me. As for being banned a few days ago, I only registered a few days ago and am just picking up the rules. Nospam3333 09:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC) David[reply]

Blocked for 72 hours for second violation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:70.188.24.125 reported by User:Someguy0830 (Result: 72 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Kagura (InuYasha) (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 70.188.24.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 11:14, August 15, 2007 - Note, only the first revert restores this in whole. The diff to note is his continued restoration of the appearance section past the first revert.

• 1st revert: 19:49, August 18, 2007
• 2nd revert: 19:51, August 18, 2007
• 3rd revert: 20:04, August 18, 2007
• 4th revert: 20:21, August 18, 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 20:00, August 18, 2007
• 72 hours, second offense from that ip and incivility in response to warning. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joebloetheschmo reported by User:Jaakobou (Result:Final Warning)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Battle of Jenin (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Joebloetheschmo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st revert: [95] (11:40, 18 August 2007)
• 2nd revert: [96] (19:05, 18 August 2007)
• 3rd revert: [97] (20:16, 18 August 2007)
• 4th revert: [98] (21:35, 18 August 2007)

user was given a notice about removing materials that are well cited and was referred to talk page,^[99] but has not taken the time to respond and instead continued reverting. (link to relevant talk). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They appear to be a very new user and a quick glance on their user page suggests they haven't had a warning. Is this correct? Spartaz^Humbug! 11:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

we've been getting some extremely disruptive behavior on that article. one user was force assigned a mentor, another was blocked and a new IP started making edits, others keep making disturbing and uncivil comments, and now this. perhaps my warning was not strong enough and i leave the decision to you (slight chance that this is the second sock on the page). p.s. i would appreciate someone volunteering to help out just a little with this article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm not going to block right now because there wasn't a specific warning but will leave the user a firm message. I have watchlisted the article and will keep an eye on it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kungfoofighting1 reported by User:Moe Epsilon (Result:Final Warning)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Terry Gerin (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Kungfoofighting1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st revert : 00:59, 19 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 01:05, 19 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 01:09, 19 August 2007
• 4th revert: 01:19, 19 August 2007

Warned on his talk page by The Hybrid. — Moe ε 14:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The warnings appear to be almost simultaneous to the last revert and it appears that (whether correct or not) the user thinks there may be a BLP related concern. Also, they indicated on the Hybrid's talk page that they didn't understand 3RR but wanted to work with The Hybrid on this. I'm going to let this go with a final warning but any more revert warring will result in sanctions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tiamut reported by User:Isarig (Result: One Week)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Random checkpoint (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Tiamut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 03:00, 18 July 2007

• 1st revert: 14:18, 19 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 14:54, 19 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 15:05, 19 August 2007
• 4th revert: 15:42, 19 August 2007

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

Repeated insertions (with minor variation) of country-specific examples. This user has edit warred over the inclusion of the same material a month ago, and is back reinserting the same stuff. User is aware of 3RR, and was warned agian, in edit summary. Isarig 16:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• since this is the 3rd 3RR block I have escalated it to a week. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Spartaz, please forgive the interjection. While a week-long block may seem reasonable after a third 3RR violation, there are circumstances here that make me think this result is unjust. It is debatable whether User:Tiamut's first edit was a revert. She was adding material, and the last time any of this was present in the article was over a month ago. I doubt very much she thought she was "reverting." It is true that she and Isarig had edit-warred over some of this material in the past, but Isarig edit-wars with Tiamut on a range of articles, reverting almost anything she adds. Here's an example just from the past few days: Tiamut adds very well-sourced and obviously relevant information to Hafrada; this is reverted by Isarig here, who says her edit is "editorializing," though the added material is a bare-bones presentation of what an academic source "argues" about the subject of the article (in this very same edit Isarig quietly inserts an unsourced reference in the lead about "protect[ing] Israelis from Palestinian terrorists," an insertion he makes no mention of in his summary); Tiamut is subsequently supported by another editor, who leaves a polite edit summary explaining why [100]; Isarig then proceeds to revert war with both editors, Tiamut and Andyvphil, reverting their edits no less than seven times, responding to their patient and detailed edit summaries [101] [102], with brusque ones of his own [103].

In the present case (Random checkpoint), Isarig has again been a willing, even eager edit-warrior. If Tiamut's first edit is counted as a revert (because it added material that was in the article earlier this summer), then she indeed had four reverts, against Isarig's three. If not, then they each have three. Either way, it seems clear Tiamut is no more guilty of edit-warring than Isarig, and for Isarig to fight this tit-for-tat battle and then report her smacks of gamesmanship. That he does this routinely with Tiamut and other editors is also relevant, especially in light of the following from 3RR:

The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence".[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system. Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any disruptive edit warring, even if they do not exceed three reverts on a page in 24 hours. Similarly, editors who may have technically violated the 3RR may not be blocked, depending on circumstances.

You have applied your discretionary judgment in giving Tiamut a week-long block in lieu of the more usual 24 hours. In light of the fuller context I've provided, a further application of your discretionary powers might be in order, and you might consider giving Isarig a comparable block; or giving them both comparably shorter blocks. This would certainly seem to be one of those cases where such discretion is in order: 3RR was devised to create a strong counter-incentive to edit-warring, not to create a game of strategy.--G-Dett 22:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally saw this and haven't checked the diffs but blocking for a week only because it is third 3rr violation seems quite excessive. --Aminz 22:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was Tiamut who first added this material on May 24 [104], and who restored it when it was removed. The only way he'd think his first edit wasn't a revert is if he'd completely forgotten that he was the one who added it in the first place a few weeks earlier, which is unlikely to say the least. SlimVirgin^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Tiamut's edit seem pointy and may count as vandalism. But a week block seems quite excessive to me. I think 24-48 hours would be good (24 hours for passing 3rr and 24 hours for pointiness of the edit).--Aminz 22:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism? I just don't see it. If you look at the talk page discussion, it's very clear that Tiamut, who created the article as Flying checkpoint, took Isarig's objections and demands for a move very seriously, and even after an RfM created by Isarig failed, she graciously announced that she "would be more than happy to abide by any consensus generated via the involvement of outside editors," after which an RfC was filed. That RfC failed to elicit much outside interest, beyond a couple of comments from openly partisan editors closely allied with Isarig. Nevertheless Tiamut posted another gracious note accepting Isarig's demands, with a small and very reasonable qualification:

For the sake of compromise, I am willing to accept a name-change to the article. It should be entitled Random checkpoint. Types or synonyms of random checkpoint - such as "flying checkpoint" - should be mentioned, as well as where the term was first used and where it is used now. The issue of the level of detail of specific examples of the impact on civilians in different countries or situations can be discussed as the new article takes shape.

She then took a month break from the article "to get some distance, since I felt I could use some." Tiamut is unfailingly gracious and modest about such things. She returned today to restore the material she had asked, by way of compromise, to retain in exchange for moving the article where Isarig wanted it. Isarig immediately began his edit war, bringing things to where they are. Tiamut's various efforts at compromise have been met all along the way with only one response from Isarig – edit-warring. Spartaz and Aminz obviously mean well here, but both the lopsided block and the characterization of Tiamut's work as "vandalism" are unjust.--G-Dett 22:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dett, I am ignorant on this topic. I just felt that this should be used at a global level and as such specifically pointing out that Israel is doing that (plus mentioning the extra details of how long people are in the lines) seemed strange to me. Anyways, I shouldn't have called it "vandalism" as I don't know anything about this topic. --Aminz 22:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the second time Tiamut has been blocked for a 3RR violation on the same article. [105] That alone would suggest a block longer than 24 hours is appropriate. SlimVirgin^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe 30 hours. I think it may depend on how serious the dispute is and also may depend on her activity on the talk pages. G-Dett says she has been quite active in the discussion pages and believes her edits were not vandalism. --Aminz 23:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth pointing out that her previous 3RR violation on the same article (referred to by SlimVirgin) also came about through another edit war initiated by Isarig,[106] and waged by Isarig against three editors (Tiamut, Steve Hart,[107], Andrew pmk,[108], and Tiamut [109][110][111]) over several days, with six reverts total by Isarig, three of which he performed on the day of Tiamut's violation. After Isarig's orgy of edit-warring, he reported Tiamut,[112] resulting in the block SlimVirgin alludes to. Again, the point of WP:3RR is to create a counter-incentive against edit-warring, not to reward edit-warriors for the dexterity of their gamesmanship.--G-Dett 23:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that editors can be blocked for reverting without violating 3RR if the reverting has clearly reached the level of disruption, as the policy says. But the point of 3RR is to make it clear that four reverts is unacceptable. Tiamut has to learn not to revert more than three times in 24 hours regardless of any other consideration. SlimVirgin^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the point of WP:3RR was "to stop sterile edit wars." All three of Tiamut's 3RR violations happened in the context of edit wars with Isarig, and all three were reported by Isarig, and in each case Isarig had three reverts of his own at the time of filing his report. If WP:3RR is merely the rule book for a game of tic-tac-toe, then it must be said that Isarig is a formidable opponent. Credit where credit's due. But it isn't supposed to be a game. The judicious thing here, obviously, would be to deal even-handedly with both editors, who have a long history, and to take into account Tiamut's unreciprocated attempts at compromise with Isarig.--G-Dett 00:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No such compromise attempts were made. Taimut "agreed" to the name change only after a clear consensus of editors, who came in through the RfC, clearly disagreed with her. She then resumed edit warring over the content of the article, again, against the clear consensus of editors there. She was warned by me after her 3rd revert today, and brazenly continued reverting. If 3RR is to mean anything, violators should be blocked. Blocking non-violators alongside violators makes a mockery of the whole thing. G-Dett is really not one to talk - as she has been a repeat violator of 3RR herself, and often skates the thin ice of exactly 3 reverts per day, and sometimes breaks that ice, though has been spared a report & block by some gracious editors. Isarig 00:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone who edits Middle-East-related material has participated in edit wars, and I'm no exception. I find them to be an unfortunate thing all round, and I try to stay away from them, and I have never reported anybody else for their participation in same. You, by contrast, are both an avid participant in edit wars and an avid contributor to the 3RR noticeboard, and your contributions to the latter invariably grows out of your participation in the former. And this is now the third time you've reported Tiamut for a revert war in which you have yourself racked up three reverts. You are good at tic-tac-toe, Isarig, but you're making a mockery of WP:3RR.--G-Dett 00:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you admit you're no exception to edit wars, and contrary to your assertion above, you're just as avid a participator in them as me, and since you've have had a very recent 3RR violation that has gone unreported, are you advocating that you be blocked now, too (perhaps for a week, as this is your 3rd such violation), in the spirit of dealing even-handedly with violators? or is this merely a continuation of your obsession with me and my edits, all over WP? Isarig 00:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The details of this exchange seem to have been hashed out already, and I'm not certain there's anything I could add that would improve the community's understanding of the Tiamut/Isarig situation. That said, I believe there's a larger problem here that Wikipedians should be willing to address.

• Anyone familiar with Wikipedia's articles on the Middle East will know that they tend to be magnets for POV-pushing and edit warring. Since I began engaging with this issue in 2005, I've witnessed innumerable instances of blind reverting, obvious tag-teaming and over-the-top partisanship. While both sides of the "discussion" have been guilty of these offenses, my experience has been that editors on the "pro-Israel" side (to simplify matters a bit) have often been able to win short-term edit wars through the strength of numbers rather than arguments.

• There have been numerous instances of 3RR gamesmanship in these articles, and frequent instances of editors being punished for accidentally "slipping up" or violating the policy in an ambiguous manner. These editors will be then reminded of their 3RR violations during subsequent disputes, and threatened with more serious sanctions if they act too boldly. This often has the effect of reducing the 3RR to a tool of intimidation.

• If the 3RR is really to be "preventative rather than punitive", this situation needs to change. CJCurrie 03:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One minute after posting this self-righteous missive, CJCurrie proceed to edit the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article, where he has edit warred extensively, in order to revert, without any explanation nor discussion on the Talk page, an edit made by another editor. I hope the irony will not be lost on anyone who might be reading this. A little while later, he manged to outdo even this, by reverting a series of my latest edits, re-introducing in the process a slew of broken links I had carefully removed from the article, with an edit summary that says he doesn't really have a position on the edits being reverted - in other words, he's doing it for the pure sake of reverting. Well done. Isarig 04:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isarig's comments are a inversion of reality. In actuality,

• The other editor (Sefringle) introduced significant and contentious changes without discussing them on the talk page. This is not the first time Sefringle has done this. My decision to revert these was neither a violation of policy, nor an error in judgement. (Readers may also be interested in Sefringle's comments here.)
• I reverted Isarig for content reasons, and indicated that I had no strong opinion on a question of citations also under discussion. It's possible that I should have expressed myself more clearly, but Isarig must have been aware that was not "doing it for the pure sake of reverting". In any event, I've now removed the dead links per Isarig's request. CJCurrie 05:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC) amended 05:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:68.60.161.6 reported by User:Friendly Neighbour (Result:3h )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Sun (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 68.60.161.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 10:05, 19 August 2007

There were five identical reverts by User:68.60.161.6 between 18:12 and 19:36, 19 August 2007 (within 85 minutes!).

• Diff of 3RR warning (in edit comment of my revert before his 5th one): 19:30, 19 August 2007

Hi FN, you'll need to supply diffs showing the reverts. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The example says If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. which I understood as "instead". Anyway, here they are:

• 1st revert: 18:12, 19 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 18:18, 19 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 19:13, 19 August 2007
• 4th revert: 19:25, 19 August 2007
• 5th revert: 19:36, 19 August 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Friendly Neighbour (talk • contribs).

I have blocked him for 3 hours to teach some respect to the 3RR rule, also semiprotected the article Alex Bakharev 07:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:John Schnell reported by User:TheRingess (Result: 24 hours )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Cardiff-by-the-Sea, Encinitas, California (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). John Schnell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 21:42, 19 August 2007

• 1st revert: 21:08, 19 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 21:19, 19 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 21:27, 19 August 2007
• 4th revert: 21:42, 19 August 2007

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: 21:30, 19 August 2007

Other edit wars and 3RR violations from just this past week by TheRingess:

• First example, an ongoing edit war on the Neil Steinberg page: [113]
• TheRingess engaging in an aggressive edit war with another editor on that editor's talk page, with TheRingess deleting the editor's contributions to their own talk page: [114] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Surfdude001 (talk • contribs) 22:25:41, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Blocked for 24 hours. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mardavich reported by User:Arcayne (Result: No 3RR violations)

• Three-revert rule violation on

300 (film) (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Mardavich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: [115]

The reverts are all the same.

• 1st revert: [116]
• 2nd revert: [117]
• 3rd revert: [118]
• 4th revert: [119]

After extensive debate on the article Discussion page, the decision was rendered to remove the statments of one commentator as niehter as strong or noteworthy (that they had little to actually do with the movie would be an accurate assessment). The violater has been adding it back in repeatedly, arguing that he is the most respected professor, etc. His reverts have been reversed by another editor and myself. The user is a long-time user who is well aware of 3RR, and was warned of his impending violation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a violation of WP:3RR (Where are the time stamps? Why didn't you post them?), if 3 reverts in 3 days is a violation of 3RR then you have violated 3RR as well since you've reverted that article three times within the last 24 hours and dozens of more times within the last few weeks. There was no consensus to remove Touraj Daryaee's criticism from the article, that's an academic source, and repeatedly removing sourced material is borderline vandalism, Touraj Daryaee is a respectable academic and a reliable source. As a historian of Persia, his perspective is very much needed in the article, and according to Wikipedia rules, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "I don't like it" is not a good enough reason to remove sourced material form an article, and it's not up to the editors to "correct" and "evaluate" established academics, and academics sources, that's a violation of WP:NOR. --Mardavich 06:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that anyone used as an argument for removal, 'I don't like it'; however, if you can find it, please let me know. There are also more rules other than verifiability - reliability comes to mind, and it was the consensus of at least three other editors that the statements be removed as not being on-topic enough. However, this isn't the place for a content dispute, Unless you are reverting outright vandalism, maintaining the strident opinion as to your opinion of a source does not serve as a shield against 3RR. It is to protect the article from disruption. As the article is FA, the need to avoid that disruption is ever more important. That you have edit-warred over this is disruptive, and that you have performed 4 edits within a 24 hour period means you broke the rules. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no 3 reverts in 24 hours, thus, no 3RR violation. Alex Bakharev 06:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. I guess pointing out his edit-warring there isn't being taken into consideration? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Reginmund reported by User:Dohanlon (Result: Malformed report, now stale)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Children of the Century (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Reginmund (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

[[120]]History Page

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

• If you want any admin to consider this, you need to complete the report completely including diffs to the reverts and to the warning. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Biofoundationsoflanguage reported by User:Barryob (Result: 12 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Scotland (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st revert: 14:43, 20 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 14:41, 20 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:35, 20 August 2007
• 4th revert: 14:30, 20 August 2007

• blocked by Stemontis Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:24.239.178.19 reported by User:Jaranda (Result: 12 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Phil Rizzuto (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 24.239.178.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 16:05

• 1st revert: 16:54
• 2nd revert: 18:04
• 3rd revert: 18:17
• 4th revert: 18:31
• 5th revert: 18:39

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: 18:17

User keeps adding copyrighted text against WP:FAIRUSE, I also did four reverts but it's involving copyright and 3rr excepts that. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Jaranda has mistakenly combined three separate edits, involving a NY Times article and two distinct edits involving the Rizzuto poetry book as one violation.

• "1st revert" above = NY Times article on Rizzuto's birth
• "2nd revert" above = restoring preexisting text (poems)
• "3rd revert" above = ditto
• "4th revert" above = introducing completely new text
• "5th revert" above = ditto

Simply, the same edit/rv was NOT made three times in any of the three instances. And considering that I took pains to explain my reasoning in overlong edit summaries at every stage, while requesting that User Jaranda address his/her concerns on the Discussion page, I respectfully request that the above complaint be dismissed. I did not violate the 3RR rule in actuality, or in spirit. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.239.178.19 (talk)

Any reverts count, not only the same reverts. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't so-- that distinction only applies to very slight rewrites and rephrasings us ed by people deliberately trying to evade the rule. The examples above show three COMPLETELY different blocks of text. I also feel my edit history on the Rizzuto page in the past few days demonstrates seriousness and a desire to mediate (there has been a dispute over Rizzuto's year of birth). I replaced the deleted text with the second set of poems specifically to satisfy User Jaranda's stated criteria. Again, the 3RR complaint is in error, in regards to both behavior and spirit. I hope that he/she will proceed in good faith.24.239.178.19 19:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cowboycaleb1 reported by User:Davnel03 (Result: PP)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Ashley Massaro (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Davnel03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: [121]

• 1st revert: 20:53
• 2nd revert: 21:14
• 3rd revert: 21:26

User kept on reverting a edit that I made that included a source, so surely removing sources is vandalism. One of his versions was reverted by Nikki311, but he kept on reverting. Davnel03 20:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

48 hoursRlevse 21:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my goof on the block, changing to Page protection since both were warring.Rlevse 22:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Count Iblis reported by The Evil Spartan (Result: Warning)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Hezbollah (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Count Iblis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 08:24, August 20, 2007

• 1st revert: 09:17, August 20, 2007
• 2nd revert: 10:29, August 20, 2007
• 3rd revert: 11:20, August 20, 2007
• 4th revert: 11:32, August 20, 2007
• 5th revert: 16:24, August 20, 2007
• 6th revert: 16:45, August 20, 2007
• I will readily admit that two of the edits do not involve exactly the same text, but they do involve the same issue: terrorism, and if Hezbollah falls under its umbrella: this still seems to violate WP:3RR ("all or part of an article"). However, that clearly still leaves four reverts to the title of a section. The Evil Spartan 20:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is complex, partial reverting, so we really need to see the version reverted to for each edit. I know it's a pain, but we need to be sure that the editor isn't simply editing. I can see that he removed terrorist/terrorism three times (13;17, 14:29, and 15:32 UTC); the revert at 15:20 UTC isn't related; and the fifth and sixth at 20:24 and 20:54 UTC are adding "accusations" to a header (so the fifth would be the version reverted to, and the sixth the revert). It might be best if I just leave a warning for him, rather than have you go through the history to pick out all the versions reverted to. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ES, I've left a warning for him. If you want to dig up all the versions reverted to, that can be changed to a block, but it might be best to leave it like this. If he does it again, he can't say he wasn't warned about complex, partial reverting. Cheers, SlimVirgin^{(talk)(contribs)}

For the record, I strongly disagree with this warning. I did seek a compromize during editing and this was not a simple edit war. Let me first address a few of the reversions quoted above.

The final version that was reached was pretty much a solution that everyone can more or less agree on, because I split the section in two parts, separating the actions Hezbollah is accused of from the things that they admit to.

In the earlier edits of today a compromize was reached with Tom Harrison. Just check the third alleged reversion by me and click on "newer edit" a few times to read the progress of editing. I don't see a revert war here at all. You'll see that Tom changed the title to "Terrorism or resistance?" and that I changed it to "Accusations of bombings, terrorism and kidnappings" (I give a detaled explanation in the edit summary and on the talk page). Note that Tom did not change the opening sentence back that I modified in the third alleged reversion.

So, no revert war at all, just constructive editing by a group of editors with different points of views. And then you are bound to see a few reversions, but what matters is the big picture. To see this more clearly, let's go back to the point were the section was first put in:

see here

Now let's see how this section evolved over time by clicking on "newer version" till we reach the last version. I reverted the first version of the section two times in the grounds that this was extremely POV. But I also read what the editor had to say when he reverted me. The third edit by me was to change a few words per WP:WTA, but otherwise, I left the section intact. Now if you look at all the edits then you see that during the edits the issues were discussed using the edit summaries, at least by me (also on the talk page). Ultimately this led to a section that is reasonably NPOV and more or less acceptable to both sides. Clearly, any disputes that remain can be far easier dealt with by editing from the last version than from the original version.

The warning is therefore inappropriate, because if I had edited using this very narrow interpretation of 3RR, I could have reverted 3 times, then write on the talk page about the WP:WTA issue and then you would have had a "legal revert war", where no one does anything exept reverting until his/her 3 reverts are finished. The end result would have been much worse than what we can read now. Count Iblis 23:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have respond to your comments on my talk page. The Evil Spartan 23:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Davnel03 reported by User:cowboycaleb1 (Result:Novio )

• Three-revert rule violation on

WWE roster. Davne103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has reverted this page 3 times. He or She reverthed the Page at these times

20:52, 20 August 2007 20:51, 20 August 2007 20:49, 20 August 2007 

User:Cowboycaleb1

No vio. only 3 reverts, the 4th one is not there. 3RR requires a 4th reversion.Rlevse 21:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:88.108.95.228 reported by User:Sumoeagle179 (Result: Page protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Girl Guide and Girl Scout (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 88.108.95.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 20:56, August 20, 2007

• 1st revert: 00:20, August 20, 2007
• 2nd revert: 00:27, August 20, 2007
• 3rd revert: 10:32, August 20, 2007
• 4th revert: (21:18, August 20, 2007

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: 21:20, August 20, 2007

The first warning was actually at 20:44, before the 4th revert, so that's okay. However, the version reverted to is after the first revert. Do you have a prior version? SlimVirgin^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does version reverted to mean by the violoater or someone else? Anon IP has clearly reverted 4 or more times.Sumoeagle179 21:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can be by anyone. The point is to show that the first edit was a revert to a previous version of the article, or part thereof. SlimVirgin^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I follow that correctly, then that would be here or one of the other edits around that time.Sumoeagle179 21:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the first revert. You need to supply a diff from before that time, otherwise it's not a revert but an edit. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, User:Gothgirlangel1981 has decided to perpetuate the edit war hereSumoeagle179 22:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the 3RR violation is unclear, and there are multiple people involved, I've protected the page. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pimpedpope reported by User:You Can't See Me! (Result: Page protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Land of Fire (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Pimpedpope (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

• 1st revert: 18:49, 20 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 19:05, 20 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 19:31, 20 August 2007 (Using three edits)
• 4th revert: 20:23, 20 August 2007
• 5th revert: 20:49, 20 August 2007
• 6th revert: 21:03, 20 August 2007
• 7th revert: 21:21, 20 August 2007 (Over three edits)
• 8th revert: 21:33, 20 August 2007 (Over two edits)
• 9th revert: 21:43, 20 August 2007
• Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

• Diff of 3RR warning:

This message was placed between his eighth and ninth reverts: 21:33, 20 August 2007;

The message was subsequently removed by the user, also between his eighth and ninth reverts: 21:42, 20 August 2007

• Note: I have also violated the three revert rule in attempting to deal with his reverts under the impression that they were vandalism. It turns out that his edits were simply unintentional misinformation. However, he has recieved several warnings and explanations about the subject during the course of this edit war, which leads me to question whether or not his misinformation is or isn't unintentional.

• Comment - Full revert list.

1. 00:23, August 20, 2007
2. 11:35, August 20, 2007
3. 11:43, August 20, 2007
4. 11:49, August 20, 2007
5. 12:05, August 20, 2007
6. 12:31, August 20, 2007
7. 13:04, August 20, 2007
8. 13:15, August 20, 2007
9. 13:23, August 20, 2007
10. 13:44, August 20, 2007
11. 13:49, August 20, 2007
12. 14:10, August 20, 2007
13. 14:21, August 20, 2007
14. 14:33, August 20, 2007
15. 14:43, August 20, 2007
16. 14:48, August 20, 2007
17. 14:57, August 20, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Someguy0830 (talk • contribs) 22:17, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

I've protected because there are others who appear to have violated 3RR too. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dawgknot reported by User:Digby Tantrum (Result:12 hours )

• Three-revert rule violation on

The Spirit (film) (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Dawgknot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 20:05, 20 August 2007

• 1st revert: 20:15, 20 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 21:33, 20 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 21:40, 20 August 2007
• 4th revert: 22:23, 20 August 2007

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: 21:43, 20 August 2007

User:Krsont reported by User:Misou (Result: 12 hours, page protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Template:ScientologySeries (edit [[Talk:Template:ScientologySeries talk]] history protect delete links watch logs views). Krsont (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st revert: 21:04, 20 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 03:07, 21 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 03:13, 21 August 2007
• 4th revert: 03:39, 21 August 2007
• 5th revert: 03:53, 21 August 2007

User's unsourced edit has been reverted by several parties in the course of this Krsont-instigated "war".

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: [122]

Agreed, looks like 3RR was breached here. I've blocked for 12 hours and protected the template in question to encourage discussion before reversion. Thanks -- Samir 04:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jeeny reported by User:KarenAER (Result: no action)

• Three-revert rule violation on

European people (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Jeeny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: complex

• rv to: [123]

• • 1st revert: 04:24, 21 August 2007
  • 2nd revert: 04:38, 21 August 2007
  • 3rd revert: 04:49, 21 August 2007

• Not a full revert but partial revert. She removes the word "native" again, ignoring the scope of the article: [124]

• • 4th revert: 05:04, 21 August 2007

Comment : I reported her before: [125] She undid her edir edits but was blocked nonetheless but then her block was cancelled. [126] But I warned her this time too: [127] Also note that she started editing European people after I started editing it and continued the edit war about removing/adding the maps which was in White people...KarenAER 05:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Those were edits. I added fact tags, reduced the image sizes, etc. You were the one reverting me, erasing the fact tags I added to unsourced statements and images. Please stop this. This is disruptive. Please. Whenever someone seems to not agree with you, you report them, instead of discussing changes on the talk pages, or ignoring them. - Jeeny^Talk 06:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, her/his first edit summary, after I was making EDITS on the page was Do not edit war. I feel this is another attempt to get me blocked so edits can be made without NPOV. The White people article is locked, so this article was made to make it another white people article, in my opinion. There is mediation going on. I am more than willing to compromise, but it is very difficult when one's intellegence is insulted, false accusations of wikistalking, and edit warring, etc. And then reporting others to keep them quiet.

She/he kept telling me "enough". As if she/he as the sole owner of the artcle. I tried to engage in conversation, but it always seems to get personal. Then, me, and others tend to get defensive. I wish this to stop. She is also only picking bits and pieces. Here on my talk page, and on her talk page. I don't have time to add more diffs.

Also, the mediator posted this message on my talk page: "Thank you! By the way, as an update, KarenAER has said she will not paticipate, so I am trying to talk to her. If you'd like, you can post preliminary opinions on the discussion page. Neranei (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)". Yet, now she is willing, but only just before reporting me. She has refused other mediation attempts. I have to go to bed. - Jeeny ^Talk 06:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you added the sources to the map images. Thank you. I also self reverted the native part and the image sizing and hopefully any other changes I made. It should be how you wanted it to be now, Karen. - Jeeny ^Talk 07:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You always do this. You edit war and are only cooperative after being reported. The maps were sourced, you knew that, it was discussed a lot in Talk:White peopleKarenAER 16:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the administrators' noticeboard for three-revert rule violations. It is not a forum for general debate about article content. Both of you, please stop. Raymond Arritt 16:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt her past edit warring and violations of 3RR relevant? KarenAER 17:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dutyterms reported by User:Komdori (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Liancourt Rocks (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Dutyterms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 02:11, 21 August 2007

• 1st revert: 12:02, 21 August 2007 flipped order to S before J again, undoing Wikimachine's self rv here
• 2nd revert: 12:16, 21 August 2007 flipped order to S before J again, undoing this edit
• 3rd revert: 12:26, 21 August 2007 reinsertion of "claim/govern", which had been removed here
• 4th revert: 13:29, 21 August 2007 revert of my edit here, claiming "vandalism"
• 5th revert: 13:36, 21 August 2007 revert of my edit here

• Diff of 3RR warning: 13:29, 21 August 2007

see my below article he is a 3rr violator and he did many unjustified delete.

flipped order to S before J again? no. i do not flipped in recent artcle. [128]Dutyterms 14:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been immediately reverting any change anyone else made to the article that you didn't like. See WP:OWN. See the diffs above for the examples. --Cheers, Komdori 14:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

according to WP:OWN, 'delete warnig article by my own will' does not exist. you delete warning article by your own will. Dutyterms 14:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious violation of 3RR, and the bogus report below on the user reporting does not help your case. Blocked for 24h. Please use the discussion page after the block expires. ELIMINATORJR 14:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Three-revert rule violation on *Three-revert rule violation on Liancourt Rocks (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views) and His user talk page.

Komdori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:28, 21 August 2007 + Liancourt Rocks (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views).

• Previous version reverted to: [129]

he may 3rr violation at Liancourt Rocks (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views)

• 1st revert: [130] unjustified delted
• 2nd revert: [131] unjustified delted

he 3rr violation at his page.(also, he delete 3rr violation)

• 1st revert: [132] he delete warning his talk page
• 2nd revert: [133] he delete warning his talk page
• 3rd revert: [134] he delete warning his talk page
• 4th revert: [135] he delete warning his talk page
• 5th revert: [136] he delete warning his talk page
• 6th revert: [137] he delete warning his talk page

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

• Diff of 3RR warning (Liancourt Rocks page): [138]
• Diff of 3RR warning (his talk page): [139]

he did unjustified delte, 2times. in Liancourt Rocks page. and he delete 3rr warning in his talk page more than 3 times by his own will.(no consensus). Dutyterms 13:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing content from your own userpage is not a violation of 3RR - especially when the vandalism warnings that were removed appeared bogus. The user did not violate 3RR on the article concerned (only 2 reverts). No action to be taken here. However, the reporter has almost certainly violated 3RR on the article (see above report). This appears to be a 'revenge' report. Please stop edit-warring and use the discussion page.ELIMINATORJR 14:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hungrywolf reported by User:Blackbeard2k7 (Result: Last warning, article reverted)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Field Commander (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Hungrywolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st revert: 00:18, 17 August 2007

• 2nd revert: 00:23, 17 August 2007

• 3rd revert: 00:26, 17 August 2007

• 4th revert: 10:00, 17 August 2007

• 5th revert: 10:01, 17 August 2007

• 6th revert: 12:19, 17 August 2007

• 7th revert: 23:52, 17 August 2007

• 8th revert: 00:17, 18 August 2007

• 9th revert: 00:18, 18 August 2007

• 10th revert: 23:50, 20 August 2007

• 11th revert: 00:10, 21 August 2007

• 12th revert: 00:11, 21 August 2007

• 13th revert: 06:40, 21 August 2007

• 14th revert: 08:40, 21 August 2007

Diffs of warnings:

• The user didn't specifically get a 3RR warning. However, the user was warned against reverting and edit warring several times. Some examples are shown below:

[140] User was warned to discontinue adding promotional material and spam links to the article. He reverted the warning admins edits, 3 times in a row.

[141] The user was warned here about reverting edits in bad faith, but disregarded the warning and reverted anyway.

[142] Again the user was warned about reverting and edit warring, but ignored the warning and continued to revert. The user continues to revert changes to the article.

• I've given a last warning to Hungrywolf about this rather pointless edit war. I've reverted the article myself, explained why on the talk page, and another reversion will draw a block. ELIMINATORJR 22:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Watch844 reported by User:JFD (Result: Indefinitely blocked )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Out of India theory (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Watch844 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 13:18, 20 August 2007

• 1st revert: 13:18, 20 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 14:00, 20 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:32, 20 August 2007
• 4th revert: 11:31, 21 August 2007

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

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

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

User:Anietor reported by User:Peter cohen (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Mother Teresa (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Anietor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 05:06, 21 August 2007

• 1st revert: 22:47, 20 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 05:01, 21 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 06:32, 21 August 2007
• 4th revert: 19:01, 21 August 2007 partial revert of material reverted above

• Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion. Warning not issued: user has been active since 18:03, 11 November 2006 ; user is aware of 3RR rule due to discussion in parallel accusation of sockpuppetry at [Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Anietor]

• Comment A detail I forgot to mention is that two of these edits are actually rollbacks. The 2nd reverts 4 edits by three different editors, the third reverts 8 edits by the same three different editors. --Peter cohen 23:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vidor reported by User:DCGeist (Result: withdrawn)

*Three-revert rule violation on Perfect game (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Vidor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 18:31, August 19, 2007

Four reverts in under 19 hours:

• 1st revert: 21:20, August 20, 2007
• 2nd revert: 08:58, August 21, 2007
• 3rd revert: 15:44, August 21, 2007
• 4th revert: 16:05, August 21, 2007

• Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion. Warning not issued--user active since May 2006. Advisory of violation issued on user's Talk page ([143]) and relevant article's Talk page ([144]). Subsequent communication from user offers neither rationalization nor apology for/reversion of violation ([145]).

• Follow-up: Notice of this report given on User:Vidor's Talk page: [146].—DCGeist 22:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Final follow-up; User has reverted the violating edit ([147]). I wish to withdraw this report. I am not certain if it is proper for me to delete it, so I have crossed it out.—DCGeist 23:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Comprendo reported by User:Kevin (Result: Article semi-protected, new editor warned)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Gladys Knight (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Comprendo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: any version without Empress of Soul

• 1st revert: 02:41 21 August
• 2nd revert: 03:24 21 August
• 3rd revert: 04:25 21 August
• 4th revert: 05:23 21 August
• 5th revert: 07:56 21 August
• 6th revert: 17:15 21 August
• 7th revert: 20:56 21 August

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: 08:58 21 August
• And a previous more friendly warning: 05:14 21 August —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevin (talk • contribs) 22:07, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

• As User:Comprendo is a new account, for simplicity and to avoid biting the newbies too hard I have semi-protected the article for a couple of days, and explained to Comprendo what s/he is doing wrongly. ELIMINATORJR 22:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aatomic1 reported by User:Padraig (Result: 1 week)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Birmingham pub bombings (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Aatomic1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 13:30, 15 August 2007

• 1st revert: 22:54, 20 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 05:37, 21 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 10:16, 21 August 2007
• 4th revert: 22:45, 21 August 2007

Editor has just been warned here about continued edit warring, and has previously been blocked for a 3RR violation making the same edit (adding a list of dead) to the same article. padraig 23:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As this was his third 3rr violation (second on the same article), and since he offered a fairly flippant response to the warning placed on his talk page, I have temporarily blocked him for 1 week. Kuru ^talk 02:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:RookZERO reported by User:HubcapD (Result: Page protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

David Miscavige (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). RookZERO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: VersionLink VersionTime

• 1st revert: 16:55, 19 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 15:10, 20 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 23:58, 21 August 2007
• 4th revert: 00:05, 22 August 2007

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: 18:09, 20 August 2007

Now, I know this is not 3 reverts in 24 hours, but this guy has been dinged before for violating the 3RR rule. See [148], [149].HubcapD 01:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HubcapD, given that you've been the main person reverting RookZERO, you're at least as close to a 3RR violation as he is. However, I have no confidence that blocking even both of you would stop the edit war there, so please take the next week to talk things out or seek any necessary dispute resolution. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I have tried to talk to this guy regarding the edit, and he ignores me. I honestly don't know what else to do. I suppose I'll look into dispute resolution and see what remedies are available. But I made what I feel is a good edit and he gives me no reason whatsoever for reverting it. Also, if you look over the history of this guy's editing history regarding Scientology-realted articles, he has of history of acting in this manner.HubcapD 05:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, HubcapD, you have been in a discussion with him, but of all the scientology-related articles, the David Miscavige article seems to be the most contentious and edit warring has been frequent. You have been very active on the POV front of that article.--Fahrenheit451 23:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Frikkers reported by User:VanTucky (Result: page protection, warning)

Three revert violation on Boerboel (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views) by Frikkers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user has been blocked three times previously for edit-warring in the same manner on the same article, and warned again by a sysop in the period he made the recent reverts. After making a single cursory article talk statement ages ago (while still not failing to make user talk comments) he has directly ignored admonishment to have a consensus-building discussion and simply continues to revert once his block is up. Just as a clarification, I realize it is almost 100% of the time completely unnacceptable for me to continue to revert Frikkers like I have, but I have continued to try and create a talk discussion that can resolve the conflict, and have continually invited Frikkers to join me there. Time reported: 05:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. 02:39, August 21, 2007
2. 03:13, August 21, 2007
3. 04:41, August 22, 2007
4. 04:45, August 22, 2007
5. 05:58, August 22, 2007 Note: after this reversion, Frikkers made a talk statement, thus I did not revert again. VanTucky ^(talk) 06:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VanTucky, I really understand your frustration in dealing with this. While the most recent reversions by Frikkers certainly are contravening the spirit of 3RR (which usually is enough for a block), I see that previous blocks didn't affect his behaviour. I think the better way to deal with this is to protect the page to encourage discussion. -- Samir 06:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good solution to me. Thank you VanTucky ^(talk) 07:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yilloslime reported by User:NCdave (Result: old issue already dealt with)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Steven_Milloy (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Yilloslime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was a particularly blatant violation. Each of his four edits were exact reverts, not questionable cases, and each time that's all he did, just revert, four times. What's more, he didn't just get confused about the time or forget what he'd done the day before: he did all four reverts in a span of just 127 minutes.

These are the diffs:

• rv #1: 23:47, 19 July 2007 exactly and entirely reverted this immediately preceding edit: [150]

• rv #2: 00:02, 20 July 2007 exactly and entirely reverted the combination of these two preceding edits: [151] and [152]

• rv #3: 00:26, 20 July 2007 exactly and entirely reverted this immediately preceding edit: [153]

• rv #4: 01:55, 20 July 2007 exactly and entirely reverted this immediately preceding edit: [154]

Yilloslime was not unaware of the rule. In fact, the previous month he had, himself, accused another editor of 3RR violation.[155]

What's more, compounding the offense, Yilloslime is one of a handful of editors who have been working to make this biography of a living person into a "hit piece" against the subject of the biography. As a glance at the talk page shows, various other editors (including myself, Theblog, Peroxisome, "Uncle Ed" Poor, 66.75.3.244, 88.105.242.190, 202.61.229.85, and 147.114.226.172) have objected to the inaccuracies and/or POV-bias of the article. But Yilloslime refuses to allow even a warning that the accuracy of the article is disputed by other editors.

Whatever his opinion about the merits of the article and the arguments over it, and regardless of the intensity of his dislike for Mr. Milloy, it is an indisputable fact that the accuracy and neutrality of this article have been repeatedly disputed by other editors. Yet Yilloslime repeatedly removed warning tags from the article, to hide that fact from readers of the article. That is not acting in good faith or seeking consensus.

I am an easy-going guy, and I've never before filed a 3RR complaint against anyone. I held off for a month reporting even this particularly blatant 3RR violation, even though Yilloslime (who does not have a statistics degree) has made some highly questionable accusations against Mr. Milloy, including the charge that he "cherry-picks" statistics[156]. (Note that Millow has an advanced degree in statistics, and Yilloslime has no comparable expertise.) I prefer to try to reason with other editors, and seek consensus, which I've done extensively on the Steven Milloy Talk page.[157]

But Yilloslime and his little group of Milloy-bashing allies are not content to debate the merits of the article on the Talk page, and insert their POV into the article. They are now abusing Wikipedia's administrative system to stifle discussion by banning editors who disagree with them. His allies, MastCell and Raul654, have just permanently blocked User:Peroxisome, not for any clear violation of Wikipedia rules, but for the sin of discussing the Steven Milloy article's severe POV bias on the Talk page. They are now trying to do the same thing to me, for the the same sin, and Yilloslime has chimed in supporting them. NCdave 06:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think a block is appropriate for a 3RR violation from a month ago on this article. I appreciate that you are trying to sort this situation out, but WP:AN3 isn't really an appropriate venue. Thanks for understanding -- Samir 06:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that a warning User:Yilloslime is warranted, and will do so -- Samir 06:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon review, it looks like this issue was already dealt with a month ago: [158] -- Samir 02:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:84.100.98.191 reported by User:AndyJones (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Rotary International (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 84.100.98.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: [159]

• 1st revert: 19:32, 21 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 20:06, 21 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 22:16, 21 August 2007
• 4th revert: 08:39, 22 August 2007

• This IP is User:PierreLarcin who has a history of disruptive editing on this page, and is well aware of the 3RR rule. The people he is edit-warring with aren't handling the matter well either, it seems to me (although PierreLarcin can be difficult to deal with rationally). However unless they are sockpuppets of each other they haven't breached 3RR, so far as I can tell. AndyJones 12:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Postscript: since I posted the above, User:Bombastus has done a further revert, and I've put a warning here.AndyJones 16:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fairly obvious 3RR violation. User:Bombastus would do well to step back from edit-warring as well - stopping at 3 reverts may technically be avoiding a violation, but that doesn't mean you can't be blocked for it. I will keep an eye on this page. ELIMINATORJR 22:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eyrian reported by User:Edokter (Result: retracted)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Wikipedia in culture (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Eyrian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st revert: 16:09
• 2nd revert: 16:11
• 3rd revert: 17:19
• 4th revert: 19:03

• Diff of 3RR warning: 19:18

Eyrian keeps removing half the page. On the verge of breaking 3RR myself, I am reporting him here, as he shows no sign of stopping pushing his version. He has less then 50 edits and does not seem to understand the concept of consensus; he just keeps reverting to his preferred version. — Edokter • Talk • 17:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I count two reverts. Edokter is advised to note that I'm an admin with two years of experience and nearly 10,000 edits. --Eyrian 17:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Then Wikipedia defenitely had a glitch showing only one page on your contributions. Never the less, as an admin, you should *defenityely* know you are supposed to discuss and seek consensus first instead of edit-warring. The fact you are an admin with 10,000 edits does not in any way speak in your favor or excuse you of your behaviour. Someone disagrees with your edit? Then you are NOT supposed to keep reverting! — Edokter • Talk • 17:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I did discuss. Two days prior. --Eyrian 17:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And I disagreed. After which point we should both wait for more input and leave the article as it was. Instead, you were pushing your version. In any case, let's move this back to the talk page. — Edokter • Talk • 18:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deadriene16 reported by User:ArabicX (Result: 2 24 hours blocks)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Mulatto (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Deadriene16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 12:37, 22 August 2007

• 1st revert: 22:17, 21 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 15:58, 22 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 16:35, 22 August 2007
• 4th revert: 17:08, 22 August 2007

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: 17:02, 22 August 2007

This user is not responding on the article talkpage at all to discuss the edits or my objections and suggestions. He also deleted my warning on his talkpage.

I've blocked both Deadriene16 and ArabicX for 24 hours. While ArabicX only reverted 3 times, they were all within less than 5 hours. It's still edit warring, even if you stop after 3 reverts. --Tango 20:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Commodore Sloat reported by User:Isarig (Result:No block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Southern California InFocus (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 17:27, 21 August 2007

• 1st revert: 19:54, 21 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 00:15, 22 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 00:30, 22 August 2007
• 4th revert: 19:54, 22 August 2007

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME User has been blocked for 3RR numerous times before.

Clear case of 3RR gaming, 4th revert coming at 24h + less than 1 minute.

I self-reverted for now. Please note that Isarig's fourth revert came in 25 hours on the same page; his reporting me for "gaming" is clearly hypocritical. csloat 20:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No block due to the self-reverting. I will say, though, that the issue you cite is not for this page. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Italiavivi reported by User:Ferrylodge (Result: no action )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Fred_Thompson (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views) (talk page). Italiavivi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

• 1st revert: 16:59, August 22, 2007 (undoing edits of another editor at talk page, by striking them out in violation of guidelines).
• 2nd revert: 17:05, August 22, 2007
• 3rd revert: 18:13, August 22, 2007
• 4th revert: 18:18, August 22, 2007

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

Italiavivi is not new (he's edited for more than a year and has been blocked twice).

In addition to the above 3RR violation, Italiavivi completely deleted the comments of others today at a talk page here and here and here. Italiavivi has also been uncivil here (“You are a liar") and here (“telling the same lies”) and here (accusing others of “screaming”) and here (more accusations of “screaming” and “goading").Ferrylodge 20:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a standard 3RR issue, so I've given him a warning on his talk page. I don't think a block is called for unless he does it again. --Tango 20:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is decidedly not a 3RR issue. I am entitled to removing uncivil remarks per WP:TALK, including lies. This report should be completely dismissed. Italia^vivi 20:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lies are not automatically uncivil. Only blatant personal attacks should be removed, and even that is controversial. If you believe that something which has been said is untrue, then just reply to it explaining your view. --Tango 20:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree that reproducing known lies is not inherently uncivil. To repeat false allegations about another editor which one knows to be false is clearly so. Italia^vivi 21:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I don't think this is a 3RR issue. Making substantive edits to other people's comments, yes, he's doing that; Making hysterical accusations against others, and being otherwise uncivil, yes, he's doing that too; but those are not matters for this page. I don't think the 3RR rule is intended for situations like these, so I disagree with this report. Zsero 21:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to listen to claims of incivility coming from editors who characterize those they're in disputes with as espousing "hysteria," by the way. Italia^vivi 21:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I never said anything about Italiavivi and hysteria.Ferrylodge 21:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the four items that I listed do you think was not a revert?Ferrylodge 21:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear to anyone involved that this was a WP:TALK matter, not a WP:3RR matter. Even if it were a WP:3RR matter, your first diff is an original contribution, not a revert (falsely characterizing the new addition of strike tags as a revert?). I have received User:Tango's admonition, and while I strongly disagree with his stance that lies are not inherently uncivil, there is nothing more to be said here. Time for you to let it go. Italia^vivi 21:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay attention to the warning you received from Tango.Ferrylodge 21:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please abide by your own supposed dislike for editing/deleting others' comments. If you are unwilling to allow the entirely of our dialogue on your User_talk page, please remove all of it instead of cutting it in half and only allowing your "last word." Italia^vivi 21:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy for user rtalk pages is not the same as policy for other talk pages.Ferrylodge 21:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, seriously, take it to your talk pages or move on. Just stop having the discussion here. Italiavivi already got a warning from Tango so it would appear this 3RR report is closed. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:82.33.32.141 reported by User:Rmhermen (Result: Page Semi-protected )

• • Three-revert rule violation on

4th generation jet fighter (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 82.33.32.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Rmhermen 17:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC) He is doing whole batches of small edits all to the same final result.[reply]

• No actual 3RR here, but page semi-protected: should sort it out. ELIMINATORJR 22:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:`Abd al-Ghafur reported by User:Nadav1 (Result: 24 hour block )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Omar Bakri Muhammad (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). `Abd al-Ghafur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 12:56, 21 August 2007

• 3RR Warnings: [160]

The user refuses to explain his many reverts, which is very frustrating. I hope a short block would make him learn to communicate. nadav (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Someguy0830 reported by User:Slakr (Result:96H block )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Jim Moralés (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Someguy0830 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• User has been blocked twice already due to 3RR violations. --slakr 03:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked for 96 hours. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lester2 reported by User:Prester John (Result: No action )

• Three-revert rule violation on

John Howard (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Lester2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All reverts are the same;

• 1st revert: 22:29 21 Aug
• 2nd revert: 03:52 22 Aug
• 3rd revert: 04:18 22 Aug
• 4th revert: 04:18 23 Aug

Lester2 is a special purpose account with the only purpose of edit warring on the John Howard article. This user has made less than 250 edits and has been blocked 3 times for edit warring on this article, seemingly the only one he edits. While this report exceeds the 24 hour time frame, you can see with the last two edits he is violation of the spirit of 3RR and seems determined to "game" this system and these procedures. His last two 3RR blocks for edit warring on this article attracted only 48 hour penalties. I advocate to the ruling admin that the usual policy of increasing time penalties be enforced, (especially given his block history with this article) to at least try and teach a lesson. Nothing seems to be working at the moment. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 04:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see edit warring but not a 3RR vio. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. I haven't checked the content of the four edits that User:Prester John has cited (above) but looking at the dates listed, they start at 21 Aug and finish 23 August. The WP:SPA allegation seems a bit unnecessary to be in this report, but as it's in public view, I wish to say that have spent many of the past 24 hours creating new content for Wikipedia, the latest being the a totally new article on Lyall Howard, a few minutes ago. I'm sorry to find User: Prester John has already left an uncivil remark on Talk:Lyall_Howard. Lester2 06:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be reverting anything for the time being, as I want to avoid 3RR. Though I just wanted to point out that the first of those edits cited above was new content being added, and not reverted. The existing information about a 'petrol station' was not deleted, but is below the new info. Anyway, I won't change that info over the next 24 hours just to be sure. Thanks, Lester2 09:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I think this really needs to be dealt with elsewhere with evidence of edit warring, disruption and gaming 3RR resented over a longer period. ?AN/I would be a better place. Lester2, your voluntary withdrawal from editing for a day is commendable. To avoid allegations of gaming 3RR you could try sticking to one revert a day (1RR) and then seeking consensus on the talk page if your edit is reverted by another user. Not pursuing edits that have been failed to obtain consensus on the talk page would reduce the load on the article no end. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sasanoha reported by User:Endroit (Result: 24 hour block )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Tokyo (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Sasanoha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 15:34, 22 August 2007

• 1st revert: 17:30, 22 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 06:11, 23 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 13:04, 23 August 2007
• 4th revert: 13:40, 23 August 2007

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: 13:16, 21 August 2007

User:Beh-nam reported by User:DWC LR (Result: 72 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Ahmad Shah (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Beh-nam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 11:54, 22 April 2007

• 1st revert: 17:54, 23 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 18:56, 23 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 21:22, 23 August 2007 (Not Logged in)
• 4th revert: 21:33, 23 August 2007

User objects to listing Ahmad Shah Khan, Crown Prince of Afghanistan on a disambiguation page for people named Ahmad Shah. - dwc lr 21:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked for 72 hours, given previous issues with edit-warring. MastCell ^Talk 19:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Moulton reported by User:ConfuciusOrnis (Result:)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Rosalind Picard (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Moulton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 01:29, 23 August 2007

• 1st revert: 03:02, 23 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 04:03, 23 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 04:15, 23 August 2007
• 4th revert: 08:55, 23 August 2007

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: 04:04, 23 August 2007

There are technically more than four, but the piecemeal way he makes the reverts makes it hard to count, also edit-warring over the same issue at A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. ornis (t) 22:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that there is an exception to 3RR in the case of WP:BLP when there is content that is false, defamatory, and harmful to living persons. Another editor has similarly intervened and secured a lock on the biography pending resolution of multiple disputes. Moulton 03:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ksyrie reported by User:Addhoc (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

South Tibet (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Ksyrie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 03:39, 13 July 2007

• 1st revert: 23:30, 22 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 09:29, 23 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 09:39, 23 August 2007
• 4th revert: 09:49, 23 August 2007
• 5th revert: 21:20, 23 August 2007
• 6th revert: 22:41, 23 August 2007
• 7th revert: 22:57, 23 August 2007

Request from Ksyrie

User:Addhoc are always blanking the page of South Tibet and redirect it to a non-identical geographic name.South Tibet is much larger than the Arunachal Pradesh.No matter how many times I put links or refs,he insisted on vandal the article.My revert is seen as Antivandal.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 23:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just asked for Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 23:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed and removed the request at WP:AIV. This is a content dispute and making 3RR violations under the guise of "antivandal" activity is both disingenuous and counterproductive to the resolution of the dispute. Trusilver 23:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Addhoc 23:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Noroton reported by User:Cyde (Result: blocked for 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Michael Moore (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Noroton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 2007-08-23T17:06:08

• 1st revert: 2007-08-23T18:43:55
• 2nd revert: 2007-08-23T18:55:49
• 3rd revert: 2007-08-23T19:10:13 especially relevant: note the edit summary of "I'll revert forever."
• 4th revert: 2007-08-23T19:12:56

Noroton only stopped revert warring once the page was protected. He was citing an interesting interpretation of the external links policy, an interpretation that many people disagree about, and he is not "entitled" to ignore 3RR.

The site that he was removing a link from has a particularly nasty attack on a Wikipedian, which was even nastier at the time of some of the reverts. This has nothing to do with trying to push his own POV or getting his own preferred version of an article. Besides, the article is protected now, so a block would be purely punitive. ElinorD(talk) 00:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong. There was significant disagreement on both sides on whether there was an attack of any substance. The whole point about 3RR is that it cannot be violated; people edit warring always think they are immune from it and will always make up excuses, whether it's "Oh, the other guy is vandalizing" (when it's really a content dispute) or "Oh, the other guy is wrong". 3RR exists to prevent this mindless edit warring. --Cyde Weys 00:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page is protected. What would the block prevent? Tom Harrison^Talk 00:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Him edit warring again as soon as the page is unprotected and he inevitably continues removing the link? --Cyde Weys 00:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't we speaking the other day[161] about blocking both parties to an edit war? Tom Harrison^Talk 00:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, sounds about right. --Cyde Weys 00:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think instead of blocking everyone who removed or restored the link, the lighter weight solution would be to leave the page protected while a consensus forms. Tom Harrison^Talk 00:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone else who removed/restored the link aren't in violation - only one defiant user, reported here. smb 00:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Noroton is still at it, even now, removing the same link from a seperate page. smb 00:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to report this too. I ask for a block of at least 72 hours. This issue was decided by consensus, and Noroton is making POINT and DISRUPT violations. I also ask that Tom Harrison withdraw from this issue. No offense but his RW stances are very well known and usually affect his POV, many people feel. Look how he was one of the first administrators to come to this issue here. Some might say to protect his RW friends. •smedleyΔbutler• —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:41, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

I have blocked Noroton for 24 hours (standard given that this is his first 3RR violation). It's true that Michael Moore is now protected, and ElinorD is right that blocking should only be preventative, not punitive -- but looking over the sheer amount of articles he's been removing links from, and especially the "I'll revert forever" comment, it's clear that preventative block needs to take place. Noroton's actions have gone against the spirit of 3RR -- to prevent mindless edit warring against consensus, especially on controversial subjects like our "attack sites" policy, as well as the letter. --Krimpet 00:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Norton was editing in good faith in compliance with WP:NPA#External links, and there was a consensus that the site being removed contained an attack. This block should be reversed. - Crockspot 01:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be honest. Therre was no consensus that there was any attack from the mm.com page after the 'edit this page' links were taken off. And Noroton made many edits after this. And after he knew about it. •smedleyΔbutler• 02:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am being honest. Most people thought it was an attack. Not all of those same people thought the links should be removed. There was no clear consensus on that, and still is not. The policy at the time of the block did not mention consensus. It has been changed since the block. The block should be reversed. - Crockspot 02:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Putting the real name and photo of an editor, along with his Wikipedia identity, on the main page of a website, is extremely inappropriate, consensus or no consensus. It's actually far worse than the invitation to edit his user page. And it's most unusual to block after a page has been protected, even in a standard, POV-driven edit war, which is always based on the offending editor trying to enforce his version of a page. This was an entirely different case. ElinorD(talk) 02:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, let's be honest: Until about two weeks ago THF's user name was his real name, then he changed it to his real initials. He introduced himself on his page, and named his employer. He efforted to have inserted into 25 articles work he authored under his name attacking Michael Moore. He is writing a WSJ article, which he mentions now on his User page, and tells other editor he'll let them know when it is up. In fact, his employer, AEI, knows all about the Michael Moore situation now. The cat's not out of the bag, the cat was never in the bag. This is a made up "attack" that people who dislike Moore have jumped on to foam at the mouth. The block not only was justified, a lesson and a definition of "attack site" should come out of all of this that doesn't make us look ridiculous. --David Shankbone 03:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would not have blocked had he only revert warred on the now-protected Michael Moore. The fact that he was mass-reverting many other articles, even after the protection of Michael Moore, only further bolsters my belief that he would have continued to revert indefinitely, only making the situation worse. --Krimpet 02:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Additionally, I notice that Noroton was previously warned for violating 3RR on Controversies over the film SiCKO back in late June, though he was not blocked. --Krimpet 03:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to attack site seems pretty clear that Noroton was acting properly and should be unblocked. It also might suggest that those reverting him are vulnerable to a block. And anticipating the argument that "ARBCOM does not make policy", I would direct readers to another ruling: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams 2#Arbitration rulings. - Crockspot 03:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't select arbitrary proposed principles and place them out of context, Crockspot. Would the finding of fact, "Encyclopedia Dramatica as an outing and attack site", be legitimate if one replaced "Encyclopaedia Dramatica" with "MM.com"? --Iamunknown 03:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MM.com does not habitually "engage in the practice" of publishing private information about editors, as far as I know (though I had never seen it before). Nevertheless, at the time that Noroton was removing the links to the main page, the main page was harassing THF (and possibly still is). ElinorD (talk) 03:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether MM.com engaged in harassment previously is a matter of debate, but I am of the opinion that it is not now. Check for yourself: Click the first result for this Google search. They don't link to THF's user page, they aren't maintaining the "edit" links, but they instead display publicly-known information and link to the history of an article THF has edited, as if to point out a conflict of interest (I have not investigated whether or not this concern is legitimate, and so have no comment).

We have a serious question on our hands: How far are we willing to go to remove links to "attack sites", apparently to be broadly construed, at every instance a web site is hosting revealing information? Wikipedia is extremely wide known, and has a broad spectrum of discontented critics. Revealing posts, usually feeding off of familiar sites like WR or ED, are posted to more mainstream sites more often: Slashdot, now MM.com; what next, the NYTimes Wikipedia blog? Are we going to remove all of those links too?

It grieves me to see editors' right to privacy stolen from them, but this massive drama simply cannot continue every instance of an alleged "attack site". It is untenable. The proper response is not to freak out about it; create drama across several noticeboards and talk pages; remove links to the alleged "attack site", which by the defintion of ArbCom is not an attack site; delete offending posts; and revert and block bewildered newbies; the proper response to lock down a user's user and user talk page, post something to abate the curiosity of others, and simply revert, block, and ignore the vandals and trolls.

Note that my post is not addressed to you alone, Elinor. This whole MM.com incident has raised quite a few tempers and its fair share of drama; I guess that my post is part of the proceedings. --Iamunknown 04:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No personal attacks#External links at that time said clearly that links to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations should be removed, and that removal was not subject to 3rr. User:Noroton was doing that in good faith, thought he was following policy, and got blocked for it, even though the page was then protected. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a convenient location for this discussion to continue. Please do so, if desired, to ANI, the user's talkpage, or another appropriate page. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 04:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Edwardosaido reported by User:Italiavivi (Result: 24 hours )

• Three-revert rule violation on

2006 Lebanon War (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Edwardosaido (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: [162]

• 1st revert: 05:32, 23 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 05:49, 23 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 06:02, 23 August 2007
• 4th revert: 06:13, 23 August 2007
• 5th revert: 22:18, 23 August 2007
• 6th revert: 01:55, 24 August 2007

• Edwardosaido is a new user, but was warned twice by both User:Isarig and myself. Diffs of 3RR warnings:
  • 06:12, 23 August 2007, warned by Isarig
  • 22:30, 23 August 2007, warned by myself Italia^vivi 02:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked for 24 hours. --Haemo 03:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zsero reported by User:Italiavivi (Result: No action )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Fred Thompson (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Zsero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: [163]

Removal of age difference between Fred Thompson and Jeri Kehn Thompson.

• 1st revert: 04:19, 22 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 04:59, 22 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 06:20, 22 August 2007
• 4th revert: 07:49, 22 August 2007

Editor is not a new user, but was warned regardless 14:43, 22 August 2007. Italia^vivi 02:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, FTR I should point out that the warning came 7 hours after the last of these reverts, and I did not revert it again until 43 hours later, allowing time for further discussion. During those two days, Italiavivi received at least three separate warnings for his conduct (here and here). Now he makes this report, two days after the supposed infraction and after all that has passed between us during that time. I think it's fair to call that gaming the system.

If anyone's interested in the underlying dispute, see User talk:Zsero/Fred Thompson. Zsero 03:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, any block would be punitive, and not preventative since Zsero was warned after the violation, and has decided to stop. --Haemo 01:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He did not decide to stop. He made the exact same revert the following day. Why is a user being allowed to violate WP:3RR? Italia^vivi 01:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's well aware at this point that any more edit warring will get him blocked. I'm not into punishing users for things like that when they've told me here that they're going to stop edit warring. --Haemo 01:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Irpen reported by User:Alex Kov (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Kievan Rus' (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: --Alex Kov 09:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: [164]

• 1st revert: [165]
• 2nd revert: [166]
• 3rd revert: [167]
• 4th revert: [168]
• 5th revert: [169]

All these edits were aimed to remove the template from the article. Such reverts were also noticed in the past ([170], [171]) without discussing points he dislikes at the talk page. Some other Russian-related users are also removing the template consistenly, making personal attcks in the way Warning: please don't add idiotic infoboxes: they will be deleted. ([172]) --Alex Kov 09:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: this is not 5 but merely 1 revert but made in several steps. Here is an url[173] that clearly shows that those were five edits in series as I initially struggled to keep some of the stuff Alex revert-wars to insert until after I realized that after the removal of the junk there is nothing left to keep.

As I realized the need of removal only gradually though removing of nonsense piece by piece from the nationalist infobox pushed by a lone user against the consensus at talk:Kievan Rus'. Once I removed several misleading items in a series of separate edits one after another, I realized that the rest of the box is out of place. See article's talk for more. --Irpen 10:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It is clearly only three reverts of an original research insertion of the infobox (Pushed only by a single user Alex Kov). Irpen is my friend, so I would not act here, but the report is clearly made in error Alex Bakharev 10:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW Alex Kov has four reverts on the same article Alex Bakharev 10:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW Alex Bakharev is lyeing. I did only 3 edits today. --Alex Kov 10:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Russian commrads and "friends' friends" have appeared. Accusionnts in OR sounded for severel weeks and you neither talk nor give arguments to the point of template. Only one Ghrila made spme comments today. Any way, the breaking of 3RRV is proved by diffs. --Alex Kov 10:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• (6th) evert by Irpen [174]. Its nature is the same - to delete template, that doesnt sattisfy pro-Russian editors.--Alex Kov 11:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then, lets get the facts straight. First, I am neither "Russian" nor "comrade" but this is besides the point. Let's check the diffs. I indeed removed an infobox two times within the last 24 hours. But note that the "diffs" presented in the original complaint are of little use here. Instead of reverting I struggled to "keep" his stuff at least some of it until realizing again that this is all junk. Alex Kov so eager to achieve the block of his opponent, that he did not even bother to take time compile a report properly. Doing so would have shown that there is no 3RR at all.

• This is my first removal stamped 19:12 (GMT), August 23, 2007 immediately followed by adding refs to the article.
• Alex Kov reinserts the box at 9:21
• Initially I do not remove his box. To the contrary, I try to keep whatever is possible by only removing junk from it [175], [176], [177], [178]. Only at this point I realized that there is nothing left and removed the rest at 9:30 GMT.
• Alex Kov reverts me again in a single step 9:31 GMT
• I then try some alternative, not just remove the box but replace it with the image I uploaded.

So, if you count this as the latter as a "revert" as well there would be three. If you say that three reverts is also too many, I would agree to that in general too. One may remain under 4RR may and still be "revert warring". The user's junk was removed during the week by at least five editors. Discussions went on at three talk pages. The user persists with nationalist POV-pushing against consensus sometimes deliberately using different IP accounts to avoid being caught.

This time, however, he clearly violated 3RR with four infobox insertions at

• 14:41, August 23, 2007,
• 16:22, August 23, 2007,
• 09:21, August 24, 2007 and
• 09:31, August 24, 2007.

Also note that he reinserted the box at least a dozen times during the last seven days (even more if you look into two weeks) sometimes logged in, sometimes through 133... and 202... IP's to avoid detection. At least five different editors had to clean up the article from these intrusion.

So, there clearly was not a 3RR violation on my part. Whether I "warred" even is questionable. I could have easily waited for another user to revert as there is a clear consensus about the box' lunacy. At the same time, I am not asking to block Alex Kov either despite he is in clear violation of the spirit and the letter of 3RR. He obviously won't revert immediately and the revert war seems like not raging anymore. I don't care which version is "frozen" for the next hours as the talk page consensus clearly indicates that in the end of the day the box will not be there, at least in the current form. Hopefully, someone will spend time investigating this. As far as Alex Kov's block is concerned (he clearly violated 3RR) it is not really needed either. And please no "warning" templates too. I know that revert-warring is bad. 3 reverts may or may not be revert warring. We may disagree on these particular 3 reverts. A dozen reverts during a week especially with alterating 2 IP accounts and user's login clearly is. Anyway, I said what I had to say here and I am off now. --Irpen 11:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the fraudulent infobox two times a day is not revert warring. This is a trivial content dispute in which Irpen fends off nationalist fringecruft pushed into namespace by a guy who has put himself on the brink of being banned by the community. I request uninvolved folks to look after Kievan Rus for further antics on his part. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla, blaming all other users in nationalism because they dont share your views on history is absurd, that shadows your own vies as nationalistic. Watch tour tongue and clam down. The best thing you can do is participation in the disscusion at talk page, but you avoided this method.--Alex Kov 12:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, Wikipedia doesnt prohibit editing. It prohibits 3RR. All my edits were 3 times per day and not more. But you and your commrades made by dozens. Tell the fables I struggled to "keep" his stuff to smbody else. Everybody can see the talk page and history of Kievan Rus article to realize that four Russian-related users were bloking all atempts to edit the article, doing edit war ingoring wihout any disscusion at the talk page. And today your 3RR violation is obvious as well as a pushing of OR-ish image (using yours and your freinds terminology) that is pasted at the begining of the article, instead of the template. --Alex Kov 12:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your view of 3RR is even technically incorrect. It counts reverts per 24 hour-windows not the abstract "day". Now 6 different users reverted your insertion. I said all there is to it already and even more at the article's talk. I stopped editing it for now anyway. Since your violation of 3RR is clear please desist from the article and don't encourage the newly established single-purpose sock user:Zgoden to help you either. I will add more at the article's talk and will write an analysis for WP:ANI shortly. --Irpen 20:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing in common with user:Zgoden. You've attacked and blocked a new-commer. Is this is a style of doing things here? I ask admins to stop this groundless attacks and calm down Irpen and his warring "friends".--Alex Kov 13:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alex Kov reported by Alex Bakharev (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Kievan Rus' (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Alex Kov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: [179]

• 1st revert: 14:41, August 23, 2007
• 2nd revert: 16:22, August 23, 2007
• 3rd revert: 09:21, August 24, 2007
• 4th revert: 09:31, August 24, 2007

Alex Kov is obviously aware of the 3RR rule as he filled his own report just above

I want also note that Alex was reverted during last week by at least five different established editors Alex Bakharev 10:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In one day I make only 3 edits. Thats not a vioalotion of the 3RRV. 3 edits per 1 day are available. Arent you an admin? Dont you know the rules? Or you just want to block me by habds of others to prove your false statement? It looks like that you want to revenge me for Irpen "your friend" as you described him in above, who realy broke 3RRV...--Alex Kov 11:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kov, calm down. One, you clearly reinserted the box four times withing 24 hours. That's crystal clear. Two, I am not asking to get you blocked as I explained above. You should cool off a little and stop pushing the box against consensus of as shown by the fact that at least five editors reverted you within the last week. Some of those who reverted you did not even know that those 133 and 202 IP's as well as you are one and the same person. --Irpen 11:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is achieved by discussion, but those five editors were engaged in edit warring, not dissucsion. So, you arguments are weak. Those guys, including you, tried to prevent other users from additing colectivly.--Alex Kov 12:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This report is an outrageous example of forum shopping and an attempt to twist the rules to get rid of the opponent in a context dispute. This is not a new trick for User:Irpen either[180]. Both of these users, who seem to be editing in a suspicious tandem seem to forget that 3RR is not for punishment but rather for prevention. And I find it rather amusing that admin Bakharev is not aware of that. The editor against whom they ganged up is not overstepping the bounds of acceptable behaviour and is clearly within WP:BRD. I hope somebody can see behind these attempts to get rid of the content dispute opponent the true reason these two editors ganged up against User:Alex Kov. For me it is a clear cut case of WP:OWN, when any attempt to challenge their reign over East European topics is challenged. These attempt to turn WP into ethnic vendetta ground should not be tolerated. --Hillock65 17:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most of this rant does not warrant any response. I hope though, that some will click at the original report, the AN discussion that ensued and a feedback left by a processing admin at my talk page. --Irpen 20:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:M12390 reported by User:Nate1481 (Result: Page protected )

• Three-revert rule violation on

University of Bradford (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). M12390 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 14:38, 22 August 2007

• 1st revert: 14:27, 23 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 14:41, 23 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 11:42, 24 August 2007
• 4th revert: 11:55, 24 August 2007

Not a new user but warned anyway, later realise an earlier warning was already present.

• Diff of 3RR warning: 14:41, 23 August 2007

• I'm just protecting the page; both users seem intent on edit warring, along with a variety of other people as well. --Haemo 01:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:JeffCooke4764 reported by User:Sasha Callahan (Result: no action )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Quincy, Massachusetts (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). JeffCooke4764 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 6:14 23 August 2007

• 1st revert: 1:36 24 August
• 2nd revert*: 1:41 24 August
• 3rd revert: 5:02 24 August
• 4th revert: 14:50 24 August

* the intermediate edit was by JeffCooke too

Warning was given here right before fourth revert, but it was for vandalism.

JeffCooke4764 stopped editing right after the 4th revert, so no block is necessary right now. If he resumes, please let us know. - KrakatoaKatie 17:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Necessary Evil reported by User:Ssolbergj (Result: Page protected )

• Three-revert rule violation on

European Space Agency (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Necessary Evil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 14:09, and the current version (16:27)

• 1st revert: 13:24, 23 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 13:28, 24 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:09, 24 August 2007
• 4th revert: 16:27, 24 August 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 14:25

I should probably block both you for the edit war on this page, but I'll protect it instead and request you seek some dialogue on the talk page. --Haemo 04:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Syed Atif Nazir reported by User:Arrow740 (Result: Page protected and warning)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Criticism of Muhammad (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Syed Atif Nazir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 04:33, 23 August 2007

• 1st revert: 00:04, 24 August 2007 Undid all my changes to the intro.
• 2nd revert: 07:16, 24 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 17:30, 24 August 2007
• 4th revert: 17:46, 24 August 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: On his talk page from a while back here.
  • article has since been fully-protected.[181] ITAQALLAH 01:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editor has been warned that 3RR was breached and page protected. No block this time because it looks like there was some talk page discussion ongoing, and I'd like to see that continue. — TKD::Talk 02:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:59.176.106.168 reported by User:Muchness (Result: 24 hours )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 59.176.106.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: [182]

Some reverts are not straightforward; explanations provided below. This editor has been revert warring to include an unsourced section on "Team Gizka", a fan mod whose article has been listed at AFD twice (result: delete not merge) and salted. Content being added: [183]

• 1st revert: 19:43, 25 August 2007 - section reverted with minor rewords to other sections
• 2nd revert: 19:51, 25 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 20:55, 25 August 2007 - section reverted and additional content added
• 4th revert: 23:17, 25 August 2007
• 5th revert: 23:35, 25 August 2007
• 6th revert: 00:09, 26 August 2007
• Diff of 3RR warning: 23:55, 25 August 2007

• Blocked for 24 hours. --Haemo 01:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eyrian reported by User:ElminsterAumar (Result: no action)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Elminster Aumar (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Eyrian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 19:19, 23 August 2007

• 1st revert: 13:19, 24 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 04:01, 25 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 04:39, 25 August 2007
• Page protection, which is even worse than a revert: 16:27, 25 August 2007

It's not a violation of 3RR — in addition, removing tags without due discussion or claiming that guidelines are "idiotic" is ridiculous. --Haemo 06:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This looks to me like clear gaming by a single purpose account. --Haemo 06:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only account I have. And WP:WAF is an idiotic guideline that was only approved by a few people.--ElminsterAumar 06:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also this:

• Three-revert rule violation on

Space burial (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Eyrian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 00:17, 26 August 2007

• 1st revert: 00:17, 26 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 02:57, 26 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 06:29, 26 August 2007
• 4th revert: 06:36, 26 August 2007

• • Declined on both. In the second article, there were exactly three reverts. The first edit was not a revert. --B 07:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:MoritzB reported by User:Taharqa (Result: Page protected, warned)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Afrocentrism (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). MoritzB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported:15:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 19:19, 23 August 2007

• 1st revert: 00:29, 26 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 00:37, 26 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 02:14, 26 August 2007
• 4rd revert: 12:33, 26 August 2007

They are all the same and the user is relentless in trying to push some racist POV entries into the article that no one agrees with. Yet, the user is being extremely disruptive and has clearly violated 3rr.Taharqa 15:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to sterile edit warring on the part of both sides, and the fact that discussion is continuing on the talk page, the best option seemed to be to protect the page while the dispute is resolved. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bharatveer reported by User:Akhilleus (Result: 1 week )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Romila Thapar (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 09:37, 25 August 2007

• 1st revert: 07:16, 26 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 07:36, 26 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 08:08, 26 August 2007
• 4th revert: 09:13, 26 August 2007

• User has been blocked for 3RR before. These edits are on a BLP, and the attempt to characterize the subject as a "Marxist" when she doesn't claim to be one is arguably a BLP violation. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Moreschi ^Talk 16:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hakozen reported by Marshal Bagramyan (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Erzurum (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Hakozen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: [184]

• 1st revert: [185]
• 2nd revert: [186]
• 3rd revert: [187]
• 4th revert: [188]
• This user has been going around virtually every Armenian-related article and removing any and all references to the Armenian Genocide. This is one of the articles where he has violated the 3RR rule, which he is already well informed of: [189].--Marshal Bagramyan 18:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hakozen doesn't appear to have made more than three reverts, but he's clearly edit-warring on multiple articles, which is what the rule is designed to prevent. I blocked Hakozen for 24 hours. I've also blocked User:The Myotis for 24 for the same reason.--Chaser - T 20:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zsero reported by User:Ghostexorcist (Result: No 3RR violation)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Kaifeng Jews (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Zsero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: [190]

• 1st revert: [191] 23-Aug 19:46 UTC
• 2nd revert: [192] 24-Aug 17:46 UTC
• 3rd revert: [193] 24-Aug 18:06 UTC
• 4th revert: [194] 26-Aug 01:45 UTC
• 5th revert: [195] 26-Aug 13:30 UTC

• Diff of 3RR warning: [196] 26-Aug 18:02 UTC

This user is currently being charged with another violation on another article.

--Ghostexorcist 18:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of editing this report to give the correct links the 2nd revert and the so-called "warning", to add the reporter's signature, and to give the dates and times of all the above. I think that makes it clear that there's not even close to a violation.

I'll also point out that the claim that I am "currently being charged with another violation" wasn't true even at the time this report was made - that complaint had been resolved nearly a full day earlier. (In that case I had in fact inadvertently broken 3RR, but the report was filed two days after this violation, by an editor who has given me ample evidence that he was acting in bad faith.)

Zsero 18:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that Zsero acts like he owns the article. He continually removes content that he doesn't think should be on the page. The disputed is about whether "Hata clan" and "Khazars" should be in the "See also" section. The Hata and Kharzars are central Asian and Japanese Jews (according to their articles). The Kaifeng Jews article is about the Chinese Jews of Kaifeng, Henan province, China. The "See also" section is supposed to hold links related to the subject: 1) They are all Jewish, 2) Hata clan are Japanese Jews (Asian Jews like that of Kaifeng). Even if the temporary block is not applied, I hope this has shown Zsero that he needs to cut back on the coveting of pages. --Ghostexorcist 21:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see 4 reverts in 24 hours in the diffs provided. --PinchasC £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to argue a content dispute. Has this editor broken the 3RR? No. Then the argument or problem needs to be raised elsewhere. Try an article RFC or WP:3O. If that doesn't work try mediation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cmmmm reported by User:Dev920 (Result: 24 hours / unblocked )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Pope Benedict (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Cmmmm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 07:16, August 26, 2007

• 1st revert: 21:31, August 26, 2007
• 2nd revert: 21:37, August 26, 2007
• 3rd revert: 21:43, August 26, 2007
• 4th revert: 21:49, August 26, 2007

Just did a fifth after a different user reverted, and asked him to discuss on talkpage: 22:11, August 26, 2007—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dev920 (talk • contribs) 22:21, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours to end edit war. --Haemo 03:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I neglected to notice he hadn't been warned, so I'm unblocking him. If he keeps up the edit war, then I'll block. --Haemo 03:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was warned in several edit summaries, as far as I know. But hey, he's stopped, so a block evidently isn't needed anymore. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ramdrake reported by User:MoritzB (Result:Article protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Race and intelligence (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Ramdrake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous versions reverted to: 20:17, 26 August 2007 and 12:57, 26 August 2007

Ramdrake has performed these six reverts either restoring deleted material or deleting added material. In his sixth edit he used a sockpuppet.

• 1st revert: 12:57 26 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 14:11, 26 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 15:15, 26 August 2007
• 4th revert: 16:50, 26 August 2007
• 5th revert: 20:17, 26 August 2007
• 6th revert (sockpuppet): 20:25, 26 August 2007

For confirmation of sockpuppetry used to circumvent WP:3RR see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ramdrake

Ramdrake is an experienced user familiar with WP:3RR but here is the warning:

• Diff of 3RR warning: 17:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I could launch into a similar counter-suit against user MoritzB, but I won't. What he did was obviously gaming the system in regards to WP:3RR violation. In any case, the article is already fully protected for a month, so further disruption is already prevented as it is. I believe I've learned my lesson.--Ramdrake 03:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you also learn your lesson about not using sockpuppets to edit war and then denying using them? [197]KarenAER 03:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KarenAER, stop this nonsense. This is disruptive to Wikipedia. There is no sockpuppet. You are instigating and canvassing others to report other users who disagree with you and others with your agenda. Like I advised you, spend time reading books, and bettering Wikipedia by adding information backed by reliable sourses, not opinion. And wasting time with this reporting, it's like running to the principal's office like we are in junior high school, with the bully accusing the bullied. - Jeeny ^Talk 03:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is Ramdrake's dishonesty. The IP sockpuppet was obviously him. Like User:Deskana responded to the check user request it's obvious that the IP is him, anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ramdrake

After I requested Ramdrake to undo his edit which broke WP:3RR he did so. Then he immediately logged out and reverted the article again to the version he wanted using the IP address sockpuppet. However, when I asked Ramdrake whether the IP address belonged to him he denied that. [[198] Apparently he still denies that he used a sockpuppet. He broke WP:3RR awfully with six different edits and must face sanctions for this violation and sock puppetry. MoritzB 03:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has been protected, so there's no need for a block on 3RR terms. You may want to post at WP:ANI about the sockpuppetry issue. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:SquidSwim reported by Astruc (Result: Warned)

• Three-revert rule violation on

{{Ralph Nader}}. SquidSwim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st revert: Aug 27, 2:59 [199]
• 2nd revert: Aug 27, 3:23 [200]
• 3rd revert: August 27, 3:41 [201]
• 4th revert: August 27, 3:42 [202]
• 5th revert: August 27, 3:58 [203]

I have tried to reason with this person by communicating on her/his Talk page. This person has only edited at this one article, the Ralph Nader article. Astruc 04:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user has not been warned so no action has been taken. You should note that you are just as guilty of edit warring as User:SquidSwim - I have warned both of you. ugen64 04:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:VitasV reported by User:Digby Tantrum (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Doctor Who story chronology (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). VitasV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 21:46, 26 August 2007

• 1st revert: 01:49, 27 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 08:25, 27 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 08:36, 27 August 2007
• 4th revert: 08:47, 27 August 2007

User:Laertes d reported by User:Vonones (Result: 1 month/24h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Laertes d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st revert: [204]
• 2nd revert: [205]
• 3rd revert: [206]
• 4th revert: [207]
• 5th revert: [208]
• 6th revert: [209]
• 7th revert: [210]

• A ridiculous drawn-out edit war, and I suspect (WP:DUCK) the nominator violated 3RR as will by switching to IP editing. Even if he didn't, there is enough in this history for an edit-warring block. 24h block for the nominator, and 1 month for Laertes d, who has an escalating block log for exactly this reason. ELIMINATORJR 15:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:83.115.152.229 reported by User:Pieter Kuiper (Result: 24 hour block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Rydberg formula (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 83.115.152.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st revert: [211]
• 2nd revert: [212]
• 3rd revert: [213]
• 4th revert: [214] Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 15:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: [215]

The user 83.115.152.229 seems to introduce the same "Note" with theories <quote>not admitted by current physicists</quote> on a daily basis. /Pieter Kuiper 10:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Three-revert rule violation on

Nicholas Knatchbull (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Deus Ex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 10:28, 27 August 2007

• 1st revert: 16:00, 27 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 16:14, 27 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 16:33, 27 August 2007
• 4th revert: 16:57, 27 August 2007

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: 16:35, 27 August 2007
  • Blocked for 3RR Sasquatch t c 18:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lwachowski reported by User:IPSOS (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Lwachowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 16:38, 26 August 2007

• 1st revert: 04:48, 27 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 17:13, 27 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 17:28, 27 August 2007
• 4th revert: 17:41, 27 August 2007
• 5th revert: 18:53, 27 August 2007

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: 17:37, 27 August 2007

• • User has been blocked for 24 hours. ugen64 18:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:75.183.186.223 reported by User:Chrishomingtang (Result:moot)

• Three-revert rule violation on

China (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 75.183.186.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st revert: 09:57, August 27, 2007
• 2nd revert: 13:38, August 27, 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:10, August 27, 2007
• 4th revert: 14:24, August 27, 2007

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: 14:30, August 27, 2007

• There needs to be a version reverted to, or else the first edit is not a revert. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this version is the one. Chris!_{my talk} 22:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Report is now moot because the IP has been blocked due to another report below. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User: 87.122.22.60 reported by User:Barneca (Result:24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Blaqk Audio (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 87.122.22.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: [216]

• 1st revert: [217]
• 2nd revert: [218]
• 3rd revert: [219]
• 4th revert: [220]
• 5th revert: [221]
• 6th revert: [222]
• 7th revert: [223]
• 8th revert: [224]

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: [225]

Additional note: Obviously same user as 87.122.39.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who was blocked for 3 hours just yesterday for harassing the same user he is now edit warring with. --barneca --barneca (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Both the IP and User:Xr_1 (reported below) have let this edit war get way out of hand, even after warnings, so 24 hours for both. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xr 1 reported by User:Barneca (Result:24h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Blaqk Audio (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Xr 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: [226]

• 1st revert: [227]
• 2nd revert: [228]
• 3rd revert: [229]
• 4th revert: [230]
• 5th revert: [231]
• 6th revert: [232]
• 7th revert: [233]
• 8th revert: [234]
• 9th revert: [235]

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: [236]

• See above report for reasoning. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:TharkunColl reported by User:G2bambino (Result: 72 hours )

• Three-revert rule violation on

God Save the Queen (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). TharkunColl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: [237]

• 1st revert: 18:06, 27 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 18:14, 27 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 22:58, 27 August 2007
• 4th revert: 23:33, 27 August 2007

This user is well aware of 3RR rules, and indeed seemed to prompt me to report him based on his statement with his final revert: "Rv. Go for it, Bambi." --G2bambino 23:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so is User:G2bambino fully aware of them, and broke them himself by exactly the same amount. Worse, he made a massive revision to the article without discussing it first on the talk page, which is why I reverted. This user has been pushing a nationalist agenda for at least 18 months now, and has vandalised many, many articles. He has also, incidentally, used the IRA anti-British ethnic slur "brutish" to refer to myself on a number of occasions. This sort of pro-terrorist racism should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. TharkunColl 23:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I wasn't going to bother with the above comment initially, but the latter addition requires something be said.

1. I'm sure the reviewing admin can count.
2. I'm sure the reviewing admin can see the difference between a revert and and edit.
3. I used "brutish" as an adjective to describe your reverts - i.e. lacking in tact and rational explanation - not towards you personally. I suppose I should take offence to the inference that I'm pro-terrorist and racist, but I'll let it slide, for now. --G2bambino 23:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look up "brutish", I think you'll find it means something rather different to what you claim to think it does. The real brutes are the IRA murderers and their supporters. Please stop spewing your POV through all these articles. TharkunColl 00:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You both need to stop edit warring, and especially stop with the personal attacks. --Haemo 00:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

78.86.0.134 reported by Adrian M. H. (Result: 31 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Docklands Light Railway (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 78.86.0.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 23:34, 27 August 2007
• 1st 00:44, 28 Aug
• 2nd 00:43, 28 Aug
• 3rd 00:42, 28 Aug
• 4th 00:38, 28 Aug
• 5th 00:31, 28 Aug
• Diff of 3RR warning: 23:43, 27 August 2007

I have added links for some recent reverts... five in 15 minutes. He might even be correct but has managed to annoy many other editors. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is up to approximately 14 now. Various editors have reverted his reversions. His last edit (at the time of writing this) was the addition of a vandalistic comment. Adrian M. H. 01:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 31 hours by Academic Challenger (talk · contribs). - auburnpilot talk 02:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lukeeli reported by User:OverlordQ (Result:article deleted)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Battlefield Baptist Church (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Lukeeli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 05:33, August 27, 2007

• 1st revert: 22:18, August 27, 2007
• 2nd revert: 22:25, August 27, 2007
• 3rd revert: 22:27, August 27, 2007
• 4th revert: 22:30, August 27, 2007

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: 22:28, August 27, 2007

• Please provide diffs rather than oldids. Thank you. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As the article has been deleted, there's no more need for action.

User:Capricornis reported by User:Mr. Neutron (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Capricornis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 17:43, 23 August 2007

• 1st revert: 05:46, 27 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 01:01, 28 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 03:14, 28 August 2007
• 4th revert: 03:28, 28 August 2007
• 5th revert: 18:54, 28 August 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 03:17, 28 August 2007. Mr. Neutron 03:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been pushing a POV version of the article, completely replacing the existing text with blatant copyvios from various sites, mixed with original research in essay style. Was warned multiple times on his talk page and the article talk. Mr. Neutron 03:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not seeing how the second edit is a revert; please explain. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second edit (05:46) is revert to the previous version. Mr. Neutron. At the very least, the phrase "The Bulgarian flag and the name Makedonia is shown." is removed in all instances. 16:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- response by capricornis -- I might be new to wikipedia, and have not engaged in as many wars as Mr. Neutron, so I don't know how to abuse the system as well as he does, but I can read the rules well, and I have not broken any of them. I changed a blurb, not an article, Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views), which originally contained very little information about the actual event into a well-written, relevant piece of information, which takes no sides, while the original Mr. Neutron's article seems to have been more concerned about proving 'Bulgarianism' than talking about the event itself. The note on the flag and the flag itself I removed because nowhere it is shown how that image relates to the event, except in the caption, which could have been anything.

I have repeateadly tried to talk sense with Mr.Neutron, but he has refused any communication, to the extent that he immediatelly undoes any talks I leave on his personal talk page (check his history)

I am open to constructive discussion and consensus.

thank you

Capricornis 17:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On multiple instances I explained the importance of the following, which were broken in various degrees: Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia:Copyvio and Wikipedia:OR. The text you insert completely erases the work of dozens of editors before you. You insert some text which is unsourced by any criteria, does not conform to encyclopedia standards of objectivity and is generally in essay form, lacking internal links, etc. In addition you erase relevant documents and links from the existing article. You can certainly work towards improving the existing piece of information, not replace it with something you like better. Mr. Neutron 17:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--- capricornis ---

No you did not explain anything. You immediately reverted all changes. Look up the wikipedia definition of BLURB. The previous article was absolutely inadequate, and told next to nothing about the actual event. "Dozens of editors" comes down to mostly you, anyone can check the history of the article.

The text is much better sources than the previous blurb, which had only a bunch of mostly irrelevant sources quoted at the end. Most of those sources were about the alleged bulgarian identity of the inhabitants, and had next to nothing about the actual event - the uprising. The current text is absolutely sources from web sites and books, and the sources are quoted next to each section, so anyone can check the validity of the information. I will add more sources as I have time, since I have a real job and life to attend to. I started adding internal links, but after a day of research, I was too tired to finish it. Instead of deleting the complete article, you could have helped me by adding internal links yourself.

The judgement about the article being in an essay form, I will leave to someone else, as you are definitely not qualified to make it. It is much more objective and neutral than the previous one, which seemed only gear on proving 'Bulgarianism'. The picture with the flag was not properly sourced, for all anyone knows, it could be your own drawing.

There was next to no existing information in the previous article. I replaced it with a much better starting point. I already wrote to you that you are welcome to add to the new version, which again, is way better starting point than the previous one.

You seem to have taken this very personally, as "my" article against "your" article, and seem to forget that the point of wikipedia is not self-glorification, but making the best possible, objective, neutral information available to the greatest number of people.

And please do not undo my comments on you talk page, they are no trolling or offensive, but polite and sensible conversation, which should be there for the admins on this site to see (I did not, and have no intention of, undoing your comments on my talk page).

thank you, Capricornis 18:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This place is not for content discussions. It is a fact you broke the 3RR rule, for which you were reported. Mr. Neutron 18:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No sir, you are wrong yet again. YOU are the one who broke the 3RR rule FIRST on this article. Get it? I wrote the article, you reverted, then I reverted, you, I, you, I. Do the math, you have done the 3 reverts before me, and have even saved me the trouble of reporting you, since you have done it yourself.

btw, you started all the content discussion above, I just replied to your allegations. If this is not a place for content discussions, then don't start one.

cheers, Capricornis 18:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see Mr. Neutron has started yet another edit war on the Yane Sandanski article. Edit warring seems to be his favorite passtime. Isn't there a mechanism to protect wikipedia against users like this? If someone has lots of spare time that doesn't mean that they should be right, only by the virtue of adding more volume into the discussion? -cheers Capricornis 19:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Crossmr reported by User:Njyoder (Result:no action)

• Three-revert rule violation on

PayPal (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Crossmr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 23:42, 27 August 2007

• 1st revert: 09:12, 27 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 22:52, 27 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 23:07, 27 August 2007
• 4th revert: 23:42, 27 August 2007

The user is aware of 3RR rules and despite this decided to continually revert to push a POV. They were attempting to keep the entire criticism section of the article one vague sentence and stated that even that was generous. -Nathan J. Yoder 04:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not willing to block mainly because the reporter is also edit warring, even if not technically breaking 3RR. Crossmr's most recent edit seems to be an effort at compromise; let's hope more discussion can help fix this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• [Edited to add this since you made it about content: the user crossmr is reverting any content anyone adds to the criticism section. I had to revert once to back up another editor just to get a _tag_ to stick. crossmr has made no attempt at compromise and even when I attempted to rephrase the section to his liking he deleted all of the addition instead of modifying it. He literally has said that there should be no criticism section at all and that a single vague sentence is his 'compromise.' ]

What difference does it make if I'm "edit warring"? I didn't know people were allowed to get away with a clear 3RR violation if the reporter is in a content dispute. You're essentially giving crosssmr a free ticket to violate 3RR (to "win" as it were) to counter the views of multiple others disagree with crossmr's (one person's) view. [Edit the second: I see the one edit you're referring to. That's hardly much of a compromise. Basically, he changed the one vague sentence to become a more specific sentence. This was after him repeatedly deleting it for the vague version. Do we need to wait for a second incident after I try to add a second sentence?] crossmr keeps trying to revert the 'Criticism' section to be exactly one sentence regardless of what others have tried to add (not just myself and even I was just trying to revert to a slightly modified form of a version someone else added). They are working against consensus and not really acting in good faith. Please don't mark this no action before discussing this with me. -Nathan J. Yoder 04:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zephyr99 reported by User:Check-Six (Result:12h for both)

• Three-revert rule violation on

D. B. Cooper (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Zephyr99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 20:56, 27 August 2007

• 1st revert: 17:47, 27 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 18:01, 27 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 20:11, 27 August 2007 - Warned in RVV notes of possible 3RR violation
• 4th revert: 20:46, 27 August 2007
• 5th revert: 21:07, 27 August 2007
• 6th revert: 11:34, 28 August 2007 Check-Six 05:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please provide diffs rather than oldids. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 16:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done - please consider post-haste Check-Six 05:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Both reporter and reported are guilty of violating 3RR. Do you want me to block you both or block neither of you? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:14, 29 August 2007

• I counter that my revertions were manual, requesting soucres, and of a NPOV nature, unlike the accused, who has instituted an "auto post" to prevent any edits or revertions to the section, are unsourced or cited, and is pushing a POV. All I ask is an admin warning for the accused. Check-Six 15:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, seeing that you have just continued the edit war, I think the only solution is to block both. See you in 12 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:ILike2BeAnonymous reported by User:Heqwm

At the Bowling for Columbine arrticle, ILike2BeAnonymous made reverts at the following times: 23:54, 26 August 2007 01:53, 27 August 2007 02:00, 27 August 2007 03:48, 27 August 2007. Heqwm 06:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
• Diff of 3RR warning: 20:37, 27 August 2007

• Please provide diffs for each revert. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • The 4th edit you mentioned was not a revert. Therefore the user did not violate the 3 revert rule. ugen64 06:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How in the world is the last edit not a revert? The second paragraph in the WAWW criticism section after the edit-that-is-somehow-not-a-revert is exactly the same as the second paragraph in the WAWW criticism section after ILike2BeAnonymous's 02:00, 27 August 2007 revert.

23:54 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bowling_for_Columbine&oldid=153840715 1:53 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bowling_for_Columbine&oldid=153859577 2:00 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bowling_for_Columbine&oldid=153860693 3:48 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bowling_for_Columbine&oldid=153879048 Heqwm 17:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• These are oldids. We're looking for diffs, i.e., links that show the change from one revision to another. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the reverts were not always consecutive with the edits that they reverted, I don't see the value of diffs.Heqwm 21:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rickvaughn reported by User:Darrenhusted (Result:24h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

The Simpsons Movie (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Rickvaughn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 09:54 27 August 2007

• 1st revert: 10:05 27 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 01:58 28 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 13:22 28 August 2007
• 4th revert: 15:05 28 August 2007
• 5th Revert: 15:14 28 August 2007
• Diff of 3RR warning: 15:19 28 August 2007
• 6th Revert 15:32 28 August 2007

User has also tried to delete this report. Darrenhusted 15:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked for 24 due to extensive edit warring. Darrenhusted and Gran12 are also warned not to edit war themselves. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paddy3118 reported by User:205.228.73.12 (Result:warnings)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Duck typing (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Paddy3118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 09:59, 28 August 2007.

• 1st revert: 10:59, 28 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 11:37, 28 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 11:41, 28 August 2007
• 4th revert: 14:42, 28 August 2007
• 5th revert: 15:11, 28 August 2007
• 6th revert: 15:35, 28 August 2007
• 7th revert: 15:47, 28 August 2007

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: Not sure if this is what is required here

• The reporter is just as guilty as the reported user. As the reporter is currently hopping IPs, a block is likely to be ineffective. Reported user has not been warned, so I will do this. I warn the reporter that if he/she continues to hop IPs and edit war, I'll semi-protect the article. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:75.183.186.223 reported by User:Nat (Result:24h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

People's Republic of China (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 75.183.186.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st revert: Revision as of 16:51, 27 August 2007
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 17:19, 27 August 2007
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 20:44, 27 August 2007
• 4th revert: Revision as of 21:16, 27 August 2007
• 5th revert: Revision as of 16:40, 28 August 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 21:30, 27 August 2007

• Oh, huzzah, another Nat! We aren't too common. :-) Anyway, 24 hour block for the IP for edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

haha..well it actually me User:Nat.tang...but I usurpt my current name..:P nat^tang 18:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:`Abd al-Ghafur reported by User:JediLofty (Result: 72h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Abu Izzadeen (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). `Abd al-Ghafur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 18:19, 28 August 2007

• 1st revert: Revision as of 11:18, 23 August 2007
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 10:58, 27 August 2007
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 15:15, 28 August 2007

This user seems to exist only to revert articles! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 17:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blocked for 72 hours for repeated edit warring and absolutely no discussion. Sasquatch t c 20:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Giovanni Giove reported by User:Dr.Gonzo (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Giacomo Micaglia (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Giovanni Giove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 09:53, 12 August 2007

• 1st revert: 15:08, 27 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 15:43, 27 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 16:35, 27 August 2007
• 4th revert: 17:07, 27 August 2007
• 5th revert: 17:31, 27 August 2007
• 6th revert: 11:20, 28 August 2007
• 7th revert: 19:25, 28 August 2007

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: 18:47, 28 August 2007

I've just reverted the edits of a banned user. The problem has been already reported to the moderator user:Isotope23, see [238]. To delete the edits of a banned user is not a violation of the 3RR. Dr.Gonzo has been properly informed.--Giovanni Giove 18:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of those edits was by a confirmed banned user. Others were not. --Dr.Gonzo 19:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for the first 2 reverts (which it was stated were reverts of No.13 (talk·contribs), but I've not looked into that), but all subsequent reverts appear to be of IP edits made by banned editor Afrika paprika (talk·contribs) editing from an IP.--Isotope23^talk 19:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a confirmation on that? I don't feel comfortable with this especially since Giovanni Giove has a history of disruptive edit warring.. --Dr.Gonzo 19:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have already confirmation. And I have no history of destruptive edit warring. I am destruptive only for some of legends that in Croatia as theached as "history". I had 4 blocks. The 1st time I was a new user, the 2nd and 3rd were (recognized) errors of the admins. So I have ONE events, it was my mistake!. All the 4 events were ALWAYS caused by Afrika paprika.Giovanni Giove 21:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear that from an admin. --Dr.Gonzo 22:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I'll add is that I am sure enough that I rangeblocked the IPs... and I don't rangeblock lightly.--Isotope23^talk 23:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the IP whois query indicates those IPs are in the T-com Croatia range, by far the largest Internet provider in Croatia, but what worries me is that there are 3 different IP's from that range in less than an hour (see [239], [240] and [241]) which would go against your conclusion, unless you think Afrika paprika disconnected and reconnected after every edit? (even then he may not always receive a different IP address) --Dr.Gonzo 00:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to add it is evident from Giovanni Giove's categorisation of Croatian (and Dalmatian, by association) history as "legend", that his reverts were not done in the interest of historic accuracy, but originated in some seriously irrational and very deeply rooted beliefs inspired by his love for his home-town. DIREKTOR 01:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His contributions are already under microscope I hope in Wikipedia: Requests for arbitration - "3.4. Dalmatia" section. His activities at this article are just a small part of his numerous activities of the same kind (vandalism?) everywhere else. In fact he's only edit-warring. See his contributions. Thanks. Zenanarh 17:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:VitasV reported by User:Wryspy (Result: 48 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Doctor Who story chronology (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). VitasV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 23:49, August 26, 2007

• 1st revert: 23:26, August 27, 2007
• 2nd revert: 23:41, August 27, 2007
• 3rd revert: 00:39, August 28, 2007
• 4th revert: 15:09, August 28, 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: warning and block notice
• Most recent 3RR warning: [242]

We have to go into the history of VitasV's talk page because VitasV has blanked the page and removed warnings/block notices even though told not to do that.

I'm usually not one to get upset over a user blanking their talk page; it's usually pretty easy to flip through the history to find the previous warnings. Thanks for the direct links, though. Kuru ^talk 03:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sixstring1965 reported by User:Arcayne (Result:no vio)

• Three-revert rule violation on

John Lennon (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). User:Sixstring1965 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: [243]

• 1st revert: [244]
• 2nd revert: [245]
• 3rd revert: [246]
• 4th revert: [247]
• 5th revert: [248]
• 6th revert: [249]
• 7th revert: [250]

The user is an established editor; however, he was warned of their impending 3RR here.

The edits either reinstate large, uncited pasages, removes cn tags without providing citation and reverts corrections to MOS (section titling), essentially being highly disruptive. As well, the user makes personal attacks and accusations. And the same sort of behavior occurs in the May Pang article, where the user is sitting on 3 reverts (actually, it might be more, but I figure the above is apretty clear indicator as to what is going on). All in all, a fairly unleasant individual. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts 1, 2, 3 and 4 are consecutive edits, as are 6 and 7, so each of these is really only one revert. So we've hit three reverts, not four. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:24.247.215.55 reported by User:JetLover (Result: 24 hour block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

ARTICLE_NAME (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). NAME_OF_USER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: [251]

• 1st revert: [252]
• 2nd revert: [253]
• 3rd revert: [254]
• 4th revert: [255]
• 5th revert: [256]
• 6th revert: [257]

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: [258]

The IP has been blocked for 24 hours. ugen64 04:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Commator reported by User:Rainwarrior (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Commator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 02:52, 22 August 2007

• 1st revert: 00:54, 27 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 04:23, 27 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 09:55, 27 August 2007
• 4th revert: 10:21, 27 August 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 10:06, 27 August 2007

(Not sure if user qualifies as "new"; he has been making edits for half a year or so.)

This has been a part of a usually slower back and forth reversion between myself and Commator over an external link to his website. The discussion between the two of us is at Talk:Konstantin Tsiolkovsky#Tributes Section. A ban might send a bit of a message here, but a comment on the talk page from a third person would do a lot more to help this problem. - Rainwarrior 07:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some talk page discussion concerning this. I've added my thoughts, and warned against edit warring. I'm fine with letting things unfold on talk. We should keep an eye on the edit warring though (it continued a little yesterday). -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Biofoundationsoflanguage reported by User:BigDunc (Result: 48 hour block )

• Three-revert rule violation on

List of British flags (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: [259]

• 1st revert: 09:09 28 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 9:31 28 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 10:54 28 August 2007
• 4th revert: 8:09 29 August 2007

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

Not new user and is aware of 3RR.BigDunc 12:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to break it and could not self-revert my last edit because that had already been done by BigDunc. The breach was accidental and not malicious. Sorry. Biofoundationsoflanguage 13:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. - 48 hour block. This revert-warring has been going on for weeks now and a number of editors have been caught in it - Alison ☺ 15:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Movieguy999 reported by User:EEMeltonIV (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Movieguy999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has not made the fourth revert to be in violation of 3RR's general definition. However, his edit history shows that he consistently reverts several Star Wars movie articles to a version that fits his preference while ignoring consensus reached on these featured articles' talk pages. I've listed one movie here, but he's made similar reverts to Star Wars II and Star Wars III. --EEMeltonIV 14:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 08:39, 29 August, today's version - This one from 16 Aug is I think his first removal of material, and subsequent edits have similarly excised chunks from the movies' Criticm sections.

• 1st revert: 08:39, 29 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 10:18, 29 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 10:32, 29 August 2007

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: 13:12, 23 August

Movieguy999 has made three reverts recently on Star Wars III. He has been a user since mid-August of this year. Greg Jones II 16:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. for 24 hours. --Hemlock Martinis 18:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Traditional unionist reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result: 48 hours )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Orange Institution (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Traditional unionist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 08:59, 29 August 2007

• 1st revert: 11:16, 29 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 12:06, 29 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 15:02, 29 August 2007
• 4th revert: 15:15, 29 August 2007
• 5th revert: 15:19, 29 August 2007

User(s) blocked. - blocked for 48 hours for blatant 3RR violation. ONiH, you're on your last chance on that one, too - Alison ☺ 15:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gantuya eng reported by User:HongQiGong (Result: 24 hour block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

China (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Gantuya eng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 2007-08-28T22:45:05

• 1st revert: 2007-08-29T02:38:25
• 2nd revert: 2007-08-29T05:20:58
• 3rd revert: 2007-08-29T05:38:08
• 4th revert: 2007-08-29T07:11:47

• Diff of 3RR warning: 2007-08-29T05:41:07

User blocked for 24 hours. ugen64 22:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:SquidSwim reported by User:Astruc (Result: 24 hour block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

{{Ralph Nader}}. SquidSwim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Time reported: 17:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st revert: 18:37, 28 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 06:34, 29 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 17:13, 29 August 2007
• 4th revert: 17:49, 29 August 2007

Note as well that SquidSwim was warned earlier not to revert this page (see here). I ceased doing so. SquidSwim has continued reverting. Please note as well that this editor only edits the Ralph Nader article, which leads me to think he/she isn't truly interested in the Wikipedia project, but it only this topic. Astruc 17:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked for 24 hours. In addition I have protected the page, because there are loads of IPs and other users who have waded into this edit war and there have been very few constructive recent edits not related to this edit war. ugen64 21:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:205.154.39.10 reported by User:Satori Son (Result: No action)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Granada Hills High School (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 205.154.39.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 05:32, August 7, 2007

• 1st revert: 19:29, August 22, 2007
• 2nd revert: 16:46, August 27, 2007
• 3rd revert: 19:25, August 28, 2007
• 4th revert: 19:28, August 28, 2007
• 5th revert: 21:10, August 28, 2007
• 6th revert: 00:25, August 29, 2007
• 7th revert: 19:55, August 29, 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 19:35, August 28, 2007

The IP has made only 3 reverts in 24 hours, and so he has not technically violated the 3 revert rule. However, these edits all seem to be vandalism so I gave him a final warning for that. ugen64 22:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that we should tolerate someone gaming the system with 5 reverts in 24½ hours, but I understand your position. I'll continue to monitor. Thanks, Satori Son 00:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jacurek reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result:24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

History of Jews in Poland (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Jacurek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: [260]

• 1st revert: [261]
• 2nd revert: [262]
• 3rd revert: [263]
• 4th revert: [264]
• 5th revert: [265]
• 6th revert: [266]
• 7th revert: [267]
• 8th revert: [268]

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

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

• Diff of 1st 3RR warning: [269]
• Diff of 2nd 3RR warning: [270]
• Diff of 3rd 3RR warning: [271]

User:Jacurek is a new user, and I feel that she/he was given exceptional leeway and more-than-adequate warning — both on her/his User page and in edit summaries — about 3RR. Even after I left a final warning at 21:54 that I would report her/his next reversion unless a reliable source was provided, User:Jacurek made further reversions at 21:59 and 22:01. — Malik Shabazz (Talk contribs) 22:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After Jacurek has been given a warning, 154.20.141.137 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has taken on the task of revert warring (anon now blocked).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk} 23:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 24 hours. Here's hoping he doesn't have any more IPs to use. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Skaraoke reported by User:CJCurrie (Result:warned)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Allegations of Israeli apartheid (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Skaraoke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): 03:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: n/a

• 1st revert: [272] (changes existing wording with new material)
• 2nd revert: [273]
• 3rd revert: [274]
• 4th revert: [275]
• 5th revert: [276]

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: [277]. His response ([278], [279]) suggests a limited familiarity with the concept of the 3RR. It may also be noteworthy that he threatened me with a 3RR report here, after I reverted his changes twice. (I have not made any other adjustments to this article in the last 24 hours.)

User:Skaraoke appears to be a new user, and I'm not inclined to press for a block under these circumstances. He should, however, be informed that his actions are contrary to policy. CJCurrie 03:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going ahead and following your suggestion, even though I think a block would be justified here. I've watchlisted the article and will be watching for further reverts. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nothingagainst reported by User:216.21.150.44 (Result:No action)

• Three-revert rule violation on

List of doom metal bands (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Nothingagainst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 15:55, 27 August 2007

• 1st revert: 18:07, 28 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 22:36, 28 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 12:51, 29 August 2007
• 4th revert: 14:10, 29 August 2007
• 5th revert: 16:55, 29 August 2007
• 6th revert: 04:53, 30 August 2007

Comment User seems to have taken ownership of the article and deletes any new edit back to his own version of the article. 216.21.150.44 10:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You warned the user, then proceeded directly to file the report. However, in the 3 minutes between the warning and this report, the editor did not revert again. Furthermore, the user hasn't reverted since the warning. On top of that, I can sympathize with Nothingagainst . When an anonymous editor removes content and doesn't use the talk page, it can be interpreted as a type of vandalism (which is why we have stuff like {{uw-delete1}}. Also, the anon editors all originate from the same server, and they equally violated 3RR as Nothingagainst. At least Nothingagainst has tried to find sources to support their version (which is funny because none of the bands on the page currently are sourced). If the edit war continues, we may have to protect the page to force the editors to go to talk, but I'm going to take no action for now.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre reported by Rambutan (Result: page protected)

On User talk:Rambutan/Archive4 - about eight times, just peep at the history. Also see this for the basis of the dispute. Sceptre's and my current talkpages are also interesting reading!--Rambutan (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... read WP:3RR: "reverts to undo actions performed by banned users or currently blocked users evading their block;", and WP:BAN: "Other users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users. Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for that content by so doing." Will ^(talk) 17:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected. Both of you, please act like the seasoned contributors that you are. ~ Riana ⁂ 17:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:ILike2BeAnonymous reported by User:Dreamafter (Result: No further revert after warning )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Oakland, California (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). ILike2BeAnonymous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: [280]

User:ILike2BeAnonymous has added a few constructive edits after this.

• 1st revert: [281]
• 2nd revert: [282]
• 3rd revert: [283]
• 4th revert: [284]
• 5th revert: [285]

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: [286]
• Warning appears to be after ther last revert, revert two is clearly dealing with vandalism and this report was submitted 13 hours after the revert war ended. Unacceptable I'm tempted to block the reporter for wasting admin time but I'll settle for asking them not to present such a poorly formed report again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cholga reported by User:Dreamafter (Result: 31 hours )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Oakland, California (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Cholga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: [287]

User:ILike2BeAnonymous has added a few constructive edits after this.

• 1st revert: [288]
• 2nd revert: [289]
• 3rd revert: [290]
• 4th revert: [291]
• 5th revert: [292]
• 6th revert: [293]
• 7th revert: [294]

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: [295]

• • You warned them 13 hours after their last revert and only moments by making this report. Another pointless report. The only reason I'm blocking the user is because they have come right off a disruption block. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mr._Neutron reported by User:MatriX (Result: Page Protected )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Yane Sandanski (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Mr._Neutron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st revert: 21:15, 29 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 14:20, 30 August 2007
• 3nd revert: 14:27, 30 August 2007
• 4rd revert: 16:26, 30 August 2007
• 5th revert: 17:22, 30 August 2007
• 6th revert: 17:26, 30 August 2007

This is not a new user and he/she has been blocked 2 times so far (see his block log). He is frequently involved in edit warring in Macedonia related articles (see, for example the following history page: [296]) where he is involved in edit warring with other users, for example: Capricornis:[297], [298],[299] etc MatriX 17:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note those reverts are dealing with simple vandalism - deletions of categories, deletion of sourced passsages of the article, etc. Not to mention that actual contributions are wrongly given as reverts. Note disruptive edit warring of User:Matrix, who is deleting sourced information, refusing discussion on the talk page etc. The page is currently targeted by a group of users with the goal to push their nationalistic POV, while erasing valid sources. The article has already been offered for protection until proper discussion can be established. Mr. Neutron 18:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that all sourced info on the Yane Sandanski article is taken just from one site: promacedonia.org [300]] which is not a reliable source at all (it is a Bulgarian nationalist site). You can read the discussion page of the Yane Sandanski article and notice that the usage of that site was objected by other users (for example: INkubusse), but it didn't change the Mr. Neutron's mind at all. Also note that there is an ongoing WP:RFC on this page: [301] where this user and several others are claimed to have repeatedly destroyed the article replacing it completely with Bulgarian propaganda. MatriX 18:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ilinden-Preobrazhenie article is irrelevant here. The sources are properly linked and valid. They are not from promacedonia.com. Mr. Neutron 18:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My name keeps popping around wikipedia only after a week of involvement, wow! :) Nevertheless, yes Mr. Neutron, the Ilinden Uprising article is relevant here because it shows a pattern of your disruptive behavior. You quote nationalistic websites, well known Bulgarian propaganda and push irrelevant and biased sources as 'sourced' material. There should be a mechanism in wikipedia dealing with users like you for good, not just 24 hours block. Lets hope the admins here have time to look into your history (including the items on your talk page that YOU undid and archived to hide them), and see the extent of your warring and disruptiveness, and do something about it. - best regards Capricornis 19:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Both parties are as bad of each other. I have rotected the page for 3 days. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:24.13.244.119 reported by User:Ronnotel (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Virginia Tech massacre (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 24.13.244.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st revert: 12:56 30 Aug 2007
• 2nd revert: 13:02 30 Aug 2007
• 3rd revert: 13:26 30 Aug 2007
• 4th revert: 13:59 30 Aug 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 13:14 30 Aug 2007

• • User(s) blocked. for 24 hours. MastCell ^Talk 20:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the procedure when a user returns from a 3RR block only to revert the exact same content, when the topic has already been addressed? That is what has happened in this case. -- Sfmammamia 05:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brendan.lloyd reported by User:Prester John (Result: Page protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

David Hicks (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Brendan.lloyd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 09:13 30 Aug

All reverts are the same

• 1st revert: 09:13 30 Aug
• 2nd revert: 18:20 30 Aug
• 3rd revert: 18:37 30 Aug
• 4th revert: 18:41 30 Aug

• Diff of 3RR warning: [302]

Brendan Lloyd breaks 3RR to continually reinsert his POV replacement "lead" in a long established article and doesn't seem to acknowledge arguments on the talk page.

• I've protected the page. I see only 3 reverts here by User:Brendan.lloyd; interestingly, I see 4 reverts in the past 24 hours by the reporter, User:Prester John. However, rather than blocking either party, I've protected the page to cool off the edit war and encourage discussion. If edit-warring resumes after the protection is lifted, I'd likely have a lower threshold for handing out blocks to all involved parties. MastCell^Talk 19:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that User:Prester John was recently blocked himself for edit warring on this same article, recently had his block removed and has again been involved in edit warring in this instance.Lester2 04:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:DIREKTOR and User:Zenanarh reported by User:Giovanni Giove (Result: no violation)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Zadar (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). {{User:DIREKTOR and User:Zenanarh}}: Time reported: 21:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insertion by [user:Clap]:[303]

• 1st revert: [304]
• 2nd revert: [305]
• 3rd revert: [306]
• 4th revert: [307]

The two users act together in several articles imposing POV with edit wars.--Giovanni Giove 21:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moderator involved in the problem Isotope23 (he can confirm the accuse, the 2 user play together)--Giovanni Giove 21:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely untrue, I edited, not merely reverted. The user Giovanni Giove attempted (unsuccessfully) to provoke two other users into violating the rule. He himself made no less than seven reverts on a previous occasion (see the report above). Now he presumes to judge others in upholding this rule. DIREKTOR 21:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• only 3 reverts by reported editor. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:75.183.174.149 reported by User:Chrishomingtang (Result: 31 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Chinese Civil War (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 75.183.174.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: [308]

• 1st revert: 09:32, August 30, 2007
• 2nd revert: 11:06, August 30, 2007
• 3rd revert: 11:44, August 30, 2007
• 4th revert: 11:54, August 30, 2007

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: 11:48, August 30, 2007

User:Gantuya eng reported by User:HongQiGong (Result: 48 hrs)

• Three-revert rule violation on

China (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Gantuya eng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 2007-08-31T00:18:47

• 1st revert: 2007-08-31T00:47:50
• 2nd revert: 2007-08-31T03:00:21
• 3rd revert: 2007-08-31T03:40:32
• 4th revert: 2007-08-31T03:52:13

• Diff of 3RR warning: 2007-08-31T03:41:35

• Editor had previously violated 3RR on the same revert and was blocked for 24 hours on 2007-08-29T22:14:06. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked for 48 hours as a repeat offender. Crum375 04:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hungrywolf reported by User:Blackbeard2K7 (Result:no action)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Field Commander (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Hungrywolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 05:56, 31 August 2007

• 1st revert: 04:45, 31 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 05:18, 31 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 05:41, 31 August 2007
• 4th revert: 05:56, 31 August 2007

I dont understand how this user has sweet talked his way out of a perfectly legitimate block.[309] The user clearly violated 3RR and has been causing disruption for weeks. This is not the first time he has done it, and he has also resorted to personal attacks and false accusations all over the place against me, I can't even keep track anymore, reverting my edits on my own talk page with comments like "let everyone see what u are" and "Why are you shy of showing people what a person u r". He has never responded to any of the questions asked of him. All he ever does is cry wolf and repeat his false accusations over and over, in several different pages. He should be reprimanded for his actions since he is a repeat offender. See[310]. Additionally, if you look at Hungrywolf (talk · contribs) his contributions even after the block was lifted, he is now claiming that he has personal information about me that he is willing to offer other users, and is continuing to "admin shop" and make petitions against me.Blackbeard2k7 13:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As both sides are edit warring, I'm not willing to block only one. As for the personal information: this is a more serious issue, but without some diffs, I can't really verify if this is the case (also more appropriate for WP:ANI, anyway). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Watchdogb reported by User:Snowolfd4 (Result:article protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Sri Lanka (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Watchdogb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 15:31, August 30, 2007

• 1st revert: 17:53, August 30, 2007
• 2nd revert: 11:29, August 31, 2007
• 3rd revert: 12:04, August 31, 2007
• 4th revert: 12:19, August 31, 2007

• User has previously been blocked for 3RR - block message

• The user repeatedly adds unsourced negative material to the article. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some if not all of content in question is common knowledge to anyone from sri lanka and watchdogb upheld these facts. Since this accuser had claimed this stuff is fake, I have added reputable citations dismissing these claims. I don't think anyone can claim the stuff is uncited now. Sinhala freedom 20:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also the page has been protected. Sinhala freedom 14:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so no blocks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dreaded Walrus reported by User:Aladdin Zane (Result: No action)

User [Dreaded_Walrus] violated the 3RR on the [Elvis Presley] page in a period of less than an hour. Over a few different edits i had made.Aladdin Zane 18:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... See my response here. As I said there, I haven't broken 3RR. I don't understand why you decided to bring it here anyway. I assume you read the guidelines on 3RR? --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 18:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see 3 reverts, not more than three. And next time please follow the correct format for 3RR reports. Thanks. --Tango 20:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:TDC (Result:24h, 1 week for reporter)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Mark Lane (author) (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 01:56, August 29, 2007

• 1st revert: 01:08, August 31, 2007
• 2nd revert: 12:28, August 30, 2007
• 3rd revert: 12:03, August 30, 2007
• 4th revert: 23:36, August 29, 2007

• User is gaming the 3RR by making 4 reverts in just over 25 hours. User is a likely sockpupet of an unidentified IP who was involved in an arbcom case, and is well aware of the 3RR rule, and is clearly manipulating it here.
  • After going through the history of the article carefully, it seems clear to me that both parties here are equally guilty of edit warring, so I am blocking both for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 22:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • After a look at the block log, I see that TDC has a history of this and has been sanctioned by ArbCom on this matter in the past. 1 week instead. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:AlexCovarrubias reported by User:67.71.251.74 (Result: 2 Blocks, 1 month and 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Subregion (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). AlexCovarrubias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:02 1 Sep/07

• Previous version reverted to: 17:27, 31 Aug./07

• 1st revert: 00:38, 1 Sep./07
• 2nd revert: 00:44, 1 Sep./07
• 3rd revert: 00:48, 1 Sep./07
• 4th revert: 00:50, 1 Sep./07

The offending user added gibberish to this article, not making much sense. After my duly labeled corrections, this editor afterward reverted four times in the span of minutes, each time labeling edits as 'rvv' despite my summaries to the contrary (see 2nd dif). Apparently, this editor has a lengthy history of edit warring and blocking. This warrants some punishment for both parties, since I also had to revert his reverts. 67.71.251.74 01:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: I was reported by this editor as a vandal, only to be dismissed for similar reasons. [311] 67.71.251.74 04:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you two not work this out? I mean, you claim his material is "gibberish" when it's clearly not, and he claims yours is vandalism, when it's clearly not. At least try to discuss this before edit warring. --Haemo 06:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. However, please note that erasing valid and verifiable information is vandalism, or maybe I'm wrong, last time I checked it was considered vandalism, especially from an "anonimous IP" user. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 18:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are rather out of line: if you didn't read the above vandal report, even the admin that dismissed it thought that the reverted "edits consisted of rewording confusingly phrased and misspelled content." Read: gibberish. I do not edit to help others with their English. 67.71.251.74 16:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that anonimously erasing valid and verifiable content is vandalism. Also, sadly, the "anonimous IP user" seem to be in reality another user (sockpuppetry), or how an anon user learnt so fast about WP policies and even how to "report 3RR" violations? Why don't he just login with his main account and report? He says he "deserves" to be blocked... on an anon IP address? This fact only proves to be a registered user trying to avoid scrutinity from admins when he admits that "he does not help other with their english". The user in question is avoiding another of his multiple blocks for edit-warring and/or use of profanity and uncivil manners (as you can read in the above messages left by him). It is easy to notice when sockpuppetry is going on. I first thought it was just a vandal, but then I realized it was not. This "anon user" is obviously passionately interested in the topic of subregions and geographical arrangements. Please take a look at Talk:Metropolis. I suspect he is User:Corticopia (please check his contrib. and block list). I beg for the attention of an admin. regarding Corticopia and his multiple accounts (and IP anon accounts). I have been following the case very closely since 2006, as he edits in almost every article I edit and I have detected the trend. I can provide with the proofs and the investigation I have made. Thank you. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 18:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism has to be malicious. The edits you reverted were clearly not malicious, so were not vandalism. This is a content dispute, and the 3RR applies. Seeing as you have already been blocked repeatedly for 3RR violations, and should therefore know better, I am blocking you for a month. I am also blocking the IP address for 24 hours, since your edits were also not vandalism. --Tango 20:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:68.49.28.218 reported by User:Strothra (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Princeton University (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 68.49.28.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 06:09, 31 August 2007

• 1st revert: 06:46, 31 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 15:56, 31 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 20:33, 31 August 2007
• 4th revert: 05:10, 1 September 2007
• 5th revert: 14:12, 1 September 2007
• 6th revert: 14:40, 2 September 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 18:29, 31 August 2007

False information was added to the article, and I removed it. An edit war ensued, and so I created a section on the talk page for the article with an explanation of my revision in the hopes of reaching a consensus. No one has made any comments there. Instead, User:Strothra constantly reverts my correction without any explanation on the talk page. I'm following good wiki procedure. User:Strothra should have the warning, not me.68.49.28.218 22:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:3RR. A lack of responses on the talk page is not carte blanche to flout the rules. dcandeto 04:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:DR. I've tried to start discussion on the talk page and have offered reasons for my revert. You have given no input or support for your revert, and I have offered reasons why it is inaccurate. I'm the only one following the rules here. 68.49.28.218 19:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of these are oldids; need diffs instead. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 22:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How's this?
    • 1st revert: 06:09, 31 August 2007
    • 2nd revert: 06:46, 31 August 2007
    • 3rd revert: 15:56, 31 August 2007
    • 4th revert: 20:33, 31 August 2007
    • 5th revert: 05:10, 1 September 2007
    • 6th revert: 14:12, 1 September 2007
    • Diff of 3RR warning: 18:29, 31 August 2007

dcandeto 04:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I also went ahead and fixed my initial mistake. --Strothra 20:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This report is about to become two days old and the anon IP is still reverting the article. Does someone want to take action soon? --Strothra 00:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Kuru^talk 00:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the attention! :). --Strothra 01:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:219.90.223.197 reported by User:Cyrus XIII (Result: 24 hrs)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Skin (Japanese band) (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 219.90.223.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 21:33, August 30, 2007

• 1st revert: 03:27, September 1, 2007
• 2nd revert: 03:47, September 1, 2007
• 3rd revert: 03:54, September 1, 2007
• 4th revert: 04:10, September 1, 2007
• 3RR warning: 04:16, September 1, 2007
• 5th revert: 04:36, September 1, 2007
• 6th revert: 04:43, September 1, 2007

Edit:

• 7th revert: 8:04, September 1, 2007

• Blocked for 24 hours. Crum375 21:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WilliamSpencer (talk · contribs · logs) reported by Anynobody (Result: No action)

His contributions make think this might be a sock, but I'll WP:AGF on that for now. However of four edits, three have been reverts so far. Anynobody 05:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say yourself, he has only reverted 3 times. And next time, use the correct format for reports. --Tango 20:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did, which is why I was warning him/her not to go past that point as one more would put them over the line. It seems to have worked because the editor backed off for a while. Sorry you wasted your time on this, I had planned to take it down once the 24 hours passed but forgot. Anynobody 07:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:68.84.10.219 reported by User:Masem (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Survivor: China (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 68.84.10.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 15:06, 1 September 2007

• 1st revert: 15:18, 1 September 2007
• 2nd revert: 15:25, 1 September 2007
• 3rd revert: 15:28, 1 September 2007
• 4th revert: 15:41, 1 September 2007

(Edit by User:Maxamegalon2000:

• 5th revert: 16:14, 1 September 2007
• 6th revert: 16:35, 1 September 2007)

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: 15:30, 1 September 2007 (Note, user has since wiped these 3RRs from this talk page

• Improper report: please provide diffs, not revisions. Note that diffs cannot be 'wiped out'. Crum375 21:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This was an obvious case of 3rr violation but I will not block because the IP has stopped editing for several hours now. If anyone else comes along and starts reverting again then we have a strong case for sockpuppetry, but until then there is no reason to block. ugen64 04:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The editor apparently returned and was subsequently blocked by another admin. Kuru ^talk 00:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Blueshirts reported by User:Hornplease (Result: 48 hrs)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Radhabinod Pal (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Blueshirts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 1 September 2:12

• 1st revert: 1 September 4:06
• 2nd revert: 1 September 4:09
• 3rd revert: 1 September 14:00
• 4th revert: 1 September 14:18

Not a new user. I wouldn't normally report it, as I am guilty on this occasion of a revert with the edit summary "yes it is", which is embarrassing, but a look at his userpage indicates that he has just been blocked. When warned that he was violating 3RR, he replied that he didn't care, as it was blatant vandalism. That is, I think, unacceptable. Hornplease 18:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this user removed a sourced section with absolutely no discussion on the talk page and I reverted it. Then we had a discussion during which the user kept on erasing the section, and then accusing me of 3RR? Blueshirts 19:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was explained at length on two talkpages how this was a misrepresentation. The reference was retained, the misrepresentation removed. I did not violate 3RR, and never have; regardless of my beliefs about edits, I would have reverted if I had. Contempt for the concern, as demonstrated on the user's talkpage, is what is worrying. I have nothing further to add, as this page is cluttered already.Hornplease 20:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked for 48 hours as a repeat offender. Crum375 21:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mpublius reported by User:Famspear (Result:18h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Tom Cryer (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Mpublius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

• 1st revert: [312]

• 2nd revert: [313]

• 3rd revert: [314]

• 4th revert: [315]

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: [316]

Famspear 19:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked for 18 hours, also suspicious of N0 D1C4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as possible sock- or meatpuppet. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Majorly reported by User:Hankwang (Result: No action)

• Three-revert rule violation on

User talk:Mdebow (edit [[Talk:User talk:Mdebow talk]] history protect delete links watch logs views). Majorly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: n/a - I don't want to be part of this edit war

• 1st revert: 00:03, 1 September 2007 deleting all warnings, replace by welcome template
• 2nd revert: 16:13, 1 September 2007 re-deleting all warnings, replace by welcome template
• 3rd revert: 16:49, 1 September 2007 deleting AGF warning that was added to the welcome message
• 4th revert: 17:31, 1 September 2007) re-deleting AGF warning that was added to the welcome message

Majorly is an admin: certainly well aware of the 3RR. The reverts consist of replacement of a user talk page full of warnings and an indefblock with a welcome template, with the argument that these warnings are biting the newcomer. The user was warned for spamming, first as an IP, who then created an account in order to continue spamming. Han-Kwang (t) 19:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly have a word with Majorly about this, but I don't think it warrants any action. The warnings issued were over the top - the article(s) he created don't look like spam to me, so removing the unnecessary warnings does seem appropriate. Edit warring over it is inappropriate though, by both sides. --Tango 20:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:John Foxe reported by User:74s181 (Result: No action)

• Three-revert rule violation on

First Vision (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). John Foxe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 10:52, 31 August 2007

Diff of the article from John Foxe's last edit (10:52, 31 August 2007) before I began editing yesterday evening, and his last edit (15:13, 1 September 2007) after reverting today. 74s181 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diff of the article from my last edit (14:34, 1 September 2007) this afternoon, and John Foxe's last edit (15:13, 1 September 2007) after reverting today. 74s181 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that if John Foxe had used a revert tool to do a full revert, this would have only been one revert. He's been reported before, so now he games the system by doing incremental reverts. However, in this particular case each edit represents a revert of a particular section. That is, I made multiple edits to multiple sections, he reverted each section, one at a time, all within a 30 minute time period. I'm identifying the revert of each individual section as a separate revert. 74s181 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st revert: 14:44, 1 September 2007 Revert of edits in 2nd paragraph of the lead.
• 2nd revert: 14:51, 1 September 2007 Revert of edits to the Possible 1830 allusion section.
• 3rd revert: 14:54, 1 September 2007 Revert of edits to the Joseph Smith 1832 account section.
• 4th revert: 14:58, 1 September 2007 Revert of edits to the Joseph Smith 1838 Account section.

The next one is a bit more complicated, I was still editing when John Foxe began reverting my previous edits. Although I don't like it, one of John Foxe's edits is actually a good edit, but the one following it is another revert. 74s181 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 5th revert: 15:13, 1 September 2007) Revert of edits to the intro of the How people have responded to the First Vision section.

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

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

John Foxe is not a new user, and these reverts were over and done with before I even knew what was happening. However, John Foxe has previously been reported for 3rr violation with warnings on his talk page (14:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC), 23:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)), with the result that the article was protected twice. More recently, I posted informal warnings on his talk page for inappropriate reverts (08:54, 21 August 2007, 20:24, 24 August 2007), John Foxe deleted them. 74s181 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• These are not reverts. If you edit sequentially, and keep making changes, uninterrupted by someone else, all your edits are counted as a single edit for 3RR purposes. No action. Crum375 02:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Freecyprus reported by User:Calton (Result: 24 hour block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

List of Greek companies‎ (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Freecyprus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 12:35, September 1, 2007

• 1st revert: 17:23, September 1, 2007.
• 2nd revert: 17:23, September 1, 2007.
• 3rd revert: 00:17, September 21, 2007.
• 4th revert: 01:05, September 2, 2007.

• User bound and determined to flood List of Greek companies‎ with red links, including those of articles which have already been speedy deleted (see history. Has been blocked once already for edit-warring over flooding the list with spam and external links, and unblocked under a promise to stop, but this is essentially more of the same. --Calton Talk 01:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, he has not violated the 3 revert rule since he was unblocked (he was blocked for violating the 3 revert rule and the relevant edits were made less than 24 hours ago, so if you ignore the block he has violated the 3 revert rule anyway - but I am being generous here). However, the reason he was unblocked is because he was supposedly discussing his edits, yet his pattern of editing has not changed since that unblock. Either way I believe this case falls under the "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive" clause. ugen64 04:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:219.90.148.152 reported by User:Kaypoh (Result: page protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Skin (Japanese band) (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 219.90.148.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 16.50 on 1 Sep

• 1st revert: 4.17 on 2 Sep
• 2nd revert: 4.20 on 2 Sep
• 3rd revert: 5.07 on 2 Sep
• 4th revert: 5.26 on 2 Sep

• Diff of 3RR warning: 5.24 on 2 Sep

• • Alison protected the page for two weeks. - KrakatoaKatie 07:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brendan.lloyd reported by User:Prester John (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

John Howard (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Brendan.lloyd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 15:42 Sept 1

All reverts are the same....

• 1st revert: 15:42 Sept 1
• 2nd revert: 06:06 Sept 2
• 3rd revert: 06:11 Sept 2
• 4th revert: 06:27 Sept 2

• Diff of 3RR warning: [317]

Despite being reverted by multiple admins, user insists on claiming a false consensus to add totally slanderous material about the article subjects father.

24 hours. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prester John escalated an edit war by revert-baiting in spite of prior consensus. My reverts were not slanderous, no evidence of admin reverts was ever presented, Prester John himself is the one claiming false consensus (per Howard talkpage discussions about copra plantations) and my so-called first "revert" is actually an original/initial edit by me. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 07:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:IPSOS reported by User:Melsaran (Result:No violation)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Wikipedia:Hatnote (edit [[Talk:Wikipedia:Hatnote talk]] history protect delete links watch logs views). IPSOS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st revert: 03:18, 2 September 2007 (this is not a revert, it is an edit, my first to the page. IPSOS (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)) -Yes it is a revert, namely of this edit, partial reverts also count according to WP:3RR. Melsaran (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 2nd revert: 14:10, 2 September 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:20, 2 September 2007
• 4th revert: 14:28, 2 September 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 14:23, 2 September 2007

Note that he has said that he will continue reverting because he views me as a "vandal": [318]

Note that that comment is not about this, but about the removal of useful hatnotes on specific articles. This is clearly a bad faith report. The first edit reported is simply not a revert. It is the implementation of a clear consensus on the talk page, one that Melsaran is against and for which he is willing to edit war against consensus and misuse the 3RR policy to attempt to override that consensus. IPSOS (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removals of content are by definition reverts, your first edit was clearly a revert. And if you say that I'm a vandal and that you will continue reverting me, I assume that you will also do so on other pages we disagree about. And I don't "misuse" 3RR to override consensus, I even agreed to a compromise (adding exceptions), which you blatantly reverted as well. Melsaran (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also [319]; I don't think that there is a consensus, so discuss it on the talk page instead of edit warring. Melsaran (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe an editor's first edit to a page, which is claimed as reverting to an article state from 20 months ago, is considered a revert within the meaning of 3RR. Hence, no violation, or even if it were considered a technical violation, not one requiring any action. I see that there is now discussion and a content RfC on the talkpage, which obviously is preferable to continued reverting by either side. Please also avoid name-calling; for example, a good-faith disagreement over whether a hatnote should or should not be included in an article is not "vandalism" by either side. Newyorkbrad 17:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kiwisoup reported by User:Kariteh (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Picross DS (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Kiwisoup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 20:12, 25 August 2007

• 1st revert: 09:56, 31 August 2007
• 2nd revert: 21:40, 31 August 2007
• 3rd revert: 06:19, 1 September 2007
• 4th revert: 07:09, 1 September 2007
• 5th revert: 22:43, 1 September 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 16:08, 1 September 2007

24 hours. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nomadent reported by User:Rrburke (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Santa Cruz, California (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Nomadent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 10:37, 2 September 2007

• 1st revert: 11:03, 2 September 2007
• 2nd revert: 11:19, 2 September 2007
• 3rd revert: 11:43, 2 September 2007
• 4th revert: 11:57, 2 September 2007
• 5th revert: 12:10, 2 September 2007
• 6th revert: 12:36, 2 September 2007
• 7th revert: 12:46, 2 September 2007
• 8th revert: 12:50, 2 September 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 12:40, 2 September 2007

New user attempting to insert spam links about self and related organization. Persists in spite of warnings. --Rrburke^(talk) 17:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dev920 reported by User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (Result:Page protected )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Jake Gyllenhaal (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Dev920 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 18:37, 2007 August 23

• 1st revert: [320]
• 2nd revert: [321]
• 3rd revert: [322]
• 4th revert: [323]

The issue here is a phrase in the lead "gay cowboy (movie)". A number of editor have pointed out that that characterization is a poor one, albeit having been used in the press (hence Dev920's desire for ambiguous scare quotes). After a number of minor revisions of a compromise phrase a week ago, Dev920 decided yesterday to enter into an edit war to insert his/her favorite "cute phrase" in the lead.

After every such reversion, I or other editors discussed mentioning that phrase later in the article, with proper citation to sources. I then added such during the editing. But Dev920 only wants that phrase in lead, and her/his edits to this article are exclusively for that purpose. Btw, the previous version indicated is itself one of Dev920's several edits of exactly the same thing from last week; back then s/he also made this change a number of times.

Btw. I myself have not violated 3RR on this. I made 3—but not 4—changes to the compromise language, and always with intervening talk page discussion (either on article, or Dev920's talk, or my talk). LotLE×talk 17:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No block. There's a heck of a load of parties edit warring, and instead of blocking them all (many seem to be forgetting that 3RR is not a license to three reverts, and I could block a large number of people including the filer of this request), I've protected the page for a month and directed all parties to the talk page and dispute resolution. By protecting the page, I'm preventing the edit warring. By preventing the edit warring, blocking Dev920 only would be punitive, not preventative (see WP:BLOCK). I'm sure all people involved would agree that protecting the page for a month is a much easier, less stressful and generally more beneficial way to stop the reverting than blocking half-a-dozen established Wikipedians. Daniel 07:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you protect the wrong version!! Just kidding :) Good move but a month seems long, maybe a week would do the trick? Cheers --Tom 14:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for breaking 3RR. As you can see from the times of the diffs, I had clearly reverted once before going to bed and did not remember my first revert the next morning. Btw, I hope that any admins who are going to become involved in this note the aggressive tone of Lotus towards me and their evident desire to have me blocked out of revenge rather than for the sake of the article. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:RookZERO reported by User:Justanother (Result: 1 week)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Dianazene (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). RookZERO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 20:35, 29 August 2007
  

RookZERO is reverting to reinsert this text and this reference.
Dianazene also plays a large role in [. . .] the Narconon program, where it is similarly claimed that the large quantities of niacin in the compound, combined with the heat in a sauna, can "purify" the body by allowing it to "handle radiation" [. . .]<ref>{{cite web url = http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Narconon/detoxbookpt2.htm title = What is the Narconon programme? - The New Life Detoxification Program Picture Book author = Narconon Exposed}}</ref>

• 1st revert: 03:52, 2 September 2007
• 2nd revert: 16:04, 2 September 2007
• 3rd revert: 17:44, 2 September 2007
• 4th revert: 18:55, 2 September 2007

RookZERO is once again reverting well-cited and correct material to POV-push the insertion of incorrect and poorly-cited material. He has five previous blocks for similar activity (the block for "Abusing multiple accounts" was mislabeled - it was for 3RR). He is 4RR in the Dianazene article and is also edit-warring and reverting in Church of Scientology (3RR update, 4RR against multiple editors) and L. Ron Hubbard (3RR against multiple editors). --Justanother 20:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked him for one week to prevent further warring; several previous blocks and multiple warnings led me to extend the block to the week long duration. Welcome review for this action. Kuru ^talk 00:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hardouin reported by User:ThePromenader (Result: no violation)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Economy of Paris (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Hardouin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 2007-07-21T00:14:21

• 1st revert: 2007-09-02 01:38:26
• 2nd revert: 2007-09-02 15:14:02 - Using account User:Keizuko to revert ad litteram to User:Hardouin's 1st revert
• 3rd revert: 2007-09-02 17:58:26
• 4th revert: 2007-09-02 21:51:39

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: 2007-09-02 13:20:47 - Warning on article talk page after second revert.

• Comment - A multi-repeat offender, User:Hardouin is this time using either another account or person to out-revert to "his version" - note that recent member User:Keizuko arrived the same day to the same page where the edit-warring was happening, only to revert to User:Hardouin's version to the letter. May I also note that User:Hardouin has ignored all evident fact, reference and factual discussion in his reverts to only make personal attacks - after reverting yet again. THEPROMENADER 21:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I opened a request for mediation after User:Hardouin's first revert - here. THEPROMENADER 22:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, "recent member" User:Keizuko has been editing for almost a year, including several edits to that same article. Unless you can be a little more specific in your accusation, I'm not seeing a specific 3rr here. Kuru^talk 02:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, isn't it? That same user has made a few minor edits to the article, even including edits that counter User:Hardouin's trademark agenda. Yet what are the chances of a contributor making a to-the-letter revert - to another contributor's version - only hours after that other contributor began reverting to a former version, and this after weeks of inactivity? This was a result of either order or instruction - Meatpuppetry is akin to sockpuppetry in Wikipedia's books, and even then, it's a disruptive "gaming of the system" to the extreme. THEPROMENADER 06:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:76.116.99.168 reported by User:Metros (Result: Note to user)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Talk:Vanessa Anne Hudgens (edit article history links watch logs). 76.116.99.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 16:54 02 September 2007

• 1st revert: 17:59 02 September 2007
• 2nd revert: 22:36 02 September 2007
• 3rd revert: 23:14 02 September 2007
• 4th revert: 23:17 02 September 2007

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: 23:16 02 September 2007

• Comment This might fall under the coverage of WP:BLP reverts on the part of myself and User:Malevious who have reverted this IP user now 2 and 3 times respectively. The only source for this rumor of her nude photos is the National Enquirer which is not even close to a reliable source in my opinion. Metros 23:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This was very strange: an edit war on the article's talk page... I left the IP user another note to let them know how to proceed without violating either WP:BLP or WP:3RR. If this continues though, a block should be applied. Sancho 02:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:210.56.80.46 reported by User:Gscshoyru (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Morocco (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 210.56.80.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: [324]

• 1st revert: [325]
• 2nd revert: [326]
• 3rd revert: [327]
• 4th revert: [328]

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: [329]

Warned at 23:30. Reverted for the fourth time at 23:34. Seems pretty clear cut; 24 hours. Daniel 07:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:`Abd al-Ghafur reported by User:nadav1 (Result:Blocked 1 week )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Omar Bakri Muhammad (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). `Abd al-Ghafur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 10:53, 1 September 2007
• Perhaps hasn't violated the letter of 3rr this time, but account continues to be used for reverts only without any explanations. Has been blocked twice but still refuses to discuss edits. No other contributions. nadav (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Justanother reported by User:Anynobody (Result: No action, warned)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Dianazene (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Justanother (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to notice Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:RookZERO reported by User:Justanother (Result: 1 week) earlier when I was warning another editor with this thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#WilliamSpencer (talk • contribs • logs) reported by Anynobody (Result: No action). Since I've had experiences with this editor before and had commented on a dispute regarding WP:RS on the WP:RSN he is involved in with on another article I was curious to see if his following of the 3RR was a studious for himself as it was for RookZERO. It was not,

Added:29 Aug 03:28,
Rem:Revision as of 13:06, 29 August 2007 Revert #1

Added:Revision as of 17:14, 29 August 2007
Rem:Revision as of 17:17, 29 August 2007 Revert #2

Added:Revision as of 20:35, 29 August 2007
Rem:Revision as of 20:43, 29 August 2007 Revert #3, removed source he had also removed with prior revert of entire paragraph.

Same diff:Added:Revision as of 20:30, 29 August 2007
Rem:Revision as of 20:34, 29 August 2007 Revert #4 entire paragraph again. Anynobody 08:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most certainly no action. Blocking now, five days after the event, would be a text-book definition of "punitive, not preventative" (WP:BLOCK). Daniel 08:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who says he needs to be blocked, I was thinking of a warning. Anynobody 08:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave him a note. However, this page is for requesting administrator intervention (ie. blocks) for 3RR. Anyone can leave someone else a friendly note :) Daniel 08:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think so, but I'm actually not supposed to. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Workshop. Anynobody 08:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
(PS It's a funny coincidence you happened to be the one responding to this though.) Anynobody 08:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of the existance of this, however the case hasn't closed and no temporary injunctions had been placed on you, so you are/were free to communicate with Justanother until such a time as the case closes. I don't understand how it's a 'coincidence' - I try to answer as many reports as possible on this page, as seen from the handful above in the last hour or so. Daniel 08:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to imply anything sinister by funny coincidence, it's just funny that you were being discussed indirectly and here you are. As for warning him myself, I'm not sure what they are defining as harassment, better to keep at a distance for a little while. (Don't get me wrong, I'd of rather done this myself but at least this way there's proof I wasn't seeing something that wasn't there. Plus I figure it's safer to assume the worst and act like it'll pass.) Anynobody 08:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Good friend100 reported by User:LactoseTI (Result: Indefinitely Blocked)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Liancourt Rocks (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Good friend100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 21:18, September 2, 2007

• 1st revert: 22:12, September 2, 2007
• 2nd revert: 02:31, September 3, 2007
• 3rd revert: 04:04, September 3, 2007
• 4th revert: 15:03, September 3, 2007

• Fresh off his summer vacation, he is back and violating 3RR on the same article he was blocked six times in a month's time for violating 3RR on just before the vacation (up to a week at a time)...

I'm not fresh off my summer vacation, I wasn't thinking about wikipedia until now. And you word your parting comment to the admins as if I've been doing this my whole time on Wikipedia. I'm not "back again" to simply edit war, and if you think that because I'm opposing you, your wrong.

Please stop wikistalking me. I asked you before and I ask you again. You watch every move I make and edit them or simply revert them. Now your following my edit history and the moment I breach 3RR, you immediately report me. Good friend100 15:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You violated it (again) on an article I made a bunch of edits on around the same period. You were sometimes reverting me. It's not stalking--how could I not notice? —LactoseTI^T 15:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its wikistalking because whenever I make an edit, you change it or revert it. And I'm not simply talking about Liancourt Rocks. I feel that it is wikistalking because its certainly distressing that I can't do anything here unless you like it. And considering my request to you (which you seemed to have ignored), its clear to me that your motives are simply to follow me around. Good friend100 15:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was the seventh block for 3rr violations. Enough is enough. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:129.120.244.214 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: 48 hours )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Hulk (comics) (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). --129.120.244.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Tenebrae 18:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st revert: 06:41, 3 September 2007
• 2nd revert: 13:02 16:44, 3 September 2007
• 3rd revert: 18:01, 3 September 2007
• 4th revert: 13:59 18:06, 3 September 2007
• 5th revert: 18:15, 3 September 2007
• 6th revert:18:16, 3 September 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 18:12, 3 September 2007

Comment: 69.181.174.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a [330] identical to that of the other user reported, and it's the user's first edit. IP switching to get around an impending 3RR block? Gscshoyru 18:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At Talk:Hulk User:69.181.174.116 has at least claimed not to be a sock puppet. Worth at least taking into account. --mordicai. 20:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't considered the 3RR. I blocked the ip for vandalising AN3. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lee5435 reported by User:Sephiroth BCR (Result: No Violation)

• Three-revert rule violation on

List of major Konoha teams (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Lee5435 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st revert: [331]
• 2nd revert: [332], [333] (consecutive)
• 3rd revert: [334], [335] (consecutive)
• 4th revert: [336]
• 5th revert: [337]
• 6th revert: [338]
• 7th revert: [339]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [340]

• Comment - attempting to add images into the List of major Konoha teams article after the images were removed due to a fair-use violation. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Its not a 3RR violation to add different images over a series of edits although mildly disruptive. A quick look over their recent edits suggest that we have a new user lacking in clue here rather then someone deliberately flouting the 3rr. Nothing to do here from an admin perspective but feel free to apply the cluebat as and where required. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I meant to remove this report after I conversed with the user in question, and he expressed ignorance at what he was violating, but I forgot to. Thanks in any case. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Denaar reported by User:Cyrus XIII (Result:no action 31 hours )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Visual kei (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Denaar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 19:52, September 3, 2007

• 1st revert: 22:31, September 3, 2007
• 2nd revert: 00:34, September 4, 2007
• 3rd revert: 00:53, September 4, 2007
• 4th revert: 01:02, September 4, 2007

• The 3RR offender has been around since March 2006 and has also previously made accusations of 3RR "pushing", so no warning was issued, as an awareness of the rule seems obvious.

Cyrus was 3RRing the same article using his sock-puppet - this is a content debate and I have clearly shown the resources which they seek to remove. Actually, I've never been warned about 3RR before (check my talk page). Denaar 00:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I am the only other editor present on the page, I do believe I am the so-called "sock puppet". I think I've made it clear though that I am indeed, only myself, and in general, not influenced by Cyrus, I merely agree with him on keeping strict policies to this issue. If what I'm doing is against any policy, I will gladly accept any consequences. I do, however, try my hardest to strictly abide by all policies. --Jacob 00:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even know, what sock-puppetry is? Because sock puppets usually don't sport far more elaborate user pages than the primary account. Oh wait, maybe I'm the sock-puppet? That is, with four times the edit count of the then main account. Not to mention patently schizophrenic arguments between those accounts on other people's talk pages. - Cyrus XIII 00:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for breaking 3RR - I didn't. I did not revert the page but did a new edit to satisfy the questions raised about the "word phrasing". The main concern was not the content, but my phrasing of that content, therefore, I changed the phraseing to something you would accept.

The message posted on my talk page was cleary written by Cyrus - it was in his style (little bulleted numbers), using his syntax (not that of a 15 year old boy). Look at the Skin (동음이의) talk page, their comments (telling a newbie to get off wikipedia) are the same.

I addressed the content issues on the talk page, and you refused to talk - this is the second time you have sent Jacob to "leave me messages" on my talk page. I have jumped through every hoop you have set so far - but I wonder why I have to jump through "your" hoops instead of just Wikipedia's guidelines. I provided resources - over 13. However, I did not add a single resource this time, and instead used the resources that you validated as acceptable to fufil your most recent request "what does visual kei sound like". I was moved to come back after sourcing two bands - one that said they were "lumped in with visual kei only because they way they looked" and another that was described as "not sounding like typical visual kei." If bands don't sound like visual kei, then obviously visual kei has a sound. I went looking in your own articles - and it says right in them what it sounds like. Denaar 00:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, exact edits are here: [341] [342]

Denaar 01:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So my individual identity is being questioned, because

1. I use numbers
2. I write articulately
3. I happen to work in the same field as Cyrus

Is that correct? I insist that you look at the past edits in the field of Dir en grey, where Cyrus and I had disagreement, before I took a day to sit down and read all the Wikipedia policies that pertain to that sort of material. Please, if you feel threatened, do not drag me down with you. I'm sure Wikipedia knows my IP address, showing that I and Cyrus are indeed two different people. --Jacob 01:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am showing that you two have a pattern of working together to do reverts without talking about them. And yes, I don't believe for a minute the message left on my talk page was written by you - it has Cyrus's syntax all over it. Neither of you have addressed any concerns I have brought up about this content issue - and I've met both of your "demands". Denaar 01:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given your strong beliefs in that respect, your should probably head over to WP:SSP, file a report and in the meantime leave it to an administrator to review this 3RR violation. - Cyrus XIII 01:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The edit war seems to have stopped, so no action is necessary right now. If it restarts, let us know. - KrakatoaKatie 12:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Denaar made a 5th revert (17:50, September 4, 2007), still within the previous 24h frame. - Cyrus XIII 16:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, that is very clearly not a revert - I just adjusted the syntax of article again, but have not added "Genre" back into the article - I took that to the talk page. It was a copy edit to clean up language, nothing more, after your 3rd revert in 24 hours [343] [344] [345]. Actually I came to go ask Krakatoa if this type of edit was ok - since it isn't regarding the original content we were discussing. :) I still think the term "visuals-conscious phenomena" isn't clear language - "Phenomena is an observed event or, quite literally, something that is seen." To me it does not clearly explain anything at all, and you can re-write the wording to something more clear as I stated in my edit summary. Denaar 17:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And another one (18:59, September 4, 2007), dubbed "copy edit" in the edit summary, even though it contains a fair amount of statement altering rephrasing. - Cyrus XIII 17:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Denaar blocked for 31 hours. - KrakatoaKatie 17:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arawiki reported by User:MezzoMezzo (Result: user warned)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Salafism (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Arawiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 09:23, 2 September 2007
• 1st revert: 15:33, 3 September 2007
• 2nd revert: 17:14, 3 September 2007
• 3rd revert: 21:41, 3 September 2007
• 4th revert: 11:25, 4 September 2007

Seems like a fairly simple issue to me. The guy's been around since last November and seems to know the site policies at least somewhat; I have repeatedly asked this user to go to the talk page in my edit summaries and the results of that may be seen here. He has displayed much of the same behavior on the article for Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz, to the point where another editor on the talk page thought he was a sock for an earlier individual known for trolling that specific page. I also highly suspect that User:Arawiki is using 87.101.244.8 (talk) as a sock, as they both have been doing the exact same reverts of my edits on several articles; a checkuser may be in order. Any help that may be lent in this situation would be much appreciated, please advise. MezzoMezzo 18:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the straightforward violation shown above, Arawiki, counting his IP, has also broken 3RR on Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz.Proabivouac 00:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Arawiki has violated the 3RR on Salafism and Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz, but I don't see any evidence that he's been warned about the 3RR. Since he appears to be a new user (it's quite possible he's used the IP, but he seems new in that incarnation as well), I'm going to warn him rather than block him. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:172.177.248.14 reported by User:Dreadstar (Result: 24hrs )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Translation (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). 172.177.248.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 17:34, 3 September 2007

• 1st revert: 17:39, 3 September 2007
• 2nd revert: 17:52, 3 September 2007
• 3rd revert: 17:56, 3 September 2007
• 4th revert: 18:18, 3 September 2007

• 5th revert: 01:23, 4 September 2007
• 6th revert: 02:25, 4 September 2007
• 7th revert: 06:42, 4 September 2007
• 8th revert: 14:09, 4 September 2007

• Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
• Diff of 3RR warning: 03:28, 4 September 2007

Anon user has been engaging in an edit war since approximately mid August, adding content that is disputed by many other editors. The content being added by anon is poorly written, contains linkspam and contains copyrighted content. Anon refuses to discuss in a civil manner on the talk page, saying the other editors are "antagonists", accusing them of "vandalizing" and being "rogues", and comments like "Things were being over-dumbed down, this was childish." Dreadstar † 18:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Anon continues his revert war: 15:59, 4 September 2007. Asking for "reverse burden of proof" on his contested edits. Dreadstar † 20:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Many reverts, but this one continues the thread I outlined above: 15:58, 4 September 2007 Dreadstar † 21:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 18:01, 4 September 2007.

The same user apparently hops IP addresses periodically, this is the same content being posted in the same manner:

• 03:55, 5 September 2007
• 03:54, 5 September 2007
• 03:52, 5 September 2007

A range of IP address may need to be blocked: Here are earlier IP addresses used for the same purpose:

• 172.174.104.67
• 172.176.208.17
• 172.158.48.148

Apparently, this editor was blocked or banned from the German Wikipedia for similar behavior: [346].

Dreadstar † 08:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anon continues today:

• 12:20, 5 September 2007

If there is a problem with this report, please let me know. Dreadstar † 16:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 24 hrs ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Voyevoda reported by User:Piotrus (Result: 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Kiev Expedition (1018) (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Voyevoda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 15:14, September 4, 2007

• 1st revert: 15:21, September 4, 2007
• 2nd revert: 16:17, September 4, 2007
• 3rd revert: 16:23, September 4, 2007
• 4th revert: 16:38, September 4, 2007
• 5th revert: 16:49, September 4, 2007
• 6th revert: 16:56, September 4, 2007

That editor keeps reverting other editors copyediting changes to insert a claim of dubious reliability; in his 4th revert for reasons unknown he restores an incorrect interlink (both issues were explained on talk, but Voyevoda has yet to post there). Such revert warring is hardly constructive, and is destabilizing the article under GAC review.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk} 20:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good that I caught this at my watch list. No opinion about reverts, would need to check, but the claim about "dubious" info is bogus. The editor attempts to insert the well-referenced fact that some happen to not know or not like and insist on removal. --Irpen 21:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now started checking. The "first" so called "revert" is an edit, not a revert at all. Will be back with more. --Irpen 21:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit is a revert (15:21, September 4, 2007) restoring disputed fragments "The wide-scale pillaging of the Polish troops caused a massive uprising among Kievan citizens...However, he managed to kidnap the Kievan treasury... As Gallus has it, the war started when Boleslaus was refused Predslava's hand, but this testimony is not given credit by most historians." introduced in the 15:14, September 4, 2007 edit by that user and removed by Olessi's. And yes, we are not discussing doubious sources here, but simply dealing with a case of 3RR (or rather 6RR).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk} 21:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So called "second and third" are indeed reverts. The fourth one is not a revert in any way. Click on the diff for itself. The editor merely formatted the ref. Gimme a sec to check the rest. --Irpen 21:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the forth one the editor restored an erroneus link (discussed on talk) for unknown reason. Restoring information is a revert.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk} 22:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More, the so called "fifth revert": the editor re-references the facts from the source the other side objects to to another source.

The info was still removed by his opponent who was clearly revert warring just to remove the info based on any possible pretense. Last time the info was removed because of the opponent's "not liking the source". This time because Voevoda failed to give a page number. So, in so called "sixth revert" Voevoda merely add the page number to the book. It is dishonest to call this a revert.

A side note, Piotrus, I understand that having your opponent blocked to "win" the content dispute is tempting. Besides, it is not new. But at least present "reports" non-misleadingly. Preferably use times in GMT, that's one. Two: do not list mere edits, like your so called "revert 1" and, especially, "revert 4". Finally, even if you go by your local time zone, the so called "*4th revert: 16:38, September 4, 2007" is a bogus listing. The editor did not make any edits at XX:38 on any occasion. --Irpen 22:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rereferencing the facts with a different source, while restoring them at the same time is a revert. Whatever the reasons for removal of his additions were, him restoring it 5-6 times is an obvious violation of 3rr, and it doesn't matter if the restorations change a few words, use a different ref or add a page number.

And Irpen, I find your accusations that I want to block dispute opponents laughable. Who else is to see a 3rr violation if not one of the editors involved in editing the page? The point is that editors must learn that 3rr violations are a 'no-no', or otherwise we would all be revert warring with no end in sigh.

PS. I still find it particulary inconstructive that Voyevoda has not used talk of the article to argue for his edits; that he simply reverts others (and their copyediting) is a sign of a quite disruptive user, uniterested in any sort of cooperation or consensus.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk} 22:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for twenty-four hours, per evidence in history (and here, I suppose). -- tariqabjotu 23:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ankush135 reported by User:Akhilleus (Result: already blocked indef)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Romila Thapar (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Ankush135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 09:08, 4 September 2007

• 1st revert: 09:49, 4 September 2007
• 2nd revert: 11:37, 4 September 2007
• 3rd revert: 11:44, 4 September 2007
• 4th revert: 17:06, 4 September 2007
• 5th revert: 17:45, 4 September 2007
• 6th revert: 01:36, 5 September 2007

This is a particularly lame revert war which concerns the presence of a "POV" tag. In some of these edits Ankush135 is reverting an IP sock of a banned user, which may be a mitigating factor. Ankush is aware of the 3RR [347], [348]. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ankush135 has already been blocked indefinitely. No further action required.--Chaser - T 17:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Francis Tyers reported by User:Andranikpasha (Result:No apparent violation)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Khojaly Massacre (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views).

• 1st revert: 10:01, September 4, 2007
• 2nd revert: 17:08, September 4, 2007
• 3rd revert: 09:10, September 5, 2007
• Diff of 3RR warning: 17:35, September 4, 2007 Andranikpasha 09:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you jumping the gun a bit mate? - Francis Tyers · 09:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note: moved to bottom of the page per request at top by myself. - Francis Tyers · 09:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

further notes:

1. I haven't broken the 3RR
2. My editing has not been disruptive, and
3. My edits have been explained on the talk page and are in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

- Francis Tyers · 09:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I protected the article. Try to solve the problem on the talk page. bogdan 10:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is is not better to protect it in the variant before a large number of reversions in content disputes? Especially if only the part of reverts (related to the links) is explained in the talk page! Andranikpasha 10:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually everything is explained on talk. You should provide reliable sources to support your claims. And I don't see any violation of 3RR here. Grandmaster 10:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A 3RR usually needs four reverts. -- Avi 18:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:PalestineRemembered reported by User:Jaakobou (Result:No apparent violation)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Battle of Jenin (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st revert: 09:43, 4 September 2007
• 2nd revert: 18:36, 4 September 2007
• 3rd revert: 19:44, 4 September 2007
• 4th revert: 08:50, 5 September 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: user has been warned before and even blocked for 3RR on same article.^[349]

PalestineRemembered ignored the related talk subsections repeatedly and in general is complicit in longstanding soapbox behavior. with this instance, he's ignored the related talk and broke 3RR to continually reinsert a "this article is totally disputed" tag (and some unrelated article and/or weasel terms). p.s this article is experiancing a large portion of improper behavior and i invite anyone to give it a serious look. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are three editors who think the article has gross, systemic POV-issues, and three who do not. A disputed" tag is obviously appropriate. The "weasel phrase" Jaakobou is referring to is "prima facie". Human rights organizations found "no evidence of massacre in Jenin but strong prima facie evidence of Israeli war crimes." These are their words. Jaakobou likes the first finding but dislikes the second, so he's cropping the material accordingly and edit-warring to maintain the whitewash. PR's edit here is wholly uncontroversial.--G-Dett 12:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncontroversial or not, he still broke the rules and knows better. 3rr is easy to avoid and he failed, again, to withdraw from a heated situation as he should have. Kyaa the Catlord 12:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While both PR and Jaakobou should be given timeouts and sent to opposite corners of the sandbox, based on their long-term bickering that has spread to their talk pages, my talk page, WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:CSN, and WP:Kitchen Sink, there does not seem to be a 3RR violation here. The first edit listed is the 09:43, 4 September 2007 one. Where is the "prior version reverted to" edit? It happens that there is one ID155267214 15:38, September 2, 2007. So, let us agree that ID 155596585 is a revert. However, ID155676259 does not revert to add the tag, it is a removal of content. Therefore, there are only three reverts here.

Now, I believe while I may believe that both PR and Jaakabou have some serious issues when it comes to editing without rancor, without POV, and without attacks, there is no direct violation of 3RR. And while "gaming" the system often results in protective measures being taken even without direct violations, this is less "gaming" and more a result of the ongoinf issues that PR and others have with certain topics. Dispute resolution is the route that needs to be taken here. -- Avi 18:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe User:Avraham/Avi (see Avi above) has just recently adopted PR as a mentor as a result of a WP:CSN case that suggested PR would be completely banned from the community (Avi suggested mentorship instead of a ban). I'm not sure on how to regard his dismissal of this 3RR (and previous issues also) and i do wish to take this issue for a serious/further review.. some help would be appreciated. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, while I offered as such, PR has not accepted. PR's case should really should be brought back to WP:CSN, as the mentorship I suggested has not been instituted, and similar to Isarig, it what prevented a longer ban, but that is irrelevant to this case. It would be improper and unethical to use 3RR as an excuse to block someone when they have not committed the 3RR. Perhaps PR should be blocked, but not for 3RR. -- Avi 19:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, Jaakobou, please clarify, are you accusing me of an impropriety? If so, WP:ANI is the appropriate venue, not here. I did not find a 3RR violation here, and that is why I made the decision I did. I suggest that both you and PR enroll in dispute resolution before the community gets exasperated by the two of y'alls back-and-forth. -- Avi 19:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Avi's response here for these reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaser (talk • contribs) 21:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, that bot is fast.--Chaser - T 21:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:PalestineRemembered says -> I am currently working closely with User:HG on this Battle of Jenin article. He would run a mile if I asked him to be a "Mentor" to me however, since even his current limited involvement with me swiftly led to him being accused of being my meat-puppet. In fact, on top of my being relentlessly harrassed by outrageous accusations, the second major feature of my time on WP is that anyone who dares show any sign of acting cooperatively with me will promptly suffer malicious attacks themselves. This happened to almost everyone who defended me from the accusation of Holocaust Denial, it happened to my "advocate", there has been a truly absurd recent accusation of sock-puppetry, attempting to link people to me. My first mentor suffered a perma-block - astoundingly, even this was used as an excuse to jeer at me!. I maintain that, in 11 months here, I've only ever made one edit that is generally agreed to have been offensive - and that was a frustrated attempt to defend the project against a suspicion of WP:COI. PalestineRemembered 17:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay or nay, discussion about removal of your editing privileges was placed on hold subject to your undergoing mentorship. It has been some time now; have you a mentor yet? -- Avi 17:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Caomhan27 reported by User:Mucky Duck (Result: 24h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Atlantic Isles (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Camonham27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

• 1st revert: 11:38 Sept 5 2007
• 2nd revert: 12:10 Sept 5 2007
• 3rd revert: 12:19 Sept 5 2007
• 4th revert: 12:39 Sept 5 2007
• 5th revert: 13:04 Sept 5 2007
• 6th revert: 13:29 Sept 5 2007

Caomhan27 persists in deleting fully sourced and referenced information about more common uses of the term. He has ignored the 3RR warning and has deleted all such warnings from his talk page. Mucky Duck 12:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The reverts also include removing a request for citation; and removing my insertion of the word "some" to tone down a PoV statement, without backing with a reference. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked for 24 hours. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User: Adalme reported by User:BigDunc (Result: 24 hour block)

• Three-revert rule violation on

ETA (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Adalme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 22:08, September 4, 2007

• 1st revert: 09:56, September 5, 2007
• 2nd revert: 12:55, September 5, 2007
• 3rd revert: 13:02, September 5, 2007
• 4th revert: 13:11, September 5, 2007
• 5th revert: 13:20, September 5, 2007
• Necessary for newer users:

A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion. Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

• Diff of 3RR warning: 13:07, September 5, 2007
• Diff of 3RR warning: 13:11, September 5, 2007

User blocked for 24 hours. ugen64 20:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Clydey reported by User:Lawrence Cohen (Result: page protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Andy Murray (tennis) (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). Clydey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: • Lawrence Cohen 16:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

See here for many more: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Clydey&namespace=0&year=&month=-1

• Necessary for newer users:

A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion. Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly. Both users aware/warned/acknowledged on article talk page, not new users.

See below. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:JimmyMac82 reported by User:Lawrence Cohen (Result:page protected )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Andy Murray (tennis) (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views). JimmyMac82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: • Lawrence Cohen 16:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

See here for many more: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=JimmyMac82&namespace=0&year=&month=-1

• Necessary for newer users:

A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion. Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly. Both users aware/warned/acknowledged on article talk page, not new users.

I've protected the page. Any more reverting and it's blocks for everyone. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]