• Three-revert rule violation on

Emma Groves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 21:47, 4 June 2007

• 1st revert: 19:50, 19 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 13:12, 21 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 08:44, 22 June 2007
• 4th revert: 09:07, 23 June 2007
• 5th revert: 10:10, 23 June 2007

I haven't warned the guy, but I think he's seasoned enough as an editor to be aware of the guidelines. I made an edit in good faith, to remove POV from an article, after which he accused me of being a POV editor. To be fair to him, he did try to offer dialogue, of a sort, on the article talk page, which I answered in kind.

(1st revert) (diff from my initial copyedit

Thank you. --Mal 09:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Whats the difference between restoring and reverting information on an article? Is that the same as replacing the information? Regards --Domer48 10:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You tried to set me up for a 3RR but check! I was replacing vandlism by you, based on no conclusion to discussion! Around just long enough to cop on to you! I did not accuse you of being a PoV editor, I said you were! --Domer48 10:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

So what.. you're adding insult to injury now? You didn't "cop on" to anything, by the way. The reasons for my edits were sound, and I explained them to you on the discussion page.

This isn't a game - its an encyclopedia. --Mal 10:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Chill Dormer. 3RR is a very hard rap to beat as it tends to be automatic if the reverts add up. I don't think the nature of the reverts are of much concern; and vandalism is tricky - I got caught in similar circumstances where I assumed I had a vandalism case but it turned out he was enforcing policy. I would call for no action here on the basis that you didn't realise that reverting what you thought was vandalism could be construed as 3RR. In the circumstances the lack of any warning is a serious issue; the warning requirement is precisely to prevent cases like this where you accidentally breach 3RR. I suggest you be more careful in future but a block isn't justified in this case. I would ask Mal/Setanta as a Veteran Editor to withdraw as a gesture of good faith to a relative newcomer. (Sarah777 10:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

Sarah I'm afraid I must decline - particularly after Domer's last paragraph here. What a closing admin decides to do is another matter, but I definately felt like it needed to be taken to another forum, as Domer was refusing to listen to me. I have to say that I also never got a second chance when two or three like-minded editors basically ganged up on me with one article at a time when I was barely aware of any 3RR policy either. So I'll leave it up to what ever admin decides to look at it. --Mal 10:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hang on here a minute, User:Setanta747, suggests that they restored the article, that is a revert. Anyone can check the history on the article page. Regards--Domer48 11:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Dormer, blame my technical incompetence but I can't trace the reverts - on either side. maybe get someone more proficient to look at it? (Sarah777 11:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

OK Mal, so maybe it has happened to us all; we live and learn. But from your comments you appear to have thought your 3RR event was unfair (as I did in my case). That isn't a reason for doling out the same medicine to another newcomer - the opposite surely? I know one thing I learned was that I'd make sure to give very clear warnings before reporting (as the record will show). Though I concede warnings are not very effective most of the time; still - they should be given. (Sarah777 11:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

Re: "That isn't a reason for doling out the same medicine to another newcomer - the opposite surely?" Try not to put words into my mouth Sarah. --Mal 21:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've dumped the entire log so we can look at it; is does, on the surface, appear that Dormer may have a point - it looks rather like four reverts. Mal, perhaps some explanation as to why think you didn't do 4 reverts would be helpful? I assume it is the 24-hour rule? Regards (Sarah777 11:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

1. (cur) (last) 10:10, June 23, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (6,572 bytes) (Inserted information removed prior to discussion conclusion. Rational POV motivated!)
2. (cur) (last) 09:57, June 23, 2007 Setanta747 (Talk | contribs) (3,707 bytes) (article restored to NPOV version: Please do not revert this again - I have explained my rationale.)
3. (cur) (last) 09:07, June 23, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (6,542 bytes) (rv as per previous)
4. (cur) (last) 01:23, June 23, 2007 Setanta747 (Talk | contribs) (3,707 bytes) (Restored article to NPOV version. Domer48: watch your WP:NPA please.)
5. (cur) (last) 08:44, June 22, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (6,542 bytes) (Rv Restored the information removed by POV editor)
6. (cur) (last) 01:46, June 22, 2007 Setanta747 (Talk | contribs) (3,707 bytes) (reverted article to a less-POV and more encyclopediac version)
7. (cur) (last) 13:12, June 21, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (6,542 bytes) (Added page numbers removed POV tags from reference)
8. (cur) (last) 08:41, June 21, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (6,573 bytes) (Replaced information which was removed because of POV of an Editor)
9. (cur) (last) 08:39, June 21, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (4,713 bytes) (Replaced information which was removed because of POV of an Editor)
10. (cur) (last) 08:07, June 21, 2007 Setanta747 (Talk | contribs) (3,707 bytes) (re-added source by Vintagekits)
11. (cur) (last) 08:05, June 21, 2007 Setanta747 (Talk | contribs) (3,645 bytes) (rv to non-POV version: Also - please do not remove the tags I added. There were several edits I made that were undone wholescale with no consideration for merit on individual basis.)

I see three reverts. One more and Domer gets blocked. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

More than three reversions, but spread out over longer than 24 hours. DrKiernan 14:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Two violations, not sure how to report so I've pasted two templates.

• Three-revert rule violation on

Iron Maiden (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Reginmund (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 21:32, 21 June 2007

• 1st revert: 01:10, 23 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 18:01, 23 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 18:10, 23 June 2007
• 4th revert: 20:33, 23 June 2007

• Three-revert rule violation on

Iron maiden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Reginmund (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 14:16, 22 June 2007

• 1st revert: 01:08, 23 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 18:01, 23 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 18:04, 23 June 2007
• 4th revert: 20:35, 23 June 2007

 Clerk note: Regimund account created on June 7, 2007. Has no 3RR warning either. Evilclown93_(talk) 21:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 Clerk note: Reginmund has 7 reverts, but Maurauth has 6. This is an edit war which seems to have ceased. Evilclown93_(talk) 21:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 Clerk note: Maurath has had 2 blocks for editwarring, one block for incivility (April-May 2007), and he agreed to abide by 1RR when unblocked in May. I suggest some sort of block for Maurath and a warning for Reginmund. Evilclown93_(talk) 21:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agreed to 1RR with the one user on the issue that I was warring about. I have 6 reverts over a long period of time, not 24 hours, I was discussing it but he kept reverting. Also, see [[1]] for discussion and list of attempted resolutions on my part. ≈ Maurauth ^(Ravenor) 21:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Islam in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Matt57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 17:54, 23 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 19:23, 23 June2007 (Accused the IP of being His Excellency)
• 3rd revert: 19:46, 23 June 2007
• 4th revert: 19:49, 23 June 2007 (Accused the IP of being Kirbytime)
• 5th revert: 19:53, 23 June 2007 (Accused the IP of being Kirbytime)
• 6th revert: 20:16, 23 June 2007
• 7th revert: 20:19, 23 June 2007 (Accused the IP of being His Excellency)
• 8th revert: 20:39, 23 June 2007 (Accused the IP of being His Excellency or Kirbytime)

This editor reverted 5 times inserting descriptions of a non-Muslim organization giving it more attention than any Muslim organization receives in the same article. He argues that its removal is vandalism but it is clear that this is a content dispute over undue weight. First he argued that the IP's were the sockpuppet of one editor, then apparently changed his mind and argued that they are the sockpuppet of another editor, and both allegations come without any proof. 140.113.134.33 20:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

These are block evading sock puppets of either His excellency (talk · contribs · block log) (more suspected) or Kirbytime (talk · contribs · block log). Reverting edits of users who try to evade blocks is not against policy. As you can see, he comes back with a new IP every time, proabbly using anonymous browsing to evade the blocks. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Administrators should note that this user provides no proof for this accusation, nor have either of those two users ever edited the article in question. 217.232.177.205 20:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This user is coming back with a new IP every time. Here are some of the IPs he has used (this is Hix Excellency for sure): 86.74.6.82, 88.198.148.74, 84.151.168.136, 83.189.77.121 and now 217.232.177.205. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This destructive permabanned editor has recently forced admins to semi-protect Apostasy, Apostasy in Islam, Ibn Khaldun, and Jihad Watch. Something should be done to block this person permanently. Arrow740 21:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• No block. Reverting vandalism by anons. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

** Will appreciate other admins opinion on this. At first hand it seems to be rv of vandalism, but I may be mistaken. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Its deletion of sourced material by an anonymous IP switching user, an obvious block evading sock puppet. Reverting edits of blocked sock puppets doesnt count for 3RR. If the question is whether this is user is a sock puppet, the answer is a confirmed yes because he comes back with a new IP every time. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• 140.113.134.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indef. Confirmed open proxy
• 217.232.177.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indef. Confirmed open proxy

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Also confirmed open proxies for 86.74.6.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 88.198.148.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 84.151.168.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 83.189.77.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Indefblocking these as well ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If there are any other IPs doing the same type of edits, drop me a line. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the IPs! Will do. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• also blocked 70.238.158.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - open proxy ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

List of notable converts to Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Error1010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 19:47, 23 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 19:48, 23 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 19:57, 23 June 2007
• 4th revert: 19:59, 23 June 2007
• 5th revert: 20:38, 23 June 2007

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: 20:04, 23 June 2007

This is probably a sock puppet of Kirbytime (talk · contribs · block log) or His excellency (talk · contribs · block log). He has spent most of today editing Wikipedia with various socks and anonymous open proxies.

There is a good chance its HE now that the sheriff is out of town. Arrow740 00:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think my fifth edit qualified as undoing the work of another editor. The first one is not a revert, I wasn't even registered when this material was inserted. Error1010 01:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It was 5 reverts actually, thanks for the reminder. You're a sock puppet of Kirbytime probably. A check user will be filed on you if you keep editing. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the threats. Error1010 01:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• An editor with one day in Wikipedia, who knows the ropes too well to be a newbie, and edits in same pattern as previously blocked editors. 24 hrs. Please reconsider the way you participate in this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Great Irish Famine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

• 1st revert: 18:07 24 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 18:25 24 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 18:51 24 June 2007

Comment: Domer48 has also breached WP:CIVIL, accusing me of bad faith edits, POV and disruptive editing, none of which are correct. MarkThomas 19:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I’m more than happy for editors to review the recent discussions, and determine things for themselves. I would also like it to be bourn in mind my recent contributions, to this article, and the actions of this editor. For example review the section in question and suggest a title. --Domer48 19:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that I asked Domer48 for an apology on his talk page before posting here; his response was to paste the private request for an apology into the talk page of the main article with a negative remark, and to append the phrase "ye ye" to the request for an apology on his talk page. MarkThomas 19:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Mark, this is a 3RR allegation; not a complaint of WP:CIVIL. Can we deal with them separately? (Sarah777 19:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

OK this may work against me, but I just burst my sides laughing. Is anyone going to take this as Genuine.

I should direct editors here [2]

And then here, [3].

One question, was it 3 reverts? I think I addressed the issue on the discussion page? Thanks --Domer48 19:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment:No, it wasn't 3RR; but both yourself and Mark came very close. And as it wasn't a breach I'd ask Mark to withdraw this as, by my reading of the rules, wrongful claims of this nature may themselves be regarded as a breach of WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS etcetera. I'd suggest you both take a cooling-off period or get an Admin involved here before the dispute escalates. Regards (Sarah777 19:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

There's a bit of a mess with editors on this article all round. I'm intervening on the talk page as a solution (hopefully), and will not be lenient there on edit warring. Tyrenius 20:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I will gracefully accept your direction, and thanks for you patient attention. Sincere Regards

• Three-revert rule violation on

Afro-Brazilian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Opinoso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [4]

• 1st revert: [5]
• 2nd revert: [6]
• 3rd revert: [7]
• 4th revert: [8]

 Clerk note: Opinoso account created in 2005. No previous blocks. Report looks valid. --Evilclown93_(talk) 20:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

User warned, continued to revert, blocked. Riana (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Jeff Nelson (baseball player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yankees10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Version reverted to: 02:41, 24 June 2007

1. 04:31, 24 June 2007
2. 15:57, 24 June 2007
3. 17:39, 24 June 2007
4. 18:30, 24 June 2007

Substantial and very lame edit warring across several baseball player articles regarding...the color of the infobox. Has been edit warring for two days on Jeff Nelson, also undoing edits on many other articles, calling it vandalism. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive819#Vandalism on Colors in Infoboxes.

Strange. Lucky 6.9 supposedly blocked him in November (User_talk:Yankees10#Blocked), but it doesn't show up in the block log. hbdragon88 21:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Previous account. [9].--Chaser - T 22:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Wikipedia:Editor_review/Mcr616 (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Editor_review/Mcr616|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mcr616 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

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

3RR warning can be seen here: [14]

 Clerk note: This is about an editor's review. Mrc616 was handed an extremely negative and a tad uncivil review, which he removed. Mrc616 also felt that the review was from a sock/banned user. --Evilclown93_(talk) 23:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No action. The IP has been blocked, so the edit-war is over. This is practically userspace, which is an exception to 3rr.--Chaser - T 00:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. This is a mistake. Calling an editor review "practically userspace" opens the door for any editor who puts themself up for Editor Review to sanitize other peoples' comments. Since User:Mcr616 has indicated a possibility that he will seek administratorship, it is particularly troubling that he chooses to sanitize this page. It should be remembered that, when listing himself for Editor Review, he choose to accept comment on his performance on WP, good or bad. Even if an editor review WERE to be in userspace, that still doesn't give said user WP:OWNership over the article. 3RR even applies to blatant vandalism, so it should clearly apply to this also. If these comments were so worthy of reversion, surely User:Mcr616 could have found someone else to revert, rather than running afoul of 3rr. He has clearly violated policy, and there should be reprecussions. 72.128.85.212 03:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: the IP leaving this comment is currently blocked from editing. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Talk:List of notable people who converted to Christianity (edit | [[Talk:Talk:List of notable people who converted to Christianity|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bus stop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 00:12, 25 June 2007

• 1st revert: 22:55, 24 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 23:36, 24 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 23:39, 24 June 2007
• 4th revert: 23:43, 24 June 2007
• 5th revert: 23:56, 24 June 2007
• 6th revert: 00:09, 25 June 2007
• 7th revert: 00:15, 25 June 2007

As reluctant as I am to make this report, reverting on a talk page is desruptive, and this is clearly a 3RR violation. I make this report after giving him two warnings on his talk page.--Sefringle^Talk 05:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have blocked the user for 24 hours, per the evidence above. I know there have been quite a few reverts, but it's a talk page and a lengthy block for edit-warring there seems silly. -- tariqabjotu 05:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Worthy of note is the fact that this comes in the middle of a dispute over multiple reversions and disruptive editing to the mainspace article itself, which is currently locked. zadignose 07:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

User talk:King Lopez (edit | [[Talk:User talk:King Lopez|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). King Lopez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [15]

I'm not sure if this is 3RR or vandalism or what, but this guy has removed my comments from his talk page quite a number of times. It started with a discussion we had about a bogus warning he dropped on me. After replacing the discussion on my talk page with a welcome template ([16]), he deleted everything I had written from his talk page: [17]. I had been going to leave him a barnstar(-ish), but instead I had to leave him a sorta sarcastic message, which he blanked: [18]. I reverted him, and he blanked again: [19]. I put everything back with a warning, he reverted me: [20]. I gave him a final warning, which was deleted: [21]. And then I gave him a super-duper extra-special red-lettering-on-white-background-with-black-borders "Yo, stop it or I'm going to report this" I-really-mean-it-this-time warning, which he reverted with a comment calling me a troll: [22]. That's six instances of blanking/reversions by my count, and most of them were warnings not to revert! 72.128.91.181 10:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk pages are normally exempt from 3RR, unless the removed/reverted text is relevant in the context of a significant or important discussion, which this obviously wasn't. Phaedriel - 11:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Especially when the comments in question, inserted by the IP editor, included a picture of a penis. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the said talk page due to trolling nonsense. I think we can accept that this report was made in bad faith. Riana (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Also reviewing my talk page history [23] this user 72.128.91.181 (talk · contribs) has used 2 different IP's to make those same personal attacks. Which are 24.160.247.6 (talk · contribs) and 24.160.241.190 (talk · contribs) Which these 3 IP's are the same user that made the same edits to my talk page. King Lopez ^Contribs 09:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

EBay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Abacene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [24]

• 1st revert: [25]
• 2nd revert: [26]
• 3rd revert: [27]
• 4th revert: [28]

 Clerk note: Account Abacene created today, no blocks, diff of warning. Evilclown93_(talk) 15:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Abacene has not returned to the article in question and seems to be restricting their edits to userspace and talk pages. DrKiernan 14:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on June 25, 2007

Robert Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Iterator12n (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

Repeated deletion of the proper link to an article (from Bob Evans (restauranteur) to a nonexistent Bob Evans (restaurateur)) on the Robert Evans disambiguation page.

• I'm not sure if this will help resolve the issue with the title, but the word in the title is properly spelled "restaurateur" (not "restauranteur"). Alansohn 22:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Answer: the word "restauranteur" not only is a recognized word, but it also is in numerous articles within Wikipedia. For example, Cameron Mitchell (restauranteur) that was written on 13 August 2005. There are many more places where this word is used. Please make the changes to all the pages that show up when the word "restauranteur" is searched within Wikipedia. However, the point I am trying to make is not even the spelling, but the deliberate removal of a proper link from the disambiguation page (at least until someone moved the page just now). Thank you, CZmarlin 22:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't disagree that there may be valid 3RR issues here. But if the argument is about the spelling, the drastically preferred version is "restaurateur" (not "restauranteur"). You may want to take a look at "Bob Evans, 89, Restaurateur With Chain Built on Sausage, Dies", an obituary of Bob Evans from The New York Times, that uses "Restaurateur" in the title. A Google News Archive search with the "N" finds 4,680 articles; the same http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&tab=wn&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=restaurateur Google News Archive search without the "N" in the word] brings up 110,000 articles. The word "restauranteur" may exist as a non-preferred spelling, but there's no reason it should be used here. Alansohn 22:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Answer: I won't repeat the arguments in favor of "restaurateur." I'm disappointed that my (respected) opponent reverted the drastically preferred version 3 times in 24 hours, before any transgressions on my side. Iterator12n 01:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Once again I will repeat that I have nothing against the use of either variant of the word - with or without the "n" in it - that means "restaurant-keeper" from the French. Please keep in mind that "restauranteur (pronounced RES-tuhr-ahn-TUHR or -TOOR), by analogy with the fully anglicized restaurant, is commonly heard and seen, and most dictionaries consider it a standard variant spelling and pronunciation" [29]. Sure it may "raise conservative eyebrows", but I was not going to prejudge all the contributors that had used this version of the word. This includes the original article's title about the historic restaurant chain entrepreneur. Nevertheless, spelling is not the main point of this discussion. Moreover, I am NOT an "opponent" of anyone. Rather, I tried to correct a broken link to an existing article. It was reverted three times by a fellow editor. That was disappointing and served no purpose no matter how "drastically preferred version" of the word. Why would someone insist on reverting to a broken link? Furthermore, the comments made in the process were less than civil. Why would an editor have to stoop so low as to say use of restauranteur shows a lack of erudition?[30] on 11:19, 25 June 2007, by Iterator12n. In any case, the problem is moot since as of 16:54, 25 June 2007, Zsero has moved Bob Evans (restauranteur) to Bob Evans (restaurateur). I trust they will be very busy changing all the occurrences of the word restauranteur within Wikipedia... CZmarlin 02:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoever looks at this, I reverted three times, not one time more. Finally, pls count me in re. end-of-discussion. Cheers. Iterator12n 03:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: [31] Revision as of 10:18, 25 June 2007
• 2nd revert:[32] Revision as of 10:18, 25 June 2007
• 3rd revert: [33] Revision as of 11:05, 25 June 2007
• 4th revert: [34] Current revision (11:19, 25 June 2007)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Norman Finkelstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 12:27, 25 June 2007

• 1st revert: 18:48, 25 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 19:29, 25 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 20:11, 25 June 2007
• 4th revert: 01:38, 26 June 2007

I have explained many times that this is a WP:BLP issue, both in my edit summaries, and on the article Talk: page. The material in question is essentially libelous material about Alan Dershowitz, and I have reminded the editors on the page that Jimbo himself deleted the Alan Dershowitz page and re-created it as a stub in December 2005 when it contained similar material. I have also explained to them that WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material is quite clear: Where the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. Indeed, my next steps will likely be to either protect the article, or block the editors in question, if this does not stop. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that the report is submitted invalidly (we need diffs, not versions, so that we can actually see that it's a revert) this is a BLP issue, and the three-revert rule does not apply. ElinorD (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a difficult issue, because it's an instance of the source being okay (Frank Menetrez), but the publication not (Counterpunch), at least not for contentious claims about living persons. It's especially difficult because the source calls someone's work "fraudulent." As Elinor said, we should discuss it on the BLP noticeboard, so that others can weigh in. Perhaps the same issue has been discussed in a more reliable publication. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I posted the report incorrectly. I didn't understand the instructions, and would appreciate it if someone could reply on my talk page with a simple guide.

On the substance, the issue is not defamation of Dershowitz, but defence of Finkelstein against Dershowitz's defamation of him. If we are to allow reference to the attacks, we surely must allow reference to a thorough response. I note that SlimVirgin accepts Menetrez as an acceptable source. She is wrong, however, about the publication. The link I posted was NOT to Counterpunch, but to a later, revised, version of Menetrez's research, published on Finkelstein's own website. If we cannot allow reference to Finkelstein's own site in order to refute the attacks oon him, we really are in danger of breaching BLP in this article. RolandR 10:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Diff

• Three-revert rule violation on

Sahaj Marg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Shashwat pandey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

• 1st revert: [35]
• 2nd revert: [36]
• 3rd revert: [37]
• 4th revert: [38]
• 5th revert: [39]
• 6th revert: [40]
• 7th revert: [41]
• 8th revert: [42]

Dear Wikipedia,

I'm not quite sure what to fill in all of these spots so please forgive my ignorance. After a few weeks of discussing changes and receiving encouragement from other editors on the Sahaj Marg page (particularly 4-d Don, that all can edit) I spent several hours this morning re-ordering and editing the Sahaj Marg page. I then tried to engage Shashwat Pandey in discussions to work further on the page. He immediately reverted my page back EIGHT times today.

One person, Sfacets, reverted it and then said the page was in drastic need of changes so he put it back to my edits.

I am new to Wiki but it doesn't seem right that we make edits and then one person reverts your edits immediately. At first I thought it was a mistake, some mishap with my computer, and I tried to resave the page, but it kept getting changed.

Help is appreciated. I'm willing to go to mediation over this.

Renee --reneeholle 13:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Renee, please use the article talk page, but as an experienced contributor, Shashwat should have known better. As such, I have blocked him for 24 hours. Riana (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Korean War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ksyrie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:27, June 26, 2007

• Previous version reverted to: 03:46, June 26, 2007

This may be more of a matter for Arbitration, I will leave it up to you (I'll admit that I am not familar enough with the different policies). This has been an ongoing "matter" with this user for awhile now, and I have tried several times to settle the non-POV issue, which the user seems to refuse to accept. (see Talk page discussions linked below).

• 1st (?) revert: 12:04, June 6, 2007

Instead of removing the fact,I add the info,but it is other user who revert my edit.I will be honored by someone accuse me of reverting,when I added,but not simply backtrace other's edit.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• 2nd revert: 01:26, June 6, 2007

It is ridiculous to accuse me of reverting,this time it's for another issue,a dead chinese soldier pic,but not the number.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• 3rd revert: 13:15, June 6, 2007

Ok,he or she seems obssessed with all my editing of this article,no matter whether is is on the same issue,it is also for another issue,the dead chinese soldier pic.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• 4th revert: 20:46, June 15, 2007

User:Wbfergus is happy to attribute every my edits as revert,this time,a user added a second dead chinese soldier pic(which i found excessive to decribe the war).--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• 5th revert: 21:03, June 15, 2007

User:Wbfergus did the same accusation,another edit for the second dead chinese soldier.He or she can accuse all of edits as revert.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• 6th revert: 09:11, June 20, 2007

This time,after discussng the talk page,I wroteIf no further query,I delete the patagon number. before I removed this phrase.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• 7th revert: 09:13, June 20, 2007

I am not sure whether my consecutive edits should be deemed as revert.You can see the two versions of this differences all made by me,So it is not a revert.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• 8th revert: 14:58, June 22, 2007

Again,I added from Pantagon,which help the reader to know the exact source,If it is called a revert，I will say WOW.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• 9th revert: 05:44, June 25, 2007

I thought User:Wbfergus is not familiar with the concept Revert,he or she regard all the edits he or she didn't like as revert.I add a {{dubious}} template without reverting anyother's edit.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• 10th revert: 19:01, June 25, 2007

It's strange,the reference which give the chinese number of casuality didn't mention any trace of estimation,so I removed this word.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• 11th revert: 20:29, June 25, 2007

User:Parseboy and User:Wbfergus is wheel warring the revert my edit.It is a multiparty revert.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• 12th revert: 03:52, June 26, 2007

Per above.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• 13th revert: 04:35, June 26, 2007

He or she is not familiar what is a revert,revert should be focusing on the same subject.This time I add another source,for another issue.How can adding irrelevant material for another subject of the same article be deemed as revert?

--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times with the user on the talk page, see [43] and [44] for further details and the users unwillingness to be neutral.

• Diff of 3RR warning: 04:06, June 26, 2007

and on 04:00, June 26, 2007

I am not sure whether User:Wbfergus really show the reality.The chinese casuality issue was discussed in the talk page for many times,and we can't make consensus.While the two sides,(unfortunately, I am the only one who support myself),cann't bear any changes in the info box about the two numbers,one from US Pantagon,(which I prefered emphasize Pantagon,but other two Users insist on removint Pantagon),one from China(while no sources suggest it was an estimation,so I strongly reject the usation of estimate,but other two Users seems obessed with this word).There was vestige of editing war,but there was not real 3 Reverts.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ksyrie, we discussed this numerous times on the Korean War talk page. I even proposed a suggestion, about listing both sets of numbers as estimates, and right afterwards you went in and made the Chinese number a "fact" while flagging the US number as "dubious", clearly POV-pushing. Listing both sets of numbers as estimates clearly gives both sides ample oppurtunity to express their "estimates" without labeling the other side as correct or incorrect. This can be left to the individual reader based upon the the sources cited, though as I said, politicians and diplomats are not known for their truthfulness, but more for how well they make others believe their untruthfulness. Regarding your listed edits of removing the pictures, I included those to make the case for your apparent POV-pushing. If the currect version or a future edit or revery reflects what you consider to be anti-Chinese, you edit the article to your way of thinking without regard for the concensus of opinion of other editors, and no matter how reverts are done, you still maintain your posistion without providing "reliable" source information (see again my comment about the "reliability" of politicians and diplomats). This is getting out of hand (again), and I apologize to the mediators for this. Ksyrie, please sign off on the Mediation request if you are indeed attempting to negotiate in good faith. wbfergus 18:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What you thought to be an estimation of chinese number is only in your mind,but not in the reference or anyother source,wikipedia require verifiable source supporting but not original research,Your claiming the chinese number as estimation is just OR,And for the american number,in the BBC source which is cited clearly said it is Pantagon estimate.If you can find any reliabe and verifiable source to say the chinese number is an estimate,you can just keep it,but if you can't provide the source,the removal of it will be in agreement with the Wikipedia:Verifiability--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is NOT the forum for this, per the "rules" at the top of the page. Please continue this at Korean War talk page discussion 1 or Korean War talk page discussion 2 wbfergus 18:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course,it's not a forum,and I am defending myself.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Ned Scott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version 07:09, June 24; under the header "disputed deletions," he removed "Administrators should seek consensus before undeleting material that has been deleted citing this policy ..." (emphasis added). It's the words "citing this policy" that Ned has been reverting for days.

• 1st revert 23:43 June 25, ditto.
• 2nd revert 00:05, June 26, ditto.
• 3rd revert 23:02, June 26, ditto.
• 4th revert 23:11 June 26, ditto.

Comment

Ned has been reverting for days against multiple editors. He wants to remove that admins who delete bios "citing this policy" (i.e. BLP) should not be reverted without consensus. He has been blocked three times previously for 3RR. [45] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Editor has been blocked for 48 hours. This is the fourth 3RR violation, and he was just blocked for 3RR 3 days ago. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• This appears to be the second time tonight Ned has violated the spirit of 3RR, see here. Matthew 01:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I was actually about to request another 3RR block on Ned for a different article, Juice Plus, where he's got 4 reverts in 26 hours. I would also point out that he was just 3RR blocked on that article a few days ago, and I actually supported the concept that he be unblocked, if he promised that he'd participate at the talkpage instead of revert-warring on the article. At 04:27 on June 24 he agreed and said, "I'm done with that article completely." So he was unblocked, but then at 21:49 on June 24, he was right back to Juice Plus and edit-warring again.[46] I think this time we need to let him sit out the block, rather than releasing it early with a promise of good behavior. Ned needs to go do something off-wiki for awhile. --Elonka 01:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Elonka seems to be presenting a skewed version of the events. Ned’s reverts on the Juice Plus page were justified because Elonka had arbitrarily deleted referenced content that was under discussion and did so by using misleading edit summaries (i.e. “Copyediting/condensing for readability”, “Added more historical info”) that disguised the true nature of her edits[47][48]. Elonka had raised an argument about the content based on WP:NOT which, as Ned had pointed out,[49] was inapplicable in this case. Several editors were discussing the content and no consensus was raised to delete it but Elonka deleted it anyway (twice) and did so in a very deceptive manner. Matthew, who is a apparently a buddy of Elonka’s, jumped in to the fray and deleted the content again without providing any explanation for his reversion on the Talk page.[50] This seemed very provocative and as though it were intended to precipitate an edit war with Ned. IMO Ned is not at the root of the problem in this case. Blocking him for his actions on the Juice Plus page would be unwarranted and unlikely to help ease tensions. Rhode Island Red 14:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, since Red wants to speak up here, I would point out that there are WP:OWN and WP:SPA issues here as well. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red. --Elonka 17:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Several editors have stated that the RfC you launched was out of line and no conclusions have yet been reached on it. But regardless, that RfC has nothing to do with the fact that you helped to precipitate this current revert war with Ned by inappropriately deleting content and disguising the changes with misleading edit summaries. I think it would be reasonable for you to accept at least some responsibility for the current conflict you are having with Ned, rather than arguing that he should be blocked. His reversion of your questionable edits does not seem at all unreasonable and he did not violate 3RR in this case. Rhode Island Red 14:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

African slave trade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Halaqah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 17:58, 24 June 2007

• 1st revert: 10:20, 25 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 13:33, 25 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:13, 25 June 2007
• 4th revert: 12:15, 26 June 2007
• 5th revert: 12:51, 26 June 2007

• Established editor - has been blocked for 3RR before [51]. Four previous blocks for 3rr, see block log.

1 week.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Battle of Khaybar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tigeroo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to for the first three: 07:35, 25 June 2007

• 1st revert: 06:06, 26 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 10:42, 26 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 19:02, 26 June 2007
• 4th revert: He did the same revert as the first three at 04:16, 27 June 2007, then did a partial self-revert leaving the ridiculous tag at 04:18, 27 June 2007. As you can see from the edit summaries in the history, the tag has been part of the dispute.

This is an established user who has been showing up recently in articles I edit, to revert. Here he even admits he doesn't know what he's reverting in the first three reverts. Arrow740 05:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

72 hours.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Islam in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Benizer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 02:52, 27 June 2007

• 1st revert: 03:06, 27 June 2007 The full revert was done in two consecutive edits.
• 2nd revert: 04:52, 27 June 2007 Added two tags as well as the revert.
• 3rd revert: 05:50, 27 June 2007 Here he reverted me for the first time. I kept his addition about Muslims being better educated than the average American, but he again removed the references to convicts and Wahhabis.
• 4th revert: 08:16, 27 June 2007 Reverted the text again, changed his tag to totally-disputed.
• 5th revert: 19:34, 27 June 2007 Just added.
• 6th revert: 17:05, 27 June 2007
• 7th revert: 17:34, 27 June 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 06:18, 27 June 2007

He has been reverted by three editors now. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a sockpuppet of one of our old friends. Arrow740 08:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

 Clerk note: Account created today. Pretty sure it's a sock, but of whom, I don't know. --Evilclown93_(talk) 13:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Why has he been allowed to revert again? Arrow740 19:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly he is a sock of User:His excellency or User:Kirbytime. I also added two more diffs.--Sefringle^Talk 22:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that this transparent sock/edit-warring SPA is still not blocked, so many hours after this report was made, shows our system to be inadequate.Proabivouac 22:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Gilo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 129.215.149.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 08:46, 2007-06-27
• Diff of 3RR warning: 08:44:43

This IP has been reverted by multiple editors and has now reverted five seven ten times. Tewfik^Talk 08:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert diffs: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th. There are probably others. nadav (talk) 09:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd block this persistent POV warrior myself, if I wasn't among those who reverted him. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I just filled out a WP:RPP report also, because I think he is switching IP's. nadav (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't a 5 to 1 Jewish/Israeli POV pushing cabal enough without trying to block me? The POV pushing would be regarded as outrageous if anyone but pro-Israelis had this page on their watchlist. I mean, they're pretending Gilo is not in East Jerusalem or a settlement, in contraction of, for instance, the UN website and the BBC, and then removing references from the UN and the BBC I give. Then they're calling me POV and trying to block me for what any reasonable person would describe as neutral edits. I'm sorry wikipedia, you've got yourselves a cabal here. This is quite shocking. - Yours

Actually one of your reverts removed my addition of both "East Jerusalem" and the sources you provided. Instead of discussing the attempted compromise on the talk page, you summarily reverted it. nadav (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

With due respect, I don't think it is fair to protect the version established by one ["cabal"-crying] IP's 10RR against that endorsed by four other users. I'm aware of the "wrong version" issues, but this case really is one where the established users are being punished for following policy, and some random IP's disruption is rewarded. Please reconsider, Tewfik^Talk 09:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Such lock encourages further disruptions. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm also disappointed that the IP editor is being effectively rewarded for a huge 3RR violation. But in any case, he should still be blocked. nadav (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by User:Tariqabjotu for 48 hours. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Tariqabjotu --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Flag of Western Sahara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Koavf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 23:57, 21 June 2007

• First revert 15:24, 25 June 2007
• Second revert 14:27, 26 June 2007

User:koavf is on a 1RR parole for a year , after having been indef blocked for over a half year for edit-warring and disruptive behaviour. He was given a second chance but resumed his edit warring again. He has reverted the article twice within 24 hours.--A Jalil 14:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Second parole vio in a recent weeks. 72h Block. Signature^brendel 21:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Liftarn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 06:28, 26 June 2007

• 1st revert: 15:13, 26 June 2007 reinserts contentious Margalit quote, labeled as a revered in the edit summary
• 2nd revert: 08:14, 27 June 2007 reinserts contentious Margalit quote, labeled as a revered in the edit summary
• 3rd revert: 08:49, 27 June 2007
• 4th revert: 13:22, 27 June 2007

User has been blocked repeatedly for violating the 3RR. I issued a 48h block. Signature^brendel 21:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Flood Geology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yqbd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 10:53, 27 June 2007

• 1st revert: 18:33, 26 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 10:33, 27 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 10:38, 27 June 2007
• 4th revert: 10:53, 27 June 2007

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: 20:40, 26 June 2007

User seems to be edit-warring this version back to his favorite version, despite the fact that several editors pointed out why this was inappropriate.--Ramdrake 15:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

User already blocked by another admin for 12h. Signature^brendel 21:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Intelligent_design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yqbd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 20:58, 26 June 2007

• 1st revert: 21:34, 26 June 2007
• 2nd revert:22:50, 26 June 2007
• 3rd revert:23:44, 26 June 2007
• 4th revert: 15:37, 27 June 2007
• 5th revert: 17:04, 27 June 2007

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

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

• Diff of 3RR warning: 00:40, 27 June 2007

• Like Ramdrake points out above in his filing over Yqbd's 3RR violations at Flood geology, Yqbd is a habitual 3RR violator who not only ignores all 3RR warnings, but immediately deletes them from his talk page and then makes a similar but bogus 3RR warning on the talk page of whovever warns him, leading me to think he's a troll as well as a 3RR-violating POV warrior. Odd nature 16:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

User already blocked by another admin for 12h. Signature^brendel 21:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Flood geology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Plumbago (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 16:41, 27 June 2007

• 1st revert: 16:45, 27 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 16:55, 27 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 16:58, 27 June 2007
• 4th revert: 17:12, 27 June 2007

Apparently this user simply reverts contributions from anonymous editors without discussion. I'll note that the edits he reverted from me were mostly content additions, editorial changes, tagging rather than reverts. --216.125.49.252 17:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Plumbago was correcting vandalism by 216.125.49.252, and 3RR does not apply to correcting vandalism. Meaning this filing is a bogus filing to sideline or intimidate those who've opposed 216.125.49.252's vandalism. This filing is a misuse of process, an attempt to game the system. I've suggested that he withdraw it. Odd nature 20:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Nonsense, the edits reverted were not vandalism. Wikipedia:Vandalism defines vandalism very clearly and my edits were not vandalism under the definitions provided. Please remember to assume good faith. I am not a vandal nor am I a "he". --216.125.49.252 20:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diffs without intermediate versions. We need to see what exactely the user in question edited - the diffs above show no change to the article with several intermediate versions not being shown. Please file your report properly. Thank you, Signature^brendel 21:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is unfair to Plumbago. This edit where the anonymous editor tried to redirect the article, without any discussion whatsoever, and without any edit summary, would indicate that 216.125.49.252 was a vandal, even after assuming a lot of good faith. To all of us, this was nothing more than vandalism that needed reverting, and if Plumbago wasn't so fast in the reverts, I would have contributed likewise, and my name would have been thrown up here. This is very sad. Orangemarlin 23:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR appears to have actually occured and while some of the edits look ill-advised none seem to be vandalism per se. However, since one of the edits was reversion of whole-sale redirecting of a very large article, I'm not going to block. Now everyone please try to play nice. JoshuaZ 23:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, it transpires that I may have bitten a newcomer. I should have exercised more caution and avoided an edit war, but I would stand by my original assessment that the anon looked and acted like a vandal (thanks for the support Odd nature and Orangemarlin). Anyway, in case the anon is still reading, I've written a longer reply at my talkpage. My apologies for causing this unnecessary blow-up. Cheers, --Plumbago 13:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Flood geology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yqbd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 14:53, 27 June 2007

• 1st revert: 22:33, 26 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 14:33, 27 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:38, 27 June 2007
• 4th revert: 14:53, 27 June 2007

This user was blocked for 12 hours at 17:53 today for violating the 3RR rule at another article. I am requesting that the block be increased to a total of 24 hours because violating the 3RR rule in two different articles clearly indicates a willingness to ignore the rules. (The user has also been incivil, copying warnings by another editor back to that editor's talk page, in case there is any question as to whether the 3RR violations are merely overzealous good behavior.)

• Diff of 3RR warning: 00:40, 27 June 2007

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

John, I believe this violation is the same one I reported above about this individual; it is, however, distinct from the one reported by Odd Nature.--Ramdrake 18:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Already block by another admin for 12h. Signature^brendel 21:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 91.104.52.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 2007-06-26 18:03:48

• 1st revert: 2007-06-27 19:56:11
• 2nd revert: 2007-06-27 20:29:04
• 3rd revert: 2007-06-27 21:08:13
• 4th revert: 2007-06-27 22:24:13

• Diff of 3RR warning: 2007-06-27 21:09:25

Note that the user might also be using another IP - 91.104.25.59 - these two IPs are similar and the edits are the same. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the main IP account for 24h due to an obvious vio (he also engaged in edit warring on another page - having received two warning overall). The other account is an obvious sockpuppet-thus I have blocked it indefinitely. Regards, Signature^brendel 23:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Ante Starcevic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Spylab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 13:46, 25 June 2007

• 1st revert: 12:03, 26 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 22:41, 26 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 02:19, 27 June 2007

The article has already been protected by another admin - thus, there is no need for a block. Signature^brendel 23:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• User:Modelsides appears to be a troll, vandal and sock puppet account that was mainly created to harass me. See that account's edit history for details. Also, I was the one who requested protection of that page because of blatant POV-pushing, vandalism of necessary tags, and edit warring.Spylab 11:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

E. V. Ramasami Naicker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00.12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert:23.38 26 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 22.19 27 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 22:42, 27 June 2007

Note:He was last blocked on 17th June 2007

I made 2 reverts which were discussed on the talk page. 81.208.163.214 (talk · contribs) is most probably a sock of Anwar saadat (talk · contribs) or some other established user masquerading as an IP. My last block was in September, not June 1007 as this sockpuppeteering troll seems to suggest.Bakaman 23:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Three reverts were conducted, one short of a vio. There simply isn't enough evidence of disruptive behavior here to warrant a block. No vio. Signature^brendel 23:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

University of Dundee. Mais oui! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 26 June 2007, all same.

The page is now protected, so blocks should not be needed. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

7 World Trade Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SixOfDiamonds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)aka74.73.16.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [52]

• 1st revert: [53]using SixOfDiamonds
• 2nd revert: [54]using 74.73.16.230
• 3rd revert: [55]using 74.73.16.230
• 4th revert: [56]using 74.73.16.230
• 5th revert: [57]using 74.73.16.230
• 6th revert: [58]using SixOfDiamonds
• 7th revert: [59]using SixOfDiamonds

IP 74.73.16.230 admitted to being User:SixOfDiamonds here. Please block username and IP.

• Diff of 3RR warning: [60]--MONGO 12:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverts continue, now from this ip which is clearly not operated independently of the other:

• 8th: 14:48, 28 June 2007
• 9th: 15:19, 28 June 2007

Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry but its not a 3RR to revert vandalism, your constant reverts with only the summary of "rv" are against Wikipedia policy. You are not allowed to do a wholesale revert in any case other then vandalism. Please see appropriate policy. Furthermore you are actually removing content and misstating a source. The word you keep adding "conspiracy theorist" in relation to the source is not what the source says, I posted the exact quote, and you removed it without any reason given. As well as Aude who stated I was putting words in the sources mouth. The source itself is [61] and on paragraph 9, you can see the exact wording. Your removal, and misstating of the content is vandalism and is then permitted to be reverted. --SixOfDiamonds 13:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

  And now more people appear to add the incorrect statement back without stating why. Still using the source as a reference to something it does not say. Is not misstating a reference against Wikipedia policy? --SixOfDiamonds 13:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

So far you have reverted me, Dman727, MONGO, and Rx StrangeLove. Are we all vandals? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please post where in the source it states the people who believe the following sentence are conspiracy theorists. No I think you are vandalizing the article to maintain your POV. --SixOfDiamonds 13:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:VAND before you accuse four editors of vandalism again.--MONGO 13:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should: "Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." You removed verifiable information from a verifiable reference, then inserted information not contained in that reference, then proceeded to not explain why in your justification. --SixOfDiamonds 13:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

To save me the time in tracking your edits, would you care to state now what other accounts you previously used prior to creating the SixOfDiamonds account? We did discuss wioth you on the article talkpage and you did not get a consensus for the changes you have been edit warring on. See WP:EW--MONGO 13:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the only account the IP. I was told by others in my field about Wikipedia and the policy driven environment. Perhaps I should have been given more warning over the hostility of opposing views in the community. Unfortunately having me cited for 3RR will not change the outcome of the AfD. Just to reiterate, I do not see you defending against the above claim of vandalism. Also since you seem to be an established editor, I am not sure why you keep misstating the source. If you feel the source is invalid, as you argued on the talk page, the proper measure would be to seek removing it, not misstating it, which is against Wikipedia policy. --SixOfDiamonds 14:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

24 hours. ElinorD (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR war between Ben-Velvel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Szopen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the Polish-Soviet War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Both have already broken 3RR. Time reported: 12:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• User:Ben-Velvel

1. [62] 10:57, June 28
2. [63] 11:20, June 28
3. [64] 11:36, June 28
4. [65] 11:47, June 28

• User:Szopen

1. [66] 10:54, June 28
2. [67] 11:01, June 28
3. [68] 11:24, June 28
4. [69] 11:39, June 28

I have protected the page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Dave Winfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yankees10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 11:58, June 27, 2007

• 1st revert: 11:43, June 28, 2007
• 2nd revert: 12:37, June 28, 2007
• 3rd revert: 13:02, June 28, 2007
• 4th revert: 13:18, June 28, 2007
• 5th revert: 13:55, June 28, 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: Unnecessary: user has been warned before (see above): has also been blocked under previous account (see above). See also ANI threads on this. Finally: I ask this page be semi-protected, as anon-user is using multiple addresses to skirt 3RR. The Evil Spartan 19:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

24h Block. The seems familliary with policy. But please, don't just make the claim that has been blocked under a previous account - if you suspect someone of sockpuppetry you do need to provide evidence. For now a 24h block should calms things down. Signature^brendel 21:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Factory farming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 16:58, 28 June 2007 - inserting image of sows in crates.

• 1st revert: 18:34, 28 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 19:05, 28 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 19:11, 28 June 2007

Now reverting another part of the article:

(edit) Previous version reverted to: 19:38, 13 June 2007 - link to main article (I'll let the rest go) Jav43 02:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• 4th revert: 01:55, 29 June 2007

This user is an administrator; no 3RR warning necessary. Jav43 02:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this is the second time you've done this, Jav. What you're calling the fourth revert was just me continuing to edit the article. There was no revert. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Second time? What are you talking about?

And no, the fourth revert includes a) removing the link to the main article, b) removing tags to different sections, and c) removing the statement that proponents of factory farming say factory farming improves food safety. That's a clear revert. Jav43 02:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a revert; it's an edit. If someone had just added that material, and I immediately removed it, that would count as a revert. But it's been there for awhile e.g. (c) the food safety thing has been there for months without a source, even though we asked for one several times. The difference between you and me, Jav, is that you're at Wikipedia for the sole purpose of removing that one image. I do other things, including editing this and other articles. So while almost every edit you make is a revert, that's not the case with me. Not quite. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Erm. You're wrong about me. And I'm tired of you saying such things about me. But that's irrelevant.

It's a revert. Read this [70]. Jav43 02:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the fourth as a revert (the version claimed to be "reverted to" did have the "main" tag, did have the example header, etc.), so that looks like a normal edit. I would, however, from a look at the history, caution everyone involved in that history that they're treading awfully close to the line, and you don't have to go over three to get blocked if you're reverting consistently enough. It looks like a mediator might be called for here, that's a much better option than having to block anyone. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggested mediation and filed an RfM, but there are several editors involved and a couple of them refused to take part, so it couldn't go ahead. Jave is a pro- factory farming single-issue account that has been trying to remove that image for months, and instead insert one of cows who are practically lying on a beach sipping pina coladas. Anyway, thanks for the input. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I also agreed to mediation. I'll decline to respond to SV's personal attacks and irrelevant commentary. Jav43 02:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

State terrorism by the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 2007-06-27T07:47:31

• 1st revert: 2007-06-27T17:47:43
• 2nd revert: 2007-06-28T13:38:35
• 3rd revert: 2007-06-28T14:49:42
• 4th revert: 2007-06-28T18:19:48

User has an extensive block log, he games 3RR here by waiting exactly 30 minutes past the 24-hour mark for his fourth revert. - Merzbow 03:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of reversion going on here from many editors... as a start, I protected the page to allow discussion to achieve consensus. Still looking at the 3rr report though. Sancho 04:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, 24 hour block. Sancho 05:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is no need for a block, since the edit warring is already prevented from the page protection. This was a hasty decision... Giovanni33 will be unblocked. Sancho 05:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

He reverted twice as much as anyone else. The block will serve as a useful record in his block log of how he handles editing disputes. So I'd say you've done the right thing. - Merzbow 05:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for not blocking me, and removing the block. It was the right thing, esp. since I was restoring valid sorced material from those editor who were blanking it, without consensus. Even, then, in protecting this article, I did not violate the 3RR rule, although it does not apply in the case of vandalism. I think that blanking sourced material qualifies as such.Giovanni33 18:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, you must have one of the worst block records on Wikipedia. Restoring valid sourced material is not a reason to violate 3RR. Everyone thinks that what they're doing is valid, so if that were an excuse, we'd have chaos. Please make sure you never violate it again, no matter the reason. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Richmond, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cholga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [71]

• 1st revert: [72]
• 2nd revert: [73]
• 3rd revert: [74]

User is adamant in his attempt to word a statement that is not accurately supported by the citation. User has also refused attempts to compromise with other users and has generally been uncivil in his interaction with others. Cacophony 07:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

24h. There are four reverts (probably more), if anybody would care to check the history of the article. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

El Salvador (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kaypoh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: Different versions each time.

• 1st revert: 14.27
• 2nd revert: 14.40
• 3rd revert: 14.42
• 4th revert: 14.44

• Diff of 3RR warning: I already know about 3RR, I just forgot it.

I tried RC patrol. And I made a stupid mistake. Before that, I thought I was doing OK and wanted to get feedback from others about my RC patrol.

Vandalism reversions are certainly allowed. Please continue. If you like patrolling RC, you should read WP:CVU, and also perhaps install WP:TWINKLE, it makes the warning system much easier (I notice you didn't warn any of the vandals that you reverted). Sancho 15:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks! :) How do I warn them? So when reverting vandalism on RC patrol, it's OK to violate 3RR? --Kaypoh 15:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you have to be so honest :D Evilclown93_(talk) 15:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, wish every report was so easy :-). Kaypoh, I'll continue the conversation at your talk page... See you over there. Sancho 15:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Partitions of Poland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ben-Velvel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 06:17, June 28, 2007

• 1st revert: 09:03, June 28, 2007
• 2nd revert: 16:14, June 28, 2007
• 3rd revert: 05:46, June 29, 2007
• 4th revert: 11:30, June 29, 2007
• 5th revert 11:54, June 29, 2007
• 6th revert 12:12, June 29, 2007
• 7th revert 12:47, June 29, 2007

Note: technically, that's only a 6rv violation (6 reverts in 24h, 7 reverts in 28h or so). Also note that this same user revert warring has led to protection of another page ([75]).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

24 hours. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

E. V. Ramasami Naicker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00.12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert:23.38 26 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 22.19 27 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 22:42, 27 June 2007

Note:He was last blocked on 17th June 2007

• 4th revert: 23.38, 29 June 2007

User has been into open edit war including deleting content which is cited without raising the issues in the Talk page. He faces a ongoing ArbCom case. 81.208.161.46 00:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

How could 3RR apply when the reverts are across three days? Isn't there some sort of action that can be taken against filing false 3RR reports? This is your second one. Bladestorm 00:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry new here but I have asked for protection for the page .I think that is the correct way forward.Will get an account and start using it.Anyway Thanks for your prompt response.81.208.161.46 00:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit. You are obviously a sockpuppet. And The IP added the "no vio" not me.Bakaman 00:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please if you feel I am a sockpuppet of Anwar saadat [76].Please ask for Checking it.You put the No vio back [77] after i removed it.81.208.161.46 01:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I can guess what happened here. Tell me if I'm close. IP editor, you copy&pasted from the previous 3RR report, and added the 4th alleged revert, right? Then, either you or another editor removed the 'no vio', because this instance wasn't decided on yet. Baka, you saw someone removing 'no vio', and put it back in, assuming it was vandalism, right? Am I close at all here people? Bladestorm 01:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I cut pasted it and removed it and then Bakasuprman put it back here [78] Sorry for the trouble caused and you are intelligent figure it out.81.208.161.46 01:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Grimmjow Jeagerjaques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ManiacMikey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 15:53, June 29, 2007
• 3RR warning: [79]
• Reverts:

1. 1st: 16:47, June 29, 2007
2. 2nd: 16:59, June 29, 2007
3. 3rd: 17:22, June 29, 2007
4. 4th: 17:26, June 29, 2007
5. 5th: 17:40, June 29, 2007
6. 6th: 17:45, June 29, 2007
7. 7th: 17:49, June 29, 2007
8. 8th: 17:54, June 29, 2007
9. 9th: 18:00, June 29, 2007
10. 10th: 18:05, June 29, 2007
11. 11th: 18:20, June 29, 2007
12. 12th: 18:30, June 29, 2007

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

24 hours. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Battle of Washita River. Custerwest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

• 1st revert: 15:53, 29 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 15:56, 29 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 16:02, 29 June 2007

Battle of Washita River

...has been undergoing heavy editting, and after I changed POV wording from "murdered" to "killed" per much wiki discussion, and trying to use the talk page to explain the issue, User:Custerwest reverted the edit a third time. This user is new, and I've tried to warn against this action, to no avail. Some outside help would be great. Murderbike 00:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to put back the report that was here, which was removed by User:Custerwest, but a fourth revert has happened. Where are the admins? Murderbike 00:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait he removed the report that you put here, if so that is completely unacceptable. --MichaelLinnear 00:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, looks like he did. [80] --MichaelLinnear 00:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and then trying to claim 3RR against others below. erg. Murderbike 00:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

my report has been removed by Murderbike. Gosh, it's so childish, it's becoming a farce. Can I work properly on the Battle of the Washita or should I be opposed to every man on the Web who hasn't any source on the battle ? Is it a real encyclopedia? Incredible. Custerwest 00:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Bobblehead not Murderbike removed it. See [81]. --MichaelLinnear 00:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Custerwest has been blocked for 24 hours. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Moldova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tones benefit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 05:07, 30 June 2007

• 1st revert: 05:07, 30 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 09:09, 30 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 09:12, 30 June 2007
• 4th revert: 09:18, 30 June 2007
• 5th revert 09:24, 30 June 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 09:16, 30 June 2007

• Comment: the user has also violated the WP:3RR on the Moldovan language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article.

You Alaexis, are in the same situation like me. Despite the fact that you are reporting me here, you're no better. If you are aware about it why didn't you stop? After you reported me here, you started again to delete.--Tones benefit 09:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 05:01, 30 June 2007
• 1st revert: 09:10, 30 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 09:12, 30 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 09:20, 30 June 2007
• 4th revert: 09:36, 30 June 2007

Alæxis_¿question? 09:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This aleaxis user is very strange. When I asked him on the talk page to present a single argument he didn't. He continues to delete a sentence without any reason.--Tones benefit 09:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Going to warn the user for now, as (s)he is apparently fairly new. I'm quite unimpressed with the fact that the user has posted to the talk page, and no one else has yet seen fit to respond or begin discussion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Occupation of Baltic states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dojarca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 19:40, 29 June 2007

• 1st revert: 02:23, 30 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 12:34, 30 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 12:44, 30 June 2007
• 4th revert: 12:47, 30 June 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 12:48, 30 June 2007

• Comment. User keeps removing material - that has been discussed and found to be relevant by others (see Talk:Occupation of Baltic states#Nazi occupation). Furthermore, he keeps removing speedy deletion tag from Nazi occupation of the Baltics that he created himself, now moved to Оccupation of Baltic republics by Nazi Germany by him, he broke 3RR rule with that as well (all material is copy-paste from Occupation of Baltic states, without any sources). DLX 10:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Stopped after 3RR warning, but warned that future edit-warring will lead to a block. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Anonimu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 21:34, 29 June 2007

All reverts deal with adding a tag and removing a map. Latest example: [82] The history illustrates the pressistent reverts: [83]

Map and tag:

• latest [84]
• [85]
• [86]
• [87]

Just tag:

• [88]
• [89]

Comment I personally am not an active participant in that discussion, but I do watch the discussion.--Alexia Death 10:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of the reverts. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Alexia Death 10:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

PS:I figured the link to history was enough since all the reverts are exactly alike, but heres the diffs now.--Alexia Death 10:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

if i get blocked for edit waring i hope that User:Dc76 (warned by 2 different users) and his sock/meat puppet User:Tones benefit (see case above) will get the same treatment for breaking 3rr (see history).Anonimu 11:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

72 hours, user's fourth 3RR violation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Iraq Resolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). GATXER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

• 1st revert: [90]
• 2nd revert: [91]
• 3rd revert: [92]
• 4th revert: [93]

Since this editor is only contributing by reverting other people's edits, and refuses to discuss, I informed him he was about to break 3RR.[94] Despite this he continues reverting on sight as he has promised in the past and repeated today.[95][96] He asserts this was the result of a discussion with some unnamed administrator.[97] He also thinks calling me "an idiot" is acceptable behaviour.[98] Because of that I also started a mediation case.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have warned the user. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Criticism of the Qur'an (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Oren.tal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 11:17, 29 June 2007

• 1st revert: 16:24, 29 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 14:18, 30 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:30, 30 June 2007
• 4th revert: 14:58, 30 June 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 16:32, 29 June 2007
• Some other also warned him: 17:08, 29 June 2007
• He has been blocked previously too (see his block log).
• The IP address used in above difference is indeed his address. For proving it, I give following reasons.

1. I asked him [99] and he did not deny it [100].
2. They edit is collaboration (one after other). See history [101]
3. He has made many other names which has been blocked. See [102]

--- A. L. M. 15:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for 31 hours, and also sprotected the page to prevent disruption from ips. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Poor Seamus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Movedgood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

WWGB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

220.253.71.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: N/A

This one's really lame. The participants passed 3RR long ago, they're on about 25RR by now. WGB logged out and continued the war as 220.253.71.146.

All edits on 30 June

Movedgood

• 1st revert: 15:44
• 2nd revert: 16:11
• 3rd revert: 16:33
• 4th revert: 16:53

WWGB

• 1st revert: 15:50
• 2nd revert: 16:26
• 3rd revert: 16:36
• 4th revert: 17:01

220.253.71.146 (WWGB logged out presumably)

• 1st revert: 17:08
• 2nd revert: 17:12
• 3rd revert: 17:15
• 4th revert: 17:17

• Diff of 3RR warnings: [103], [104], [105]

• Three-revert rule violation on

Scientology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RookZERO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: varies, see below

• 1st revert: 20:54, 29 June 2007

  Previous version reverted to: 15:12, 29 June 2007

  Reverted part of consensus edit dropped in by BTfromLA back to "Scientology claims to be applicable in all facets of life, including . . ."

• 2nd revert: 23:13, 29 June 2007

  Previous version reverted to: 20:54, 29 June 2007

  Reverted text (among other) "Scientology and the organizations that promote it have remained highly controversial since their inception. Journalists, courts, and governing bodies of several countries have alleged that Scientology is an unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses its critics and victimizes its members."

• 3rd revert: 02:07, 30 June 2007

  Previous version reverted to: 23:13, 29 June 2007

  Straight revert of my edits and misc. intervening activity.

• 4th revert: 16:00, 30 June 2007

  Previous version reverted to: 02:07, 30 June 2007

  Reverting BTfromLA's effort at a compromise. This one says it all. Revert back to his "favorite version" over the edits of four (4) other editors from all sides of the fence.

Comment - User: RookZERO's tendentious use of revert as an "editing tool" is disrupting the editing process at Scientology. A couple of editors from both sides of the fence, myself as a Scientologist, BTfromLA, whom I consider something of a critic, and a couple other editors have been working together in good faith to hammer out something that we can all live with. If you are familiar at all with the editing climate in the Scientology articles you will know that that is something of a miracle. User: RookZERO is acting in a fashion that is disruptive to the process, pushing his POV by repeated reverts and, in the process, also destroying edits that have nothing to do with his main bone of contention. His last revert says it all, please see my comment above. User: RookZERO has a history of disruptive editing with two recent blocks for 3RR violation along with recent talk page warnings that may have not been reported. --Justanother 17:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

And just to underscore what we are dealing with; subsequent to my posting this incident, RookZERO followed me over to another article, one he had not edited in over three weeks, to revert my considered and NPOV edit, here. --Justanother 23:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This has just been building up for a week. 48. --Evilclown93_(talk) 02:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

First Sino-Japanese War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 193.95.194.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 18:45, 30 June 2007

• 1st revert: 18:51, 30 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 18:52, 30 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 18:57, 30 June 2007
• 4th revert: 19:05, 30 June 2007
• 5th revert: 19:10, 30 June 2007
• Diff of 3RR warning: 19:00, 30 June 2007

Comment - It is simple blanking as vandalism. --Nightshadow28 19:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 31h; quite distruptive. Evilclown93_(talk) 22:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Controversies over the film Sicko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Noroton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [106]

• 1st revert: [107]
• 2nd revert: [108]
• 3rd revert: [109]
• 4th revert: [110]
• 5th revert: [111]
• 6th revert: [112]
• 7th revert: [113]
• 8th revert: [114]
• 9th revert: [115]
• 10th revert: [116]
• 11th revert: [117]
• 12th revert: [118]

User created this page and has a hard time letting anyone else edit this page. User reverts edits to his/her favorite version of the page. Recently undoing a full days worth of edits. Constantly reverted good faith efforts to improve the article or add new content. User has been warned about 3rr and Wp:own. User was warned on his talk page about 3rr multiple times and user did do a semi-revert (deleting a section that was originally moved further down). User has repeatedly removed content (like real controversies i.e. film piracy and legal investigations) from the page. We (other editors) just want to be able to edit the page. Thanks. Turtlescrubber 21:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as I am here, how do I fix my diff/time postings. I really tried to get it right but must be doing something wrong. Any help on that would be great too. Thanks. Turtlescrubber 21:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The page was created over the vigorous objections of User:Turtlescrubber and another user (see Talk:Sicko (film). Their objection was that no extended discussion over the controversy surrounding Moore's film, however balanced and fair, could possibly be warranted. After the page was created, they conducted their own version of WP:OWN. In vigorously defending a neutral article, I did unwittingly step over the 3RR line. I attempted to fix the mistake when it was brought to my attention. I didn't entirely revert because I didn't think that was necessary (some content is in different spots than before my final revert), but if that's necessary, I'll do that too. The revert I did make in an attempt to fix was ... immediately reverted by some other editor. Noroton 21:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Another point: Just like Turtlescrubber's arguments at the talk pages for Sicko (film), and Controversies over the film Sicko the description of what's been going on is completely biased. What reversions I did make were mixed in among lengthy, lengthy, lengthy discussion involving attempts on my part to reach consensus, reversions by other editors and some successful efforts at consensus. Rather than post a long list of diffs, I just refer anyone to the lengthy history of both articles and their talk pages. It isn't exactly WP:OWN on my part.Noroton 21:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are lengthy talk page posts but no real attempt at consensus. I just want to be able to edit the page (and have other editors make changes) without everything being reverted. That is it. I haven't misrepresented the situation in the slightest and user continues to edit the page ("fixing" a different users attempt at trying to add something to the article)making two more revisions to the article. All I want to do is be able to edit this article.Turtlescrubber 22:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Way too much edit-warring/edit wrangling/disputes. Please settle on talk page. If you can agree before 3 days, notfy me, and I might unprotect it earlier. --Evilclown93_(talk) 02:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC) - * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion. Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. Not a new user but warned anyway.

• Diff of 3RR warning: [119]
• Diff of 3RR warning: [120]
• Diff of 3RR warning: [121]
• Diff of 3RR warning: [122]

• Three-revert rule violation on

7 World Trade Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.105.19.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 01:02, 1 July 2007

• 1st revert: 01:19, 1 July 2007
• 2nd revert: 01:26, 1 July 2007
• 3rd revert: 01:35, 1 July 2007
• 4th revert: 01:40, 1 July 2007
• 5th revert: 01:50, 1 July 2007
• 6th revert: 01:53, 1 July 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 01:52, 1 July 2007

Blocked for 48 hours. --Evilclown93_(talk) 02:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Agoras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 01:35, 1 July 2007

• 1st revert: 02:45, 1 July 2007
• 2nd revert: 03:30, 1 July 2007
• 3rd revert: 05:12, 1 July 2007
• 4th revert: 05:20, 1 July 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 05:19, 1 July 2007 Though he's been around for 3 months or so.

User has not been involved in the extensive, weeklong discussion over this material. The article is now on the main page. I offered the user the opportunity to self-revert if I instituted one of his changes in exchange, he refused. I see tariqabjotu just blocked him. Well I spent a few minutes on this, might as well post it. Feel free to ignore it. Arrow740 05:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The user that reported this has just been blocked for vandalism, and this seems like an invalid case. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 06:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: They were blocked for 3RR, but it seems like an invalid block, so not sure about this request. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 06:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740 was not blocked for vandalism, or for 3RR. User:Agoras may be a sock of banned user His excellency (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected). I am still analyzing contribs, but see this diff which is characteristic of His excellency socks, as is edit-warring and ignoring 3RR.Proabivouac 06:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Reversing the Battle of the Washita page, removing footnotes. Custerwest 10:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Custerwest, just after his previous block expired, came back and did this again, on the same page he was blocked for disrupting.

1. [123] (as anon ip)
2. [124] (6 min later as Custerwest)
3. [125] (as Custerwest)
4. [126] (as Custerwest)

As you see, he was perfectly aware of what he's doing. I can just say: Wow.

Personally, I think he's completely unreformable. --HanzoHattori 11:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

(1) Blocking admin should at least leave a signature here (2) It might be not so evident at first glance, but the diffs above illustrate Custerwest's behavior, not Hanzo Hattori's. If HanzoHattori is blocked (for what?), Custerwest deserves at least the same. Colchicum 13:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the blocking admin this time, but I was the first time, and both parties have commented about this issue on my talk page. Because this has become such a mess, with each accusing the other, I'm posting a copy of my comments, in response to the parties as posted on my talk page, here as a matter of record since other admins are involved now as well:

I researched this lates round of accusations and the resulting diffs:

1. This has already been posted at 3RR, and Hanzo has already been blocked for 3RR for 72 hours, an action to which I concur (I probably would have added some time for incivility, but them's the breaks).
2. The diffs provided by Hanzo are culled through, and actually represent a series of edits to footnote and source the text. I don't see a 3RR violation here.
3. Once Hanzo's block is up, if there's a massive removal of material by him, without first detailed discussion of why each of the items is removed, I will protect the page and I will issue vandalism blocks.
4. There's no hurry in writing this or any article. You can take the time to discuss the points with civility like professional academics.

These comments, besides being posted here, are being posted at the users' pages and the article page. Please stop fighting the Battle of the Washita and start cooperating about its article. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dashes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 00:57, 1 July 2007 previous version [127], see "other religions" section
• 2nd revert: 01:04, 1 July 2007 previous version [128]
• 3rd revert: 01:35, 1 July 2007 same as rv#1
• 4th revert: 17:49, 1 July 2007 previous version [129]

The page is semi-protected, it's a "bloody mess", quote Moreschi, no definite action until it's sorted out. --Evilclown93_(talk) 19:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection will not prevent User:Dashes from edit-warring. Beit Or 20:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If he reverts one more time, he will get a five-hour block. --Evilclown93_(talk) 20:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain how the first revert is a revert? -- tariqabjotu 20:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise. Arrow740 03:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Look at the "Other religions" section in the previous version[130] beginning from the second paragraph. Beit Or 21:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a revert all right. 24 hours. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

George Galloway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 82.11.59.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 18:03, 30 June 2007

• 1st revert: 22:39, 30 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 10:38, 1 July 2007
• 3rd revert: 10:47. 1 July 2007
• 4th revert: 10:50, 1 July 2007
• 5th revert: 10:56, 1 July 2007

The user has been blocked. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Ahtum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mr. Neutron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: PANONIAN 22:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 21:27, 1 July 2007

• 1st revert: 21:54, 1 July 2007
• 2nd revert: 22:25, 1 July 2007
• 3rd revert: 22:27, 1 July 2007

Note last link is formatting.

Notice the excessive edit warring of Panonian on the following articles:

• Ahtum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - at least 10 reverts in last two weeks against 3 other users.
• Sermon (ruler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - at least 10 reverts in last two weeks against 3 other users.
• Greater Hungary (political concept) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - 12 reverts in last two weeks against at least 2 other users.
• History of Vojvodina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - 12 reverts in last two weeks against at least 2 other users.
• Greater Hungary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

[[User:M r. Neutron|Mr. Neutron]] 22:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but you only provided three diffs. You need four for a block. Will ^(talk) 23:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Not necessary. If it's disruptive enough, you block for 24. Evilclown93_(talk) 23:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do not understand this 3rr policy very well - users in fact have right to four reverts not to three? I done now my own forth revert in that article after User:Sceptre said here that four reverts are not enough for a block, but if I violated policy by this, I will revert myself to last article version by User:Mr. Neutron. PANONIAN 23:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now as it is of this moment you really did knowlingly break 3RR on Sermon (ruler). Mr. Neutron 23:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither of you are going to get block. You need at least four reverts to count as 3RR. (but if you mix in 3 reverts with some vandalism, incivillity, personal attacks etc., you'll get blocked as well). Evilclown93_(talk) 23:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on my talkpage posted for transperancy Please, review the 3RR report for PANONIAN, there are new developments. Mr. Neutron 23:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it. I'm blocking neither of you for now. --Evilclown93_(talk) 23:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Four reverts were committed on July 1st on Ahtum and Sermon (ruler), and Panonian keeps reverting. For previous version, take "his" version from the 30th of June,. Mr. Neutron 23:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

He's unsure of the rule. Also, can please not ask me to take action in private. Trying to exert a false air of authority can get you into big trouble. Evilclown93_(talk) 23:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

He has been blocked for 3RR before, see his log. Then second, you got involved in the case afterall. Third, he did indeed break 3RR, not even by committing more than 3 reverts in 24 hours, but also by gaming it through excessive reverts. Please review the rule. Mr. Neutron 23:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Neutrons word needs to be taken with a grain of salt, as he has made false accusations before. Alexander the great1 23:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that I did not understand this rule well, so I thought that rule apply to any 3 edits (not only reverts) in 24 hours, but I see now that it apply to 3 reverts after original edit, which mean in fact (if I understand correctly) right to 4 reverts within 24 hours (including original edit). Therefore, I apologize for reporting User:Mr. Neutron because he obviously did not brake the rule and I withdraw my 3rr report against him. Regarding the fact that I was once blocked for 3rr it was long time ago when I was not even aware that this rule exist, and since then I always respected the rule (and I did not only respected this rule that alowed me 4 reverts per 24 hours, but I never had more than 3 reverts per 24 hours because I thought that rule say that). PANONIAN 07:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You still don't. I suggest you read WP:3RR. In particular, it states The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, [...]. Three reverts is not a right, it's a hard limit. And no, the 4th edit is what puts you over the line, so if you have 4 reverts (defined for this purpose as any edit that undoes, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors). --Stephan Schulz 07:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Organization XIII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BassxForte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 20:36, 30 June 2007

• 1st revert: 00:08, 1 July 2007
• 2nd revert: 17:11, 1 July 2007
• 3rd revert: 21:45, 1 July 2007
• 4th revert: 21:58, 1 July 2007

Yet another in a long line of 3RR violations by this user. ' 22:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked for 31 days, and if there is one more violation, it's indef. I'm giving one final chance. --Evilclown93_(talk) 23:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Disruptive behavior and endless RV warring on Georgia (country) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Previous version reverted to: [131]
• 1st revert: 04:05, 30 June 2007
• 2nd revert: 14:16, 30 June 2007
• 3rd revert: 09:47, 1 July 2007
• 4th revert: 02:12, 2 July 2007

• Please note that these revertes might not be in exactly 24 hours but he, at least, must be told to stop warring and POV pushing. SosoMK 07:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no 3RR here. If you are looking for dispute resolution try using the article talk page, a third opinion or an article RFC. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Louis Carlet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sparkzilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 06:48, 2 July 2007

User Sparkzilla made 4 sequential reverts to material (2 full reverts and then 2 partial)each time disputing the references in a different way

• 1st revert: 06:54, 2 July 2007
• 2nd revert: 07:07, 2 July 2007
• 3rd revert: 07:48, 2 July 2007
• 4th revert: 07:59, 2 July 2007

These reverts were all done during an 'open nomination for merge' that at this time is 1 in favor of the merge and 2 against. He has subsequently unilaterally moved the information to the National Union of General Workers page after waiting 14 hours post nominating the page to be merged. Some of the sources he initially objected to were added by him on the National Union of General Workers page he is attempting to merge to. Would appreciate it if someone could look into this situation. Statisticalregression 09:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a bogus request. Statisticalregression has tried on multiple occasions to add the same material over and over without any heed of the discussion and advice from me on how to deal with this matter. He is trying to add dubious sources to stop a page being merged/nominated for deletion. In addition to discussing my objections clearly on the talk page, I have invited the editor twice to put his sources to dispute resolution. I have also asked the user to take some time away from the page, but he would rather escalate the issue. The burden is on him to show that his dubious sources are relevant to the article, and to show that the article about Mr Carlet is not a duplicate of the material already on the Union page, which I have taken great pains to show by including his sources on the union page, where they belong. In any case, I have already said (before this complaint) that I would not edit the article for the next day. Please also note that I will not continue this dispute here. The merge discussion and the discussion of the dubious sources is at Talk:Louis Carlet. Thank you for your time. -- Sparkzilla talk! 09:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing bogus about it, you did revert 4 times. Furthermore....

• articles that are nominated for a merge (or deletion) are not locked, this gives editors a chance to add information
• I have discussed the sources with you on the talk page and cited WP policy with links that supports my position, you have not
• You insist removing the material I added and when I raised objections on the talk page you started including arguments on a completely different topic, confusing the issue
• You duplicated the material on the Louis Carlet after I had initially added sources you disputed, I have already givin my point of view on the merge issue and how did it suddenly become my responsibility to defend whether there should be a page about Louis Carlet or not?
• I am not choosing to escalate the issue over discussing the material I added, you reverted 4 times which to my understanding is against WP:3RR and feel I those edits are very problematic.
• I would like you to refrain from Ad_hominen arguments and simply stick to the issue at hand. Accusing me of "grasping at straws" or trying to remove material though brute force Proof_by_assertion is unproductive.Statisticalregression 10:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No action taken as neither editor has made edits to the article since the 2nd July. DrKiernan 13:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Israeli-Palestinian_conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Suicup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 14:09, 1 July 2007

Actually warns other user in edit summary of third rv rv I recommend this issue be resolved on Talk first to avoid violating 3RR., but was anyway previously warned.

• 1st revert: 07:59, 2 July 2007
• 2nd revert: 09:34, 2 July 2007
• 3rd revert: 10:09, 2 July 2007
• 4th revert: 11:00, 2 July 2007

I have to admit that I'm quite puzzled as to why the page would be protected after one newer user reverts three established users four times. It seems to be rewarding the one party that disrupted with a 3RR violation. Tewfik^Talk 16:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

State-sponsored terrorism by the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Stone put to sky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 07:40, 2 July 2007 removes material about United Fruit Company in Guatemala
• 2nd revert: 10:26, 2 July 2007
• 3rd revert: 11:12, 2 July 2007
• 4th revert: 14:35, 2 July 2007 again removes material about United Fruit Company; removes section on cultural terrorism

• Diff of 3RR warning: 06:07, 28 June 2007

• The entry for 10:26 is in fact not a revert of the information proposed in first revert.[132] The user is adding information to the article regarding sources that were removed. In 11:12 they are re adding information that was removed in 2, again, unrelated to 1.[133] And finally in 4, they are not editing content in 1, 2 or 3. I am not really sure what the issue here is. The edit in 1 is not related to 2 or 3 and the edit in 4 is not related to 1,2 or 3. --SixOfDiamonds 15:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue is simple: In the last 8 hours, Stone-put-to-sky undid another's work 4 times, a couple of times with a hostile edit summary. He is trying to maintain the page as his personal essay, exercising veto power over what is added. That's disruptive, and is likely to continue. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You are an established editor and should know the difference between 3RR and WP:OWN. If you have ownership issues to report, you should do it properly, I know its a time consuming process as it requires burden of proof, but end runs around the system are not the proper way to handle issues. --SixOfDiamonds 16:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The way to handle Stone-put-to-sky's persistent reverting is to report it here, with diffs of the 4 reverts. Beyond that, some uninvolved admin can sort it out. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There is also a probable 5th revert:

2007-07-01T22:58:1 - (moved Allegations of breaches of international law by the United States to State-sponsored terrorism by the United States)

Moves back count as reverts in WP:3RR. Also note that Stone believes he is entitled to 3 reverts per day - [134] - "I'd revert it, but Tom got me to use up my 3 for the day". He also has recently engaged in personal attacks, calling editors bigots and liars (to pick just two examples). He is a thoroughly disruptive editor. - Merzbow 21:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

And we have a sixth revert:

2007-07-01T10:00:3 - revert to 2007-07-01T08:32:11

The times are different than Tom's, but they are all within the 24-hour period, since according to my time, the last diff above - edit summary "Removed irrelevant material" - was 2007-07-02T07:35:54. - Merzbow 21:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor: 3RR includes all reverts made during a 24 hour period, not just related ones.

To admin: There is clearly a 3RR violation here. 4 by Stone put to sky, (and an identical one 1 by an anonymous IP).

DIFFS below provide 'revert' and 'old version'.

Revert 1 July 1, 15:32 by Stone put to sky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Revert 2 July 2, 10:26 by Stone put to sky

Revert x July 2, 11:00 by Anon IP

Revert 3 July 2, 11:12 by Stone put to sky

Revert 4 July 2, 14:33 - prior by Stone put to sky

Peace.Lsi john 16:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverting is when you "revert" hence adding or removing content is not reverting. The edits only show content adding or removing, which is why there is no originating dif followed by the later dif of the revert to version X. --SixOfDiamonds 21:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

1. The above are 100% reverts. The diffs provided give comparisons between the Old version and the Revert. And thus appear 'empty'.
2. A individual edit can contain both REVERTED material and EDITED material and still be a revert. Read the text on WP:3RR closely. Peace.Lsi john 22:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Clear violation. Blocked for 24 hours. ElinorD (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

He has today violated the three-revert rule on the page regarding Jerrold Nadler and Deborah Glick. He has repeated written commentary unbefitting of an encyclopedia: he has stuffed these articles with his personal commentary (POV) on these persons. This commentary is possibly libelous. E.g., he is charging Nadler with being a socialist. I and JamesNLane have had dialogue with him regarding our edits on the pages in question. Furthermore, he does not sign with the four tildes.

He has persisted in an unprofessional manner. I formally request a block upon him. Dogru144 18:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Could you provide diffs to simply research? Peace.Lsi john 18:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Jerrold Nadler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nleobold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

* 1st revert: [135] - STALE- June 30th

• 1st revert: 2 July, 07:10
• 2nd revert: 2 July, 12:46
• 3rd revert: 2 July, 16:48
• 4th revert: 2 July, 20:33

comment: 1 stale, 3 reverts, clearly content dispute on this article. Technically no vio. (I'm not an admin). Peace.Lsi john 19:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

updated: Now there are 4 reverts and a clear violation. Peace.Lsi john 22:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Deborah Glick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nleobold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 2 July, 07:27
• 2nd revert: 2 July, 12:47
• 3rd revert: 2 July, 16:51
• 4th revert: 2 July, 20:30

Warning given: Warning

Note to admin: Clearly edit warring and straight reverting. 4RR on two articles. (I'm not involved and not an admin) Peace.Lsi john 23:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Nleobold has not been blocked before and it appears s/he may not have a good understanding of the 3RR rule. Peace.Lsi john 23:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours. User had been warned and had been referred to WP:3RR page. ElinorD (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'll go sit in a corner for not being more clear. The referral to WP:3RR was given after this report, when I read his userpage and realized he might not know what reverting really meant. Peace.Lsi john 23:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You didn't confuse me. I was already examining his case when you were posting here. He was warned by two other users today. Both warnings were before his fourth reverts. One was at 15:18; the other was at 18:22. Both warnings provided links to the three revert rule page. It was up to him to go to that page and familiarise himself with it; instead, he chose to accuse others of vandalism. ElinorD (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The block was uncalled for. A warning template should have first been issued that explained the violation and possibility of a block for future violations. You don't need to be blocking inexperienced users for 3RR when the person giving the first warning took part in the incident in question and didn't use a more informative template to issue the warning. This is another example of admins blocking inappropriately. The sequence should go: 1. Explain, 2. Warn with a template (so he sees its not just another user griping), 3. If the first warning didn't include threat of blocking then warn more harshly (otherwise proceed to 4), 4. block. Talmage 00:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Human_rights_of_Kurdish_people_in_Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Laertes d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 23:20, June 29, 2007

• 1st revert: 20:11, July 1, 2007
• 2nd revert: 04:37, July 2, 2007
• 3rd revert: 19:36, July 2, 2007
• 4th revert: 22:05, July 2, 2007
• 5th revert: 22:41, July 2, 2007

User experienced with 3RR (see block log). User aware of imminent block, and declares incorrigible (among personal attacks).[136] Anonymous reverts in that (and other articles) may be possible part of user's additional disruptive behavior, which was not taken into account on previous blocks. NikoSilver 23:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours, due to past record. -- tariqabjotu 03:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Ward Churchill misconduct issues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Verklempt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [137]

• 1st revert: [138]
• 2nd revert: [139]
• 3rd revert: [140]
• 4th revert: [141]

Also:

• [142]

Verklempt automatically removes any phrases or references not supportive of his POV, as a sort of WP:OWN attitude on the article. However, I am also guilty of 3RR in restoring the links; we should both be blocked. LotLE×talk 02:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Both users are blocked for twenty-four hours, per the evidence above. -- tariqabjotu 03:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Islam in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RSimione (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 21:41, 2 July 2007

• 1st revert: 06:06, 2 July 2007
• 1st revert: 18:02, 2 July 2007
• 3rd revert: 19:11, 2 July 2007
• 2nd revert: 21:38, 2 July 2007
• 3rd revert: 22:02, 2 July 2007
• 4th revert: 22:50, 2 July 2007

- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion. Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.

• Diff of 3RR warning: 21:45, 2 July 2007

User isn't a new editor, but this is the first warning I see.

First three reverts were changes to the Pew information. Next two reverts were re-insurtions of a disputed image--Sefringle^Talk 03:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The third revert is not done by RSimione. Regardless, how are the first and second edits reverts? -- tariqabjotu 03:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed my mistakes. The first was also a mistake The second was the removial of the fox news quote which User:NapoleansSword added [143]. RSimione just reverted again though[144].--Sefringle^Talk 04:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours, per the evidence above. -- tariqabjotu 04:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a current revert war between Wikisparkle34, Slakr and Bongwarrior on the WP:AIV page. 08:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ilya1166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 05:34, July 3, 2007

• 1st revert: 06:12, July 3, 2007
• 2nd revert: 06:31, July 3, 2007
• 3rd revert: 15:26, July 3, 2007
• 4th revert: 17:01, July 3, 2007

With all due respect, I'm becoming quite irritated with reporting this user. This is the third time in less than a month (not including the one time I didn't report him for 8RR). All I have to do is wait for him to start contributing again, and just go through the contribs, and it's guaranteed 3RR will be broken. The Evil Spartan 17:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Evilclown93_(talk) 22:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Île-de-France (region) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hardouin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 2007-06-28T02:02:27

• 1st revert: 2007-07-02T22:27:57
• 2nd revert: 2007-07-03T01:23:36
• 3rd revert: 2007-07-03T16:00:01
• 4th revert: 2007-07-03T18:36:21

This fellow is a repeat offender, and has often, as now, gone willingly over the WP:3RR line to get his "point" across. His first and only edit since eight months was to re-introduce (revert to) ad letteram a "pet phrase" of his removed one year ago. I am so exasperated with this "contributor" that I am willing to undergo a temporary ban as well - I unwittingly crossed just short of the 24h line (here) when I tried to rewrite the contested phrase into a correct and comprehensible phrase, with context, but this, I understand, can be seen as a revert. Anyhow, such intentional bullying abuse should be reported, and I won't hide behind my own fault to report it. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 19:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

ThePromenader, who had his account blocked several times for violating the 3RR ([145]), is now trying to frame me for 3RR here, part of his personal crusade to delete a reference to the "Paris metropolitan area" in the Île-de-France article. The third revert claimed by ThePromenader is in fact not a revert as a quick check can show, since I moved his edit to a dedicated Geography section and did not delete it.

Since ThePromenader is using dirty tricks to portray me as the evil guy in this, let me inform the admins that the same ThePromenader made a fourth revert yesterday only two minutes after the end of the 24 hours time period (1st revert: [146]; 2nd revert: [147];, 3rd revert: [148]; 4th revert just 2 minutes after the end of the 24 hours period: [149]). Today he also broke the 3RR with a partial revert than can arguably count as a fourth revert within 24 hours (1st revert: [150]; 2nd revert: [151]; 3rd revert: [152]; 4th revert (partial revert): [153]). Note that last time he broke the 3RR he had his block lifted by promising never again to violate the 3RR ([154]). Shouldn't he be made acountable for his promises?

Also please note that ThePromenader is not just reverting me, he has also reverted User:Metropolitan: [155]. He was told by both User:Metropolitan and User:Stevage that his reverts were unjustified ([156], [157]), but he keeps reverting nonetheless, which is why I'm talking of a personal crusade. And now he tries to frame me for 3RR on top of it. Please ask users Metropolitan and Stevage for more information about this.Hardouin 19:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you post-edit? By all means, please have a good look at my contribution history, and especially around the time of those three-revert rule breakings to get the real story. "Dirty tricks"? Where, what - reporting you? Your "third not revert" was indeed a revert - you replaced your phrase exactly as it was before. There's a lot of adjectives in the above post, but I'm not convinced that I'm deserving of most of them. For more on the "Paris metropolitan area" 'crusade', you'll have to read the concerned talk page to see whose invention it is, and why it should not be used, and perhaps then understand why its inventor is stooping to revert-warring to protect it - as no reasonable or referenced defense is possible, as the term is unused in any English-language documentation of any French institution to describe the (or as a translation for) aire urbaine. "Paris metropolitan area" as a reference (not an effort at international comparison) can be found only in Wiki and sites that scrape it, and for the reason why, go figure. Enough cruft for one night. THEPROMENADER 22:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"Frame?" Please give me a break - you intentionally broke the WP:3RR rule, and that's it! I won't even try to argue about who's "right" here, as it won't change a thing - and you are making other contributors "straw witnesses" to your own case by putting words in their mouths - they responded to your complaint about me and hardly looked at the edits! Gaming the system by hoping that because of my revert I wouldn't report your rather calculated abuse doesn't help either. Anyhow. As for the fact of it all, we've discussed this all one year before, and you conceded - but, thanks to your first "eight-month delay" revert to your own ad litteram text, here we go again. THEPROMENADER 19:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Odd, I see 3RR violations for both of you. This is like one playground kid telling on another playground kid when they were both getting in trouble. The Evil Spartan 19:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. Sorry for deleting your comment (don't know how I did that). My breaking the rules wasn't intentional, but I'm willing all the same to take the consequences if someone who did act intentionally gets his due - repeated intentional abuse shouldn't go unpunished because I myself want to avoid punishment. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 20:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The third revert he's claiming is not a revert, since I did not delete his edit but moved it to the geography section. All he's trying to do here is to have me banned to get his point across. That has been his attitude on Wikipedia for as long as I've known him: bullying other contributors and wearing them off till they quit. I am not the only person who finds his attitude disgraceful. Users Metropolitan and Stevage are also sick and tired of his attitude. I can only encourage you to contact Metropolitan and Stevage to get the whole story behind this. Hardouin 19:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice try. You reinstated ad litteram your original text to its original place at the same time as you moved my contribution - in modifying the same as an added measure of provocation - to its own section: the first part is an obvious revert to your former version. The "bullying" you describe was an accumulated reaction to your behaviour only directed at you or your sock puppets - I suppose these are the "others" you speak of. I'm sure others do get tired of all the noise that resistance to your "my last word" tactics cause - and remember that I only started reporting you here in late 2006. What will "get you banned" here is not other contributors, but your own behaviour. Please don't try to take people here for manipulable fools. THEPROMENADER 19:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Eight months of absence haven't changed User:Hardouin's behaviour on Wikipedia as shown by this opened case. This case as opened by User:ThePromenader along with page edit history is unambiguous. Although I support User:ThePromenader's case following undisputable dossier. Two edits were enough to resume using edit summaries as a place for attacks [158]. I suggest both users reserve bigateries and personnal judgements for outside Wikipedia Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 23:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Right to bear arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SaltyBoatr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 15:24, 16 May 2007

• 1st revert: 00:34, 3 July 2007
• 2nd revert: 02:50, 3 July 2007
• 3rd revert: 17:51, 3 July 2007
• 4th revert: 18:18, 3 July 2007

User has reverted same paragraph in this article 41 times against 4 other editors since 16 May 2007 to push his POV agenda:

• 1st revert: 15:24, 16 May 2007
• 2nd revert: 05:11, 20 May 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:10, 20 May 2007
• 4th revert: 01:42, 21 May 2007
• 5th revert: 13:38, 21 May 2007
• 6th revert: 20:35, 29 May 2007
• 7th revert: 21:13, 29 May 2007
• 8th revert: 13:59, 30 May 2007
• 9th revert: 20:58, 30 May 2007
• 10th revert: 21:40, 30 May 2007
• 11th revert: 00:05, 2 June 2007
• 12th revert: 15:07, 2 June 2007
• 13th revert: 19:40, 2 June 2007
• 14th revert: 22:44, 3 June 2007
• 15th revert: 16:25, 4 June 2007
• 16th revert: 20:24, 4 June 2007
• 17th revert: 20:55, 4 June 2007
• 18th revert: 15:42, 5 June 2007
• 19th revert: 19:02, 18 June 2007
• 20th revert: 20:39, 18 June 2007
• 21st revert: 22:22, 19 June 2007
• 22nd revert: 15:16, 20 June 2007
• 23rd revert: 21:55, 20 June 2007
• 24th revert: 23:55, 20 June 2007
• 25th revert: 03:18, 22 June 2007 (alternative account of SaltyBoatr)
• 26th revert: 00:01, 23 June 2007
• 27th revert: 04:12, 26 June 2007
• 28th revert: 05:30, 26 June 2007
• 29th revert: 13:54, 26 June 2007
• 30th revert: 15:56, 26 June 2007
• 31st revert: 15:14, 27 June 2007
• 32nd revert: 17:14, 28 June 2007
• 33rd revert: 17:50, 28 June 2007
• 34th revert: 28 June 2007
• 35th revert: 16:09, 29 June 2007
• 36th revert: 20:13, 1 July 2007
• 37th revert: 00:00, 2 July 2007
• 38th revert: 00:34, 3 July 2007
• 39th revert: 02:50, 3 July 2007
• 40th revert: 17:51, 3 July 2007
• 41st revert: 18:18, 3 July 2007

With due respect, and a deep consciousness to avoid wiki-lawyering, I have been struggling to collaborate with the user Yaf to resolve this long standing dispute. Notice that Yaf also has 41 reverts in this revert war too. And recently I have mended my ways and have begun trying harder to find a compromise. For instance today, July 3rd, my four edits [159][160][161][162]are all not anything close to reverts, but each different and all offered as constructive compromise wording. Yet, the four reverts that Yaf performed today are all simple plain reverts. I appreciate the wisdom of a 3RR block providing time for cool down, and would accept such a punishment. I also would encourage a enforced cool down period on User Yaf. Hopefully when we return we can bring a cooler head and agree to work together to resolve our dispute. I sincerely believe that there is a chance for resolution, if cooler heads can be brought to bear. SaltyBoatr 20:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't have 41 reverts in this litany of POV pushing. There are 4 different editors who have supported the consensus, yet SaltyBoatr has reverted against all of them, repeatedly. I also did not make 4 reverts today. Thank you. Yaf 20:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The exact count does not really matter, you have made dozens of reverts in any case. You and I have engaged in a revert war and have failed to resolve our dispute. What we really need to do is collaborate and find a compromise solution to our dispute. Will you agree to follow dispute resolution with me? SaltyBoatr 20:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I ask that the administrator passing judgment on this 3RR report please look at my four edits made today July 3rd. When I look to Help:Reverting for guidance I see that reverting means "any change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article". My four edits today were each unique good faith constructive edits, and none of them went back to an older version of the article. SaltyBoatr 22:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have protected the page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Aminz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 02:35, 3 July 2007 at least two of these edits were reverts, but they were consecutive. Here is one of the edits he reverted: 20:07, 2 July 2007
• 2nd revert: 02:48, 3 July 2007 undid 02:47, 2 July 2007
• 3rd revert: 20:13, 3 July 2007 restored the Umayyad part of the version in the first diff here, 02:35, 3 July 2007

• 4th revert: 20:34, 3 July 2007 straight revert of the previous edit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam&diff=141478331&oldid=141469550] and the edit summary). In fact, User:Beit Or was unilaterrally changing this section (please see [163]).

So, I have done only three reverts; two restoring a consensus version and in the other one [164], I was undoing a vandalism(?) which happened when article was on the main page (please check the details. the edit was replacing the section with a quote from a non-reliable). --Aminz 21:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The rest of Arrow's comments are merely accusations. --Aminz 21:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It was not unilateral, I did it as well. Merzbow doesn't define the consensus. Arrow740 21:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

See [165], I can get more. This is another addition that can only be viewed as disruptive on main page day. Arrow740 22:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I should note that I was blocked for 3RR on the main page day, but I was unblocked for good reasons; I had not violated the rule, and two of my reverts were of a likely sockpuppet. Aminz was much more disruptive on that day as well. Arrow740 21:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I have made only three reverts, two of which were replacing Beit Or's undiscussed version with a consensus one. The other one ([166]) was undoing a vandalism (a section was replaced with a quote from an unreliable website). That's it. --Aminz 22:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, it was a tenured professor's website. Arrow740 22:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

1 and 2 could arguably be grouped, since they are only separated in the edit history by an edit of mine undoing part of 1 (and 2 was completely unrelated). Could go either way, but I don't think a block is necessary. - Merzbow 22:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have protected the page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

How about the 3RR violation? Arrow740 22:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, he did 3 the last time he was on the page and when it was on the front page as the FA and when he ran out of reverts, he started adding personal analysis and adding tags to game the system. Today he came back after a day away from the computer and started up again. 1 week. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

the first two cited reverts don't appear to be independent, the edit by Merbow (the only edit in between 1 and 2) is unrelated to what is cited as revert 2. it is unfortunate for Aminz that Merzbow's edit got in just before his. in any case, i feel a week is a bit excessive, and i would join Merzbow in requesting it be shortened. ITAQALLAH 11:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I too think a week is far too long, and hope this can be reconsidered. It seems disproportionate, and I'm not sure what it is intended to prevent. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the block is excessive. -- tariqabjotu 16:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The action is preventative, not punitive. This lets you all continue to contribute elsewhere while you work out your differences on the talk page. Anyway, it looks to me like there is plenty of blame to go around. And the next person to mention Aisha's age at marriage gets smacked with a trout. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

In my memory, Aminz was not blocked for 3RR violations three times, including twice after his last block for edit warring. If previous brief blocks failed to stop Aminz's edit warring, maybe a longer block will. Beit Or 17:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

block lengths don't rack up just because previous attempts to get Aminz blocked haven't succeeded. ITAQALLAH 18:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they can in a way. However, Aminz's last block was over six months ago; suggesting that his six months of (relatively) amiable editing means nothing is wrong. -- tariqabjotu 18:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No, see this case, for example[167]. An admin ruled the report invalid to which William M. Connolley said, "I don't see why this report is invalid: the first 3 are reverts; and so is the 4th." Beit Or 18:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The thing in that discussion that pops out at me is the use of a tag as a sort of "fourth revert" after his daily allotment of three have been spent, which was repeated far more egregiously on the main page the other night. Maybe Aminz should be unblocked if he agrees not to do this anymore.Proabivouac 18:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)