• 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. --Mal09:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Whats the difference between restoring and reverting information on an article? Is that the same as replacing the information? Regards --Domer4810:15, 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! --Domer4810:07, 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 agame - its an encyclopedia. --Mal10:52, 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 forno 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 thelack 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. (Sarah77710:31, 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. --Mal10:52, 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--Domer4811:05, 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? (Sarah77711:12, 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. (Sarah77711:12, 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. --Mal21:19, 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 likefour 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 (Sarah77711:27, 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.DrKiernan14:25, 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 ofone editor, then apparently changed his mind and argued that they are the sockpuppet ofanother editor, and both allegations come without any proof.140.113.134.3320:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

These are block evading sock puppets of eitherHis excellency (talk ·contribs ·block log) (more suspected) orKirbytime (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.217.232.177.20520:21, 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-protectApostasy,Apostasy in Islam,Ibn Khaldun, andJihad Watch. Something should be done to block this person permanently.Arrow74021:03, 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 anonymousIP 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 for86.74.6.82 (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 blocked70.238.158.12 (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 ofKirbytime (talk ·contribs ·block log) orHis 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.Arrow74000:57, 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.Error101001:17, 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.Error101001:23, 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.MarkThomas19:11, 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. --Domer4819:17, 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.MarkThomas19:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Mark, this is a 3RR allegation; not a complaint ofWP:CIVIL. Can we deal with them separately? (Sarah77719:53, 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 --Domer4819:30, 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 naturemay themselves be regarded as a breach ofWP: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 (Sarah77719:53, 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.Tyrenius20:40, 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 alsoWikipedia: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.hbdragon8821:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Previous account.[9].--Chaser -T22:58, 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 -T00:23, 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. SinceUser: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 userWP: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, surelyUser:Mcr616 could have found someone else to revert, rather than running afoul of 3rr. He has clearly violated policy, and there should be reprecussions.72.128.85.21203:59, 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^Talk05:24, 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. --tariqabjotu05:38, 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.zadignose07:57, 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!72.128.91.18110:29, 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 user72.128.91.181 (talk ·contribs) has used 2 different IP's to make those same personal attacks. Which are24.160.247.6 (talk ·contribs) and24.160.241.190 (talk ·contribs) Which these 3 IP's are the same user that made the same edits to my talk page.KingLopez^Contribs09:05, 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 createdtoday, 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.DrKiernan14:10, 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 (fromBob Evans (restauranteur) to a nonexistentBob Evans (restaurateur)) on theRobert 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").Alansohn22:43, 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,CZmarlin22:23, 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 fromThe New York Times, that uses "Restaurateur" in the title. AGoogle News Archive search with the "N" finds 4,680 articles; the samehttp://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.Alansohn22:43, 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.Iterator12n01:35, 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 sayuse 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...CZmarlin02:36, 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.Iterator12n03:24, 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 aWP: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 thatWP: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 onmy 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.RolandR10:09, 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 --reneeholle13:30, 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 Iadded,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 addedfrom 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 thoughtUser: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 ofestimation,so I removed this word.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie)18:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• 11th revert:20:29, June 25, 2007

User:Parseboy andUser: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 on04:00, June 26, 2007

I am not sure whetherUser: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 theKorean 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.wbfergus18:07, 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 isPantagon 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 theWikipedia:Verifiability--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie)18:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This isNOT the forum for this, per the "rules" at the top of the page. Please continue this atKorean War talk page discussion 1 orKorean War talk page discussion 2wbfergus18:35, 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 onWikipedia:Biographies of living persons (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) byNed Scott (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

• Previous version07:09, June 24; under the header "disputed deletions," he removed "Administrators should seek consensus before undeleting material that has been deletedciting this policy ..." (emphasis added). It's the words "citing this policy" that Ned has been reverting for days.

• 1st revert23:43 June 25, ditto.
• 2nd revert00:05, June 26, ditto.
• 3rd revert23:02, June 26, ditto.
• 4th revert23:11 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, seehere.Matthew01:26, 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 beunblocked, 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 toJuice 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. --Elonka01:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Elonka seems to be presenting a skewed version of the events. Ned’s reverts on theJuice 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 onWP: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 Red14:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, since Red wants to speak up here, I would point out that there areWP:OWN andWP:SPA issues here as well. For more information, please seeWikipedia:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red. --Elonka17:34, 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 Red14:56, 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, seeblock 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 at04:16, 27 June 2007, then did a partial self-revert leaving the ridiculous tag at04:18, 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.Arrow74005:08, 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.Arrow74008:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

 Clerk note: Account createdtoday. 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?Arrow74019:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly he is a sock ofUser:His excellency orUser:Kirbytime. I also added two more diffs.--Sefringle^Talk22:44, 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.Proabivouac22:59, 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 revertedfive seventen times.Tewfik^Talk08:52, 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 aWP: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's10RR 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^Talk09:58, 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 byUser: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)