Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive10

User:-Inanna-
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:36, 12 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 22:57, 15 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 23:25, 15 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 23:33, 15 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:37, 15 January 2006
 * 5th revert: 23:53, 15 January 2006

Reported by: Khoikhoi 08:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments: 3 revert rule means more than 3, so it seems that he is off the hook for now. Voice of  All T 18:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * User has since reverted and has now violated the 3RR. --Khoikhoi 01:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

User:-Inanna- 2
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:01, 13 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 00:29, 15 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 13:00, 15 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 23:01, 15 January 2006

Reported by: Khoikhoi 23:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Has the situation been resolved, upon seeing User talk:-Inanna-? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 12:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it has not. --Khoikhoi 17:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Extreme Unction
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:50, 17 December 2005
 * 1st revert: 15:41, 16 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:56, 16 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:57, 16 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:31, 16 January 2006

Reported by: OnwardsCS 16:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Abusive edit warring over controversial article, user should recuse himself, otherwise a block may be required, uncoperative editor, some what abusive, kind of a bully--OnwardsCS 16:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I only see three reverts...do you have a fourth? —BorgHunter alt (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, not to worry, OnwardsCS. That article has been protected so no more reverts shall occur. —BorgHunter alt (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that is a new account who seems intent on changing several stem-cell-related redirects into POV articles.  Claims to "going back to consensus" appears specious since there are no talk pages for those redirects...so EU appears to be reverting simple vandalism.  Don't know where the abusive part comes in, since there are no messages on the reporter's talk page. --Syrthiss 16:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no violation here, as the fourth diff shows an edit not made by ExtremeUnction. android 79  18:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

User:OnwardsCS
Three revert rule violation on by.


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:50, December 17, 2005
 * 1st revert: 15:34, January 16, 2006 (UTC)
 * 2nd revert: 15:45, January 16, 2006 (UTC)
 * 3rd revert: 15:57, January 16, 2006 (UTC)
 * 4th revert: 16:09, January 16, 2006

Reported by: Ξxtreme Unction |yakkity yak 17:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The last revert was performed by an anon IP. However, User:Kelly Martin confirms via CheckUser that the IP address in question was the same IP address used by User:OnwardsCS 12 minutes previously to edit the same article.

As this user has reported me for a 3RR violation, I have not taken action against this user lest there be accusations of a revenge block. Ξxtreme Unction |yakkity yak 17:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't see a warning on the talk page, or its history. Did I miss something?--Tznkai 18:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * See above listing. I'm reasonably sure that knowing enough about 3RR to try and report someone is understanding enough that a separate warning is not nessecary. --Syrthiss 18:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is true, I guess I have a tendnacy to be a softy with 3RR and warnings.--Tznkai 18:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Where's the CheckUser evidence? This is pretty obvious, but I'd like confirmation before a block. android  79  18:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * CheckUser evidence is never published. You have to take my word for it; if you aren't willing to, you can ask one of the other five CheckUsers on en to confirm my findings.  Kelly Martin (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't need confirmation of the actual IP info, just confirmation that you said something about it. I didn't see a related request on WP:RFCU. android  79  18:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Khoikhoi
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 2005-12-27 01:27:12
 * 1st revert: 2006-01-16 17:51:01
 * 2nd revert: 2006-01-16 20:21:47
 * 3rd revert: 2006-01-16 21:13:46
 * 4th revert: 2006-01-16 23:14:28

Reported by: Macrakis 23:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Revert war with -Inanna-, below. Neither one using Talk. I see that these two have been warring on other pages as well.
 * They both appear to have violated 3RR on Turkish people, but I don't have the patience to write up a full report....

User:-Inanna-
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 2006-01-16 11:15:54
 * 1st revert: 2006-01-16 20:19:06
 * 2nd revert: 2006-01-16 20:38:05
 * 3rd revert: 2006-01-16 23:04:28
 * 4th revert: 2006-01-16 23:32:06

Reported by: Macrakis 23:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Revert war with Khoikhoi, above. Neither one using Talk. I see that these two have been warring on other pages as well.
 * They both appear to have violated 3RR on Turkish people, but I don't have the patience to write up a full report....
 * -Inanna- has made a legal threat. Blocking will ensue. Elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 00:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Khoikhoi has also told us from his talk page that he suspects that -Inanna- is using 81.213.97.244 as a sockpuppet. CheckUser was inconclusive, but other evidence strongly supported the suspicion that -Inanna- was using a sockpuppet, especially as she tried to evade the autoblock twice (see Special:Ipblocklist). -Inanna- also removed my entry notifying her of the block. Reset block. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 06:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

User:87.239.90.151/User:Molobo
Three revert rule violation on by.

87.239.90.151 first adds [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germanisation&diff=35410476&oldid=35404265 this sentence at 16:54, 16. Jan 2006].


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:04, 16. Jan 2006 (87.239.90.151)


 * 2nd revert: 18:29, 16. Jan 2006 (87.239.90.151)


 * 3rd revert: 19:35, 16. Jan 2006 (87.239.90.151)


 * 1st revert: 22:37, 16. Jan 2006 (Molobo)


 * 2nd revert: 23:11, 16. Jan 2006 (Molobo)


 * 3rd revert: 23:18, 16. Jan 2006 (Molobo)


 * 4th revert: 23:24, 16. Jan 2006 (Molobo)


 * 5th revert: 04:12, 17. Jan 2006 (Molobo)

Reported by: Sciurinæ 00:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments I've asked for Molobo and 87.239.90.151 be user checked here. I would love to hear the result and wait until Kelly Martin is back but he goes right into the next revert crusades and I want to go to bed and not check whatever Molobo put onto my talk page. So basically please have a look at the four reverts and act accordingly. If you also happen to have check user rights, please check the users and if they're the same, you can, of course, take the first three reverts into account. Last but not least, the other anon(s) on Germanisation may well have violated the 3RR, too. Sciurinæ 00:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur. Molobo is the most seasoned revert warrior I've ever met but admins seem to be lenient to his self-professed practice of logging in and logging off when 3RR needs to be evaded. --Ghirla | talk 13:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Dionyseus
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:15, 16 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 01:36, 17 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 03:41, 17 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 04:29, 17 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 04:37, 17 January 2006

Reported by: Danny Pi 04:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments: I corrected grammar and added information to the article on Veselin Topalov numerous times. Dionyseus keeps reverting. Evidently he is a fan of this chess player and he feels that any negative information (no matter how relevant) must be ignored. Furthermore, he refuses to acknowledge a comma splice error, which is about as clear a grammatical mistake as one could possibly make.'''


 * I'm only reverting the NPOV that DanielPi insists on inserting. The cheating allegation is a malicious rumor and no one has admitted to starting it.  It could have been anyone from an ordinary spectator to even one of the other participants of the San Luis 2005 tournament, such unsourced rumors have no place in Wikipedia.  As for the small issue of the comma error, I believe DanielPi is simply incorrect.  Dionyseus 05:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Both of you violated the 3RR. Any reasons why I shouldn't block you both? Both of you certainly need to be more civil. Agree to drop the issue and resolve it among yourselves, because both of you are at fault. If one of you feels strongly that consensus supports your revision, bring it up to the attention of the community, a noticeboard or on #Wikipedia, not continue reverting disruptively and pointlessly. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 06:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Apologies if I have broken the rule. In fairness, it was I that ceased and desisted in this vicious cycle. It's no excuse, but I was not aware of the rule until I started hunting around for adjudication. With regards to the comma splice, this is a simple objective matter, which can be cleared up with a simple check on the Comma splice article. It is clearly bad grammar. As for the allegations of cheating, I'd like to provide the following links to support its inclusion: [], [], [], [], []. Certainly not all chess players believe that Topalov cheated, but many well respected chess celebrities have taken the allegations very seriously. Furthermore, the accuser is, insofar as it is possible to establish, a participant in the tournament. This was big news in the chess world, and its omission is not justified. Dionyseus and I have tried to resolve the dispute via discussion- as you will see on the discussion page. However, it has clearly hit a road block. I would humbly request arbitration on the matter. As for my worth to the Wikipedia community, I cannot claim much; but I did author the original articles on Nemerov and Unsolved Philosophical Problems, which seem to have been reasonably well received. At any rate, I don't want this to get any more combatative than it already is, and I for one would appreciate a third party to aid in settling the matter (about the grammar if nothing else). Thanks. Danny Pi 02:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Usually if content is disputed, it's better to put an NPOV tag on the article until it is worked out, or tolerate the omission of information if you so wish until it is worked out. Arbitration is a bit extreme. An RFC for the article would be most appropriate in this case. There are many steps in dispute resolution, and arbitration is the last, and most serious one. This is very minor. It doesn't matter whether the content again, is very significant - bring it up to the attention of other editors. Are you working it out? Hopefully there will be no edit wars? If then, the case can be considered closed. It's been past 24 hours. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 02:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Understood. I have sought informal and third party adjudication. Posted an NPOV tag. Apologies if I did not go about this process in the right way. Not a seasoned pro at this quite yet. I should note, however, that of the two disputes, the grammatical one is not controversial at all. It is unmistakably an error, which really requires only superficial inspection from a third party.Danny Pi 03:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Kuban kazak
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:42, 15 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 13:25, 16 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 16:20, 16 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:08, 16 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 09:53, 17 January 2006

Reported by: AndriyK 11:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * The same user violated 3RR before .--AndriyK 11:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ...but was not blocked before. There are clearly Things Going On Here, but the 3RR break seems clear enough (even though you did something odd with your diffs). I have given a token 1 hour block. Others feel free to review. William M. Connolley 20:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC).

User:Siddiqui
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:55, January 16, 2006
 * 1st revert: 14:24, January 16, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 10:59, January 17, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 11:14, January 17, 2006
 * 4th revert: 11:33, January 17, 2006

Reported by: android  79  19:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  20:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * I saw this revert war in progress from my watchlist. I am not involved in this dispute. android  79  19:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 5th revert: 14:06, January 17, 2006 Aiden 20:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Accuratemedia
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:20, 15 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 14:00, 17 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 13:53, 17 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 08:05, 17 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:38, 16 January 2006
 * 5th revert: 16:03, 16 January 2006

Reported by: Tom Harrison Talk 20:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User:Accuratemedia has repeatedly edited Benjy Bronk removing Bronk's date of birth. Tom Harrison Talk 20:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * He may not know about 3RR; Let me leave a note on his talk page, as I should have done first. Tom Harrison Talk 20:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Having been warned, he's made yet another revert: sixth. I think a block may be in order. Tom Harrison Talk 21:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 3 hours in the first instance. Feel free to review. William M. Connolley 22:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC).

User:Ravenflight
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:48, January 17, 2006
 * 1st revert: 12:55, January 17, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 12:58, January 17, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 13:02, January 17, 2006
 * 4th revert: 13:05, January 17, 2006
 * 5th revert: 13:10, January 17, 2006

Reported by: &mdash;Ashley Y 21:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * I'm not sure if 3RR applies to pages in this space. &mdash;Ashley Y 21:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I explained 3RR on User talk:Ravenflight, in case he/she didn't know. Response was not helpful. Madame Sosostris 21:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the user for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison Talk 21:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Back as User:Unrulywitch and User:Lupinespirit. &mdash;Ashley Y 23:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Back as User:Rivethead28. &mdash;Ashley Y 00:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Dzonatas
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:18, 16 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 08:04, 17 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 16:12, 17 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:48, 17 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 01:39, 18 January 2006

Reported by: —Ruud 00:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * We are trying to write a proper introduction for this article but User:Dzonatas make this nearly impossible by reverting to his alternate version, making progress very difficult.
 * Blocked for 24 hours. —Cleared as filed. 03:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I was not able to comment about the above blocks before Cleared as filed blocked me. I was not warned. The entries above are not identical reverts. The diffs show my edits are progressive. Please review the reverts that Ruud made at the same time in the above entries. &mdash; Dzon</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT>


 * This raises a concern that Cleared as filed did not implement a block equally -- even if the above entries were considered so easily considered as reverts. &mdash; <FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Dz</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3F50FF">on</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT> 01:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Rivethead28
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:08, January 17, 2006
 * 1st revert: 16:27, January 17, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 16:33, January 17, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 16:54, January 17, 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:58, January 17, 2006

Reported by: &mdash;Ashley Y 01:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * I believe User:Rivethead28 is a sockpuppet of User:Ravenflight. &mdash;Ashley Y 01:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Amusingly, he seems to believe that we are sockpuppets of each other. Then again, they all do seem to think that you're a woman. Madame Sosostris 01:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. Mackensen (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Lupinespirit
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:58, January 17, 2006
 * 1st revert: 17:26, January 17, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 17:52, January 17, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:18, January 17, 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:23, January 17, 2006
 * 5th revert: 18:39, January 17, 2006

Reported by: &mdash;Ashley Y 02:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Yet another sockpuppet of User:Ravenflight... &mdash;Ashley Y 02:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Banned for a week for personal attacks and general jackassery.--Tznkai 09:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

User:212.72.149.84
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:03, 18 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 00:30, 18 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 05:24, 18 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 05:52, 18 January 2006

Reported by: Khoikhoi 06:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * User warned.--Tznkai 08:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Luka Jačov
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:27, 17 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 23:50, 17 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 02:57, 18 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 09:34, 18 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 22:06, 18 January 2006

Reported by: Elephantus 22:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This looks more like a multi party edit war than a 3RR issue. I see two editors who need to be warned. Article is protected as soon as I'm done with warnings.--Tznkai 08:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

User:68.7.212.152/User:66.27.122.84
Three revert rule violation on Ayn Rand. :

16:44, 17 January 2006
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: 21:28, 17 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 00:46, 18 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 00:57, 18 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:28, 18 January 2006

Reported by: Alienus 07:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * There were additional reverts by this user since the 4th. I would have filed this sooner, but I was thrown off at first by their IP change.  (The two IP's admit to being the same person but state that there was no intent to deceive.)
 * The user does not put comments on their changes, does not sign in the Talk, and does not seem to care that the text they're removing is properly cited and NPOV. I think this is more a newbie thing than outright malice.  However, the apparent motivation is not innocent, either; they want to whitewash Rand by wiping out unpleasant facts.
 * I'd like this person to be educated on the need to avoid edit wars.
 * Warned. remember WP:BITE--Tznkai 08:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Alienus, I'd like to remind you that you're very close to breaking 3RR. It applies to all non-simple vandalism and self reverts.--Tznkai 08:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. I think he's stopped for now, so there won't be a problem. Alienus 18:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

User:FunkyFly
Three revert rule violation on Miladinov Brothers article, not to mention that he is a possible sockpuppet of VMORO or AKeckarov.

Reported by: Bomac 15:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments
 * I tried to make this article looks as neutral it can be, but this user reverts all the time. Bomac 15:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Looks neutral" in this case for Bomac means "untrue". His accusations in puppetry are false frivolos slander, and they are most likely influenced by his unwillingness to accept certain truths. FunkyFly 15:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked FF for 1 hour in the first instance. Now to look at the other side... William M. Connolley 17:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC). Wonderful. Ditto block for Bomac. William M. Connolley 17:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC).

This page is clearly in the middle of a vast edit war, if anyone else cares to comment. William M. Connolley 17:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC).

User:Zeq
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:56, 6 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 12:07, 18 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 16:54, 18 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 03:46, 19 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 09:55, 19 January 2006

Reported by: &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 15:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * 3 and 4 retain one of the intervening edits but are otherwise identical to the initial version. Zeq has been edit warring over this article for some time, causing it to be protected twice before; three hours after the most recent unprotection, he reverted to his preferred version, claiming (somewhat dishonestly) to be restoring the "pre-edit war version". &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 15:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 8 hours. Feel free to review. William M. Connolley 16:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC).

User:Michael Snow
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Reported by: Mike (T C) 01:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * first one is a brand-new edit, not a revert. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 05:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Fxer
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Reported by: Mike (T C) 01:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Little Penguin
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:21, January 20, 2006
 * 1st revert: 05:05, January 20, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 05:10, January 20, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 05:13, January 20, 2006
 * 4th revert: 05:21, January 20, 2006

Reported by: —Locke Cole • t • c 05:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Note users contribs, also note the user was warned of WP:3RR prior to making their 4th revert. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. &mdash;David Levy 05:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Engleham
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
 * 1st revert: 4:45 January 19, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 00:30 January 20, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 13:12 January 20, 2006
 * 4th revert: 14:44 January 20, 2006

Reported by: Maaya 14:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I have tried to draw this user into the talk page but he ignores me and edit wars, reverting others' edits as "vandalism".
 * I see no violation yet; warnings for everyone; play nice and discuss it on the talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 15:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

User:R.Koot
Three revert rule violation on. :

1st set of reverts:
 * Previous version reverted to: 09:24, 16 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 17:39, 16 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 07:10, 17 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 16:51, 17 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:07, 17 January 2006

2nd set of reverts:
 * Previous version reverted to: 05:13, 20 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 13:29, 20 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 14:26, 20 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 14:58, 20 January 2006

Reported by: &mdash; <FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Dz</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3F50FF">on</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT> 15:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User:R.Koot has been warned about 3RR. &mdash; <FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Dz</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3F50FF">on</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT>
 * User:R.Koot continues to undo any edit by me and other editors that does not satisfy Koot's pov. &mdash; <FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Dz</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3F50FF">on</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT>
 * User:R.Koot tries to block other users to game the system and make way. See above: 3RR on me &mdash; <FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Dz</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3F50FF">on</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT>
 * I discussed this with User:Cleared as filed. I disputed my edits as progressive instead of reverts. The above reverts by User:R.Koot are clear cut identical reverts. &mdash; <FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Dz</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3F50FF">on</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT>
 * User:R.Koot has an outstanding need to be blocked under equal treatment as I have so easily been blocked. &mdash; <FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Dz</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3F50FF">on</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT>
 * The page is being disputed, and Koot continues to remove the tags without further discussion. &mdash; <FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Dz</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3F50FF">on</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT>
 * User:R.Koot deletes sourced information in favour of original research. See top of CS page. &mdash; <FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Dz</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3F50FF">on</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT>

The second set is only 3 reverts. There are 4 in your first set, but not in 24h (and they were days ago). I can't see any basis for blocking under 3RR. William M. Connolley 18:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC).


 * The reason to block is equal treatmeat. The guidelines say that the blocks should be equal if both users are at fault. William M. Connolley has concluded that 1st set has four reverts. User:Cleared as filed, however, did not block User:R.Koot equally, as that is what should have happened when I was blocked. &mdash; <FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Dz</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3F50FF">on</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT>


 * William M. Connolley stated that was days ago. How could I immediately report the reverts of User:R.Koot if I was so quickly and easily blocked to make any edit. Surely, there is justification here. There is nothing in the policy that limits when the blocks should take affect from the point of the reverts made. I have a mail from User:Cleared as filed that states if it is true that User:R.Koot violated 3RR, then User:Cleared as filed agrees that User:R.Koot should be also blocked. At the time this post, that block hasn't happened.


 * The guidelines state that a user can be blocked for a fourth block just outside of 24 hours. It is explicit that it does not allow someone to block 3 times in a day and make another revert just outside of that day. In fact, it was over 24 and one half hours duration for four reverts. Surely, this "just out of the 24 hours" implies that the 24th hour is inclusive to the day. &mdash; <FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Dz</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3F50FF">on</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT>


 * I have stated my point here that William M. Connolley finds it substantial that the 1st set is four reverts. Whereas, those were clearly identical reverts, unlike the edits I made for which I was blocked. Therefore, the implementation of blocks under 3RR is not consistent. &mdash; <FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Dz</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3F50FF">on</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT>


 * This raises more than substantial concern. &mdash; <FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Dz</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3F50FF">on</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT> 00:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The second set of reverts contains only 3, and the article is protected. Work out your differences on the talk page. We don't do tit-for-tat blocking. android  79  00:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be an obvious place to discuss this issue, so forgive me that I bring it up here. I've tried a few other place, they don't seem appropriate.
 * I didn't say to block tit-for-tat style. I said equal treatment. There isn't even 4 reverts under the reason why I was blocked. I shouldn't have been blocked. If you pass this off as "tit-for-tat" then you missed the point and you have ridiculed my effort here. &mdash; <FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Dz</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3F50FF">on</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT> 14:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Please give up this nonsense. You were blocked for 4 reverts within 24 hours. R. Koot was not blocked because he didn't. Discuss further on the talk page of this article if you must. But better still: go talk to the people at comp sci & stop your edit war. William M. Connolley 15:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC).

User:Ian_Pitchford
Three revert rule violation on by :


 * Previous version reverted to:  Jan 19 20:51
 * 1st revert: 09:00
 * 2nd revert: 12:09
 * 3rd revert: 13:51
 * 4th revert: 14:22

Reported by: Zeq 17:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:


 * This User:Ian_Pitchford 2nd (or maybe 3rd) offense ,


 * User:Ian_Pitchford knew there was pending protection on this page Requests_for_page_protection amd since the protection was for a long time (ArbCom decision) he did his 4th revert just before an admin would protect the page. He tried (hastly) to make it look like an edit bit not a revert so he moved one image and made some mineagless format changes and described his edit as "reformat ; expand refs; retsore sourced content".


 * Not only should the user be blocked for long time, he should not benfit from having the page locked for 5-6 weeks in the exact vesrion he wanted it (this was after all his goal) so the page protection must be converted to the version just before his 4th revert. Zeq 17:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Took the liberty of correcting the article link from Nakba (a redirect) to Palestinian exodus. This does appear to be a 3RR vio, but it's a bit rich for Zeq to be complaining about it, considering how his first action upon returning from his recent 3RR block was to perform exactly the same revert that got him blocked in the first place.
 * As to the protection, well, there's no must about it; the protecting sysop may choose to do so (per Protection policy), but doesn't have to. Considering that this is the second 3RR violation on this page in the last two days, and the edit war has been simmering for some time before that, I don't think it's a good idea. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 17:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Strikes me that Zeq has an issue with WP:CON and WP:NPOV deletionism, that Ian Pitchford is simply restoring well sourced content. Either way, the page has been protected and you should work out your content differences on the article's talk page, not by reverting. FeloniousMonk 17:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not going to go into a deep debate with you about this. The fact of the matter is that the article is strongly POV and I have twice offered to stay away from the article for two weeks so that the people who feel strong ownership anout tjuis article can make it NPOV. What you call "restoring well sourced content" is nothing more than what me and other editors complained for long time that does not belong on this article. Several editors  in the past  have just given up editing this article. Since instead of ganging up on me, you could help make the article NPOV. There is a clear policy about it and it should apply. Zeq 19:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and re blocked for a long time, 24 hours is in theory the maximum length of a 3RR block; sometimes this is disregarded, e.g. after a user's 10th appearance here, but not on the first offense. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 17:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I had some rather unsatisfactory emails with Zeq after his recent block; and as far as I can see IP hasn't been blocked before. OTOH IP seems to have 4 clear rv's (1-3 are clear; but 4 is one too) & I can't quite see why he shouldn't be blocked. William M. Connolley 18:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC).

he has not been blocked before that is true but this is because in all his and Zero previous violation they were not blocked. It seems that if you are pushing palestinian propeganda on wikipedia and for that you violate NPOV and 3RR you do not get punished, actually you get a reward: The verion with the violation is the one getting frozen and protected. This is very nice and puts an intersting light on Wikipedia ability to apply rules equally. On the other one can argue that no one should have been blocked (including me yetrterday) because this whole problem results from two facts:
 * My request yeterday and before to protect the page was not complied with.
 * ArbCom refuse to even say if they will address the issue

Zeq 19:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Despite disliking Zeq's tone (please stop all these must's) I still can't see why he shouldn't be blocked (nor do I see why he wasn't blocked last time): blocked for 8h. Feel free to review. William M. Connolley 19:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC).


 * I am sorry if you don't like my tone. The only thing we "must" do is to apply policy equally. Zeq 20:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Hogeye
Three revert rule violation on.


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:34, 20 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 17:22, 20 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 17:32, 20 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:39, 20 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 17:47, 20 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 17:47, 20 January 2006

Reported by: FrancisTyers 18:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * I have admin powers, but I won't use them on an article I'm editing for content, that said the article could do with protecting again. This user does not edit harmoniously, the longer the ban the better. FrancisTyers 18:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems a fair cop guv. Blocked for 24h William M. Connolley 18:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy
Three revert rule near-violation on. :

Reported by: DES (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Previous version reverted to: 20:45, 14 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 18:32, 18 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:58, 18 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 00:55, 19 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 07:44, 20 January 2006
 * 5th revert: 07:52, 20 January 2006

Comments:
 * Note that the key point is the repeated removal of the link to Aladin (magician), even if other changes were also made in the same edit. This is not quite a 3RR violation to date, no four of these reverts occur within a 24 hour period, but 5 reverts in less than 38 hours seems like excessive reversion to me. As I have been involved in this issue I will not be doign any blocks, even if a technical 3RR violation occurs. DES (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Phase1
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
 * 1st revert: 13:41, January 20, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:29, January 20, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:28, January 20, 2006

Reported by: malber 15:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User is preventing the addition of Category:Living people to an article about a person who is obviously still living. This category has been deemed vital to the continued success of the project by Jimbo Wales himself. Given that Qaddafi is a controversial figure, it is important that he be included in this category.
 * Issue is being disccussed on talk page. --malber 14:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * He has to revert more than three times if this is a 3rr.-- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 17:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In the first revert link, there was no Category:Living people in the diff. --Kotjze | Talk 18:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

User:SirIsaacBrock
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: 15:32, 21 January 2006 called my edit vandalism, I assumed good faith because my edit was a redlink until I hit save on the in progress article.
 * 2nd revert: a few minutes later  no edit summary.
 * 3rd revert: again, just minutes later after I tried to explain on both article and user talk pages.
 * 4th revert: 16:50, 21 January 2006

Reported by: SchmuckyTheCat 23:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:SirIsaacBrock is attempting some sort of article ownership here. I wrote a new article, Cricket fighting, and included it in a list of blood sports and he's removing it. I've used both article and user talk pages to try and figure out what his beef is and ask for verifiability, etc. SchmuckyTheCat 00:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I blocked SirIsaacBrock for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison &lt;sup&gt;Talk 00:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See also User:SchmuckyTheCat just below. Tom Harrison Talk 03:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

User:SchmuckyTheCat
Three revert rule violation on and. :

Actually, I notice that Schmucky was in a revert war with User:SirIsaacBrock, who warned Schmucky to stop reverting pages or he would post a vandalism report, which he did do. I notice that Schmucky deleted the Vandalism report without permission  The rv problem is Schmucky not SIB. Did the admin discuss this with SIB ? If SIB for 3RR and is suspended why is Schmucky not being suspended for 3RR ? Based on their discussions, Schmucky is incorrectly adding an article to Blood Sport article and Category Blood Sport, cricket fighting is not considered a blood sport ! I believe the Schmucky should be warned and SIB should not be punished. WritersCramp 02:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I blocked SIB for violating the three-revert rule. It looks to me like SIB reverted four times and Schmucky did not. Is that incorrect? Tom Harrison Talk 03:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello I see five for Schmucky 5 and 5 He is not always stating RV in his notes, he just states that he is re-adding the rv material. WritersCramp 03:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's what I see:


 * Schmuckey added Cricket fighting;
 * SIB reverts, removing it - one revert for SIB
 * Schmuckey put it back - one revert for Schmuckey
 * SIB removed - it two for SIB
 * two for Schmuckey
 * three for SIB
 * three for Schmuckey
 * four for SIB, and a violation.


 * Schmuckey has not edited since. SIB violated the rule, Schmuckey did not. Tom Harrison Talk 03:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Blood sport (hunting) I see four easy ! WritersCramp 04:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 1)  23:50, 21 January 2006 SirIsaacBrock (rv - vandalism report filed)
 * 2)  23:33, 21 January 2006 SchmuckyTheCat (rv, see talk.)
 * 3)  23:30, 21 January 2006 SirIsaacBrock (rv to ISB - three revert rule - so no more or u will be reported !)
 * 4)  23:27, 21 January 2006 SchmuckyTheCat (rv, vertebrate animals only?)
 * 5)  23:21, 21 January 2006 SirIsaacBrock
 * 6)  23:19, 21 January 2006 SirIsaacBrock (rv to ISB - Cricket Fighting is not a blood sport !)
 * 7)  23:14, 21 January 2006 SchmuckyTheCat (cricket fighting, added to lsit)
 * 8)  23:12, 21 January 2006 SchmuckyTheCat (minor grammar clean, rm irrelevant category.)
 * 9)  22:32, 21 January 2006 SirIsaacBrock (rv vandalism)
 * 10)  22:29, 21 January 2006 SchmuckyTheCat (cricket fighting, added to lsit)


 * In 10 Schmuckey added a link; That's not a revert. In 9 SIB reverted, taking the link out; That is a revert. Schmuckey's reverts are 7, 4, and 2. SIB's reverts are 9, 6, 3, and 1. Tom Harrison Talk 04:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Just for reference: I think that what I did should count but doesn't according to the way it's written and enforced..


 * I didn't game it this way, promise. I was writing Cricket fighting as a work in progress, and making wiki-links in various places and keeping several article copies in notepad, one article had the inuse template up.  I assumed that my edit was removed the first two times because it was a redlink at the time of SIB's edits removing it.  After it was saved as a real article though, I took real offense at it being called "vandalism" and then his attempts to re-define the term to exclude my edit. SchmuckyTheCat 06:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Schmucky, I checked out your Cricket fighting article. Going by the base definition of a Blood Sport (that is, "a sport or entertainment that involves pitting one animal against another in a fight"), Cricket fighting is indeed such a sport. Your additions aren't vandalism. Daniel Davis 14:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

User:206.148.29.38
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: |08:30, January 21, 2006
 * 2nd revert: |11:15, January 21, 2006
 * 3rd revert: |21:45, January 21, 2006

Reported by: Jtrost 04:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * This user is removing a link that is being used to cite a claim in the article because he thinks that the WP:EL policy is "inconsistant". You may view the article's talk page for ongoing communication between the other author and I during his reverts.  I even mentioned the 3RR policy to him after the second revert and he still reverted it for a third time.  I have not reverted his most recent revert because in doing so I too would violate this policy.  However, I would like his edits reverted again because the website is being used to cite a very important claim in the article. Jtrost 04:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The user was warned. Not yet a violation since tight at 3 reverts.  -Husnock 04:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Gmaxwell
He has reverted Template:User freedom seven times despite repeated calls to stop from multiple editors. The version he is reverting to is far different from what the creators and users intended it for. I consider these edits to be an act of vandalism.--God of War 05:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1.
 * 2.
 * 3.
 * 4.
 * 5.
 * 6.
 * 7.
 * 8.


 * 05:38, January 22, 2006 Sean Black blocked "User:Gmaxwell" with an expiry time of 3 hours (Lots of reverts at Template:User freedom-needs to cool off) Jtkiefer T   05:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that I have protected the template. The then-standing version was Gmaxwell's, on which I protected without endorsement. However, since Gmaxwell is blocked, some other admin may wish to revert to before the whole 22nd Jan silliness. -Splash talk 05:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've reverted to the version from before the vandalism, and added noinclude tags to fix it on userpages. Mark1 12:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking over this page, it appears that a 3 hours block is slightly on the short side for edit warring? Noting of course, that we usually unblock if the person agrees to quit the behavior anyway. -  brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  06:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it is on the short side but you have to remember that blocks are not meant to be punitive. Jtkiefer T   06:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that I am in fact the person who added that into the blocking policy. I do not see anything on either User talk:Gmaxwell or  User talk:Sean Black that indicates that any discussion took place where Greg indicated that he would lay off.  If we keep giving shorter blocks to cabal members (Tony Sidaway, Snowspinner, and now Gmaxwell) we should at least be honest and edit blocking policy to say "24 hours if for the little people".  These are guys we should hold to a higher standard than normal.  Giving them a slap on the wrist when they violate one of the siplest and most straight-forward policy we've got is very poor form. -  brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  12:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm also surprised by the length of the block, because he was engaged in vandalism, not just edit warring. I'd block him myself but I was involved in a dispute with him over an image recently. Three examples of the edits I see as vandalism: he changed a box supporting the American military to one supporting the Iraqi insurgents. He inserted an image of a woman "hogtied" and gagged into a box opposing fox hunting, and changed the fox hunting link to BDSM.   On Template:Wikiproject Terrorism, he replaced the image of a terrorist with one of a nuclear explosion.  SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  12:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm copying this to WP:AN/I because it's not only about 3RR. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 12:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

User:70.86.172.178
Three revert rule violation on. and same person different IP : (His edits suggest he's using an IP anonymizer, as they show up in his pasted urls)


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Reported by: Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 18:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments: He's been taking out the compromised discussion about the role of Abu Omar as-Seif, which has been widely accepted as an NPOV treatment by both sides for months, and refusing to stop. He's been asked to take it to the talk page, or to provide a source proving it isn't vandalism, and he instead replies that "terrorist sympathizers can go to hell" and that we're all Islamofascists for reverting his vandalism. He's also been quickly reverted when he vandalised Osama bin Laden, Pope John Paul II and been warned numerous times on User_talk:70.86.172.178


 * You have a strong case here, so I will block them because their edit summaries border on vandalism; however, it becomes harder to block for 3RR because you had four reverts. So keep that in mind next time. Elle <font color="#CC9920">vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 19:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Solidusspriggan
Three revert rule violation on. :

Reported by: Ultramarine 07:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Previous version reverted to: 05:44, 23 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 05:47, 23 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 05:56, 23 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 06:44, 23 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 06:49, 23 January 2006
 * 5th revert: 11:22, 23 January 2006

Comments: Parts of an ongoing campaign to remove sourced crtitical information from this page, even including templates. Also, some of the anonymous IPs edit very similar to Solidusspriggan. Ultramarine 07:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Second revert" is a removal of the POV template placed without explanation, thus in bad faith. 4-th revert is not a revert at all. --Irpen 07:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Simply false, explanation given in the edit summary. It is getting ridiculous when even a "POV-section" template is immediately reverted.Ultramarine 07:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Added another revert.Ultramarine 11:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The edits here are not a 3RR violation by any means, nor has there been on by any parties, checking the history of Vladimir Lenin.--Sean|Bla ck 08:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please explain, there have been 4 reverts of my edits.Ultramarine 09:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * These look like entirely different edits rather than reverts. The simple removal of your material doesn't constitute a revert unless the removing editor is changing the artilce back to their preferred version, or somtehing closely similar. In this case, in the diffs you provide at least, that is not happening. -Splash talk 15:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously immediately reverting my edits is revering back to his prefered version. Or is it now allowed to revert another user an infinite number of times?Ultramarine 16:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The provide diffs showing no, or very very little, change between two edits. The diffs you show at present show widely different edits being made. I'm not going to play detective for you. -Splash talk 16:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here are the same reverts presented differently. This revert is not a total but almost, reverting almost all of the added sourced information about the famine:
 * 

The other four reverts are simple, total reverts:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Ultramarine 16:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, thats 4 reverts. However: I've warned him on his talk page and he has promised to stop (and to improve his edit summaries). And he has left that article alone for now. If he repeats, block certainly. For now, I'm personally disinclined to block; others feel free to disagree with me if I'm being too lenient William M. Connolley 17:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC).

User:Simonides
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:22, 24 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 02:43, 24 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 02:52, 24 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 03:08, 24 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 05:06, 24 January 2006

Comments: This experienced POV-pusher broke 3RR within three hours from his first edit, introducing POV stuff to a well established article and calling unrelated editors who oppose him {e.g., Fred Bauder) "Stalinist buddies". Needs to be blocked to stop the carnage of the article. --Ghirla | talk 15:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You lied in your revert reasons, you lie on this page twice, and you label well-reasoned discussions which you do not participate in as 'carnage of [an] article'. You really need a hobby. -- Simonides 05:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Previous 3RR warning but nothing in block log; blocking 12h. Feel free to review. William M. Connolley 15:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC).
 * Why not the usual 24? Are there mitigating circumstances? -Splash talk 15:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * First block, as far as I can see, so I've been moderate. But feel free to reset to longer if you think that appropriate. William M. Connolley 16:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC).
 * I'm not usually sympathetic to established edit-warriors (as his contribs list appears to attest to him being), but I'll defer to your judgement. -Splash talk 16:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Must be nice being blissful. -- Simonides 05:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Supreme Cmdr
Three revert rule violation on.


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:38, 22 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 12:39, 23 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 13:24, 23 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:43, 23 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:18, 23 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:18, 23 January 2006

Reported by: User:Fox1 00:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User becoming increasingly combative over article (only article user contributes to), and seems to be openly flaunting 3RR policy. Not sure if a block is necessary, but a warning from an admin might help user's generally dismissive attitude toward policy. Fox1 (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Supreme_Cmdr is continuing to revert the article and seems to have no intention of stopping, even going so far as to say "we can do this until the cows come home" in one of the revert's edit summary. Not only are his changes unilateral, but he is ignoring a clear majority shown at this mediation case. -- Hinotori(talk) 07:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like 4 reverts to me, but not exactly a "hot dispute" at present, so I'm inclined to regard this as "old business". I'll drop by and flash some lights for effect.  Alai 07:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

First 3RR
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:41 23rd January 2006
 * 1st revert: 23:49 23rd January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 23:57 23rd January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 00:08 23rd January 2006
 * 4th revert: 00:23 23rd January 2006

Reported by: Localzuk (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User refuses to let a discussion on the talk place to take place before a decision is made by the community on the use of a word to describe an action taken by the ALF.

134.161.137.162 Second 3RR
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Britches_%28monkey%29&oldid=36427282 23:51 23rd January 2006]
 * 1st revert: 00:12 23rd January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 00:20 23rd January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 00:27 23rd January 2006
 * 4th revert: 00:36 23rd January 2006

Reported by: Localzuk (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Same user as above. Different article using the same word.
 * I agree this user has become annoying with his 3RR reverts. And he continues to disobey several Wikipedia policies. — M o e   ε  01:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The user has since reverted again to the version that now seems to be against the consensus of the community as per the discussion at Talk:Animal Liberation Front. diff. I have warned them again also. It appears that the user is not going to pay attention to the views of anyone but himself.-Localzuk (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And again . The user will not listen. -Localzuk (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24h. Please note that 3RR applies to all: is hard to see as removing vandalism. William M. Connolley 19:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It is if it is against the will of the community though is it not? The discussion on the talk page at Animal Liberation Front is overwhelmingly in favour of 'removed' so the constant attempts to change it is vandalism?-Localzuk (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It was questionable. Now that ...162 is blocked, you can revert any sockpuppets (I see ...161 is on, sigh) as often as you like. William M. Connolley 20:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC).
 * How about a semi-protection of the page? It would prevent anon's from doing this sort of thing for a while.-Localzuk (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. ...162 is back as ...161 (and isn't being very nice ), whom I've blocked too. And will probably be back as something else soon enough. I known nowt about range blocks, and am just off to the pub, so someone else may want to watch this one... William M. Connolley 20:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC).

User:E Pluribus Anthony
Three revert rule violation on ElectionResultsCA. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:30, 23 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 00:44, 24 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 00:53, 24 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 00:56, 24 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 01:00, 24 January 2006

Reported by: <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 01:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Insists on inserting legal threats and disclaimers into ElectionResultsCA. Also calling edits that disagree with him "vandalism". <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 01:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The accuser, who also nominated this template for deletion, has not garnered a consensus for related edits: a near two-thirds majority supports keeping the template. I have also been actively discussing this on the related talk page with others, while ch has not.  Also note that each of my edits are unique and were not effected through raw reverts.


 * Given that ch instigated this retaliatory editing without necessary consensus to do so, I also request some sort of administrative sanction against this user, who continues to make a point and, effectively, vandalise this ad hoc template. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read the definition of vandalism at WP:VAND before making any more personal attacks against me. Your disagreement with my edits neither makes them vandalism nor makes your violation of WP:3RR justifiable. Nor can a single talk page legitimately vote to violate a basic Wikipedia rule like WP:NLT. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 01:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Madchester has issued 3 hour blocks for both Crotalus horridus and User:E Pluribus Anthony. User:Splash increased to 24 hours for User:E Pluribus Anthony, but won't inforce it, the shorter block will over ride it. Rx StrangeLove 01:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Technical point: I didn't deliberately increase it, I just applied a standard 24hrs and then decided not to lift the shorter block. I didn't block Crotalus Horridus for the same reason. -Splash talk 01:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry for the clumsy wording. Rx StrangeLove 01:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Multiple IP users
Deleted pending request for consensus, and also I used bad formatting. Swatjester 01:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

User:172
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:50, 23 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 02:48, 24 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 11:34, 23 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 11:00, 23 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 10:46, 23 January 2006

Reported by: Andrew Alexander 03:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, this report is trollish. Note the concert of users recruited by Andrew Alexander (Yakudza, Ultramarine, AndriyK) engaging in tag team reversions while ignoring the discussion on talk. A look at the article talk page will demonstrate that most good-faith editors on the page (such as Dietwald and Irpen) are obviously being deliberately marginalized by POV-warriors adept at gaming the system. I will be disappointed if an administrator decides to reward their bad behavior. An illuminating acount of the tactics used by Andrew Alexander, AndriyK and other Ukrainian nationalist POV warriors can be found at Requests for arbitration/AndriyK. 172 03:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Page protected until dispute is settled, might be a good idea to add this to the ArbCom case.--nixie 03:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * For reference to those interested in the article, Irpen summarized on Talk:Holodomor the problem on the page much more effectively than I did above: We have enough evidence of many attempts to try to resolve this peacefully, much more than an RfC and mediation usually generates and this talk documents this very well ... What happened is that Andrew Alexander got a couple of buddies who got to this article either stalking myself or 172 and who resort to blind reversions without bothering to read the discussion. The latest entry by AndriyK to this discussion shows that he didn't read anything on this page. Yakudza and Ultramarine didn't write anything significant to this talk (if at all). So, attemting to find a compromise with users who don't even bother to read talk is pointless ... In the meanwhile, Yakudza, Ultramarine, AndriyK and whoever else who does nothing but reverting, please readup on this talk page. --Irpen 22:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC) 172 03:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A 3RR violation report is "trollish"? And a then a repetion of a personal attack by Irpen certainly proves that, doesn't it? I am happy that the page finally got some admin attention, but what about 3RR?--Andrew Alexander 05:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Go away, troll. --Ghirla | talk 07:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hope some administrators will pay attention to this as well. What's wrong with WP?--Andrew Alexander 17:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Molobo
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert: 22:55, 23 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 16:51, 24 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:30, 24 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 17:33, 24 January 2006

Comments:

User:Molobo is a determined POV-pusher whose output consists of little but reverts. He was already reported on this page (see above), but the admins let him go on his frantic revert crusade, because he usually spices his reverts with minor and meaningless changes of content, such as moving a sentence to and fro across the article. Just look at the history of his new innocent victim. It's amazing how the revert warriors may destroy an article history, making it quite useless for future editors. I hope someone will put an end to this insanity. --Ghirla | talk 18:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24. -Splash talk 18:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The article falls under Gdansk Vote is excluded from 3RR Reverts to confirm with community consensus are excluded from the 3RR rule In view of that i suggest unblocking. Molobo.


 * Nonsense. Firtsly, you evade the block, hence it should be lengthened. Secondly, no local vote may overrule the policy. Gdansk vote is a local vote, 3RR is an official policy. --Ghirla | talk 07:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Did your reverts only involve the naming? No. Sciurinæ 22:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

User:81.216.236.207
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:52, 19 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 14:54, 23 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 16:30, 23 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 13:15, 24 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 13:18, 24 January 2006
 * 5th revert: 14:40, 24 January 2006

Reported by: Ashibaka tock 19:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * This is a good-faith attempt to fix what he saw as an NPOV violation on Lolicon, but he didn't use the talk page and apparently didn't understand the 3RR warning given here. Ashibaka tock 19:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody cares to block him? Ashibaka tock 16:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like CambridgeBayWeather and umm another user whose name I've now forgotten in the few minutes since I read the talk page are trying to explain 3RR more to this user. FWIW, they have stopped reverting the Lolicon article and haven't posted anything since almost this time yesterday (when you made your report). --Syrthiss 17:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Deathrocker
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert: 01:55, 25 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 02:16, 25 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 02:57, 25 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 02:59, 25 January 2006
 * 5th revert: 03:15, 25 January 2006
 * 6th revert: 03:28, 25 January 2006
 * 7th revert: 03:31, 25 January 2006

Comments:
 * This user is reverting my changes and calling me a "vandal" on the My Chemical Romance article. I have no idea what the user is trying to do. Alex 101 03:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Page is protected. Since you've both broken 3RR, I'll split the customary 24 hour ban between you—you get 12 hours and he gets 12. Remember, it takes two to edit war. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 03:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

User:ConservativeChristian
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:05, January 25, 2006
 * 1st revert: 07:11, January 25, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 07:14, January 25, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 07:16, January 25, 2006
 * 4th revert: 07:20, January 25, 2006

Reported by: &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 07:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Repeated insertion of totallydisputed without discussion. Note that last revert was by User:GodsWarrior, a new user whose sole edit was to make the reversion after I warned User:ConservativeChristian about 3RR. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 07:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please, when making 3RR reports provide diffs of near-straight reverts: I can find (as GodsWarrior),, . Then there's  (also viewed as ). The last one only reinserts one of the two tags, but the text of WP:3RR does say "Reverting...may include edits that undo a previous edit, in whole or in part...", and I'm persuaded that the final diff does do that. So I will block both accounts for 24 hours. -Splash talk 07:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry; I thought I was doing it correctly. I normally block users myself but since I've been marginally active on Evolution before and reverted the user, I figured I should just report it. Are you staying I should have reported diffs in the style you just did? That's what I would have done, but the instructions at the bottom direct users to "From the article's History page, use diffs (links labelled "last"), not versions, and the "compare versions" button to clearly highlight the changes..." With the explicit directive to use "last" and not "compare versions", I reported it as above. Was this incorrect? &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 07:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh, so it does. I (maybe it's just me) find those kind of diffs irritating because people frequently make quite complex reverts and seeing them in amongst a not-really-revert diff is very hard, whereas seeing that their changes are all-but-one-word or something is quite easy in the kind that I presented. Of course, in your case, it's easy enough to see visually that the diffs themselves are identical, but that's still adding a layer of parsing to the admin paperwork. Perhaps we should change the instructions. -Splash talk 07:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, now that I reread it, I'm not entirely sure whether it's saying to use the "compare versions" or not; it's definitely saying to use "last", though. I think changing it would be a good idea; in my opinion, the initial version should be a version of course, and the other four should be comparing versions. The wording should definitely be simplified. I'd prefer to let an administrator who patrols this board more often (like you) make the change, since you know what you look for. Comparing versions makes more sense to me, definitely. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 08:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

User:24.42.79.192
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Thanks ccwaters 18:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

User:TheRealFennShysa
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:27, January 25, 2006
 * 1st revert: 12:46, January 25, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:33, January 25, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:40, January 25, 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:58, January 25, 2006

Reported by: Aaron 21:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments: future channel In any event, a 3RR is a 3RR. --Aaron 21:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Basically it's his way or the highway, even though both the list and the parent article are about speculative current events. Any additions anyone makes to the page get reverted by him. --Aaron 21:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to present factual information, something Aaron doesn't seem to undertsand. He'd adding information based on supposition and hearsay. I'm deleting unsourced and unverifyable information. TheRealFennShysa 21:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Confirmation from actual station personnel do not count as "sourced" to him. Also, this template seems to apply to the article, in his mind, but not to the list:
 * They can't confirm anything, as there's nothing official to confirm. WP:V - Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research. One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher. You calling the station sounds a lot like original research to me. Show me a press release or a news item that explicitly mentions they are an affiliate, not that they "expect" to be one, and I'll be fine with the addition. As it stands now, you can't provide that.  And before you changed the article, it did mention confirmed affiliates. TheRealFennShysa 21:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As Aaron says, 3RR is 3RR. A 24 hour block is in place. Sorry.  howch e  ng   {chat} 23:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Shivraj_Singh
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:40 24 Jan 2006
 * 1st revert: 18:59 25 Jan 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:20 25 Jan 2006
 * 3rd revert: 07:57 26 Jan 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:05 26 Jan 2006

Reported by: Lukas (T. 15:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Edit-warring since at least 16 Jan 2006, at least 8 reverts of this material since then. POV non-suitability of material in question was discussed extensibly on Talk:Aryan invasion theory. See parallel edit war at Max Müller, most recently three reverts between 19:02, 25 Jan 2006, and 15:07, 26 Jan 2006.
 * SS has been distinctly incivil in some of his edit comments - eg . He has warnings about this on his talk page. William M. Connolley 16:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC).

Blocked 24h. Incidentally your "version reverted to" appears to be wrong; but its 4R anyway. William M. Connolley 16:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC).

User:BelindaGong
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: 12:26, 25 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 12:59, 25 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 11:44, 26 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 12:00, 26 January 2006
 * 5th revert: 12:31, 26 January 2006

Reported by: Wesley 17:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * BelindaGong is also believed to edit from the ip User:38.114.145.148, and to date has neither confirmed nor denied when asked.
 * When warned about reverting on her Talk page, BelindaGong indicated an intention to continue.

Additional Comments from Musical Linguist:
 * The evidence for thinking Belinda is is that that IP address made an edit which was signed Belinda, and that her BelindaGong account was created a less than an hour later. Both the IP account and the BelindaGong account made the same identical revert as their very first edit . In fact, she did eventually address the question, saying that she didn't know her IP address, but that a particular edit to the Christianity talk page from   was probably hers.  She appeared on Wikipedia when edits of User:Giovanni33 (who is even more in violation of 3RR than she, but it will take a while to gather the diffs) were being disputed, and does little other than revert to his version (even when it's a version with the semiprotected tag, and the article isn't semiprotected!) and support his arguments on the talk page, following him to vote at Talk:Transubstantiation (although he didn't ask her to on her talk page, and though she doesn't have e-mail enabled), and criticizing those who (while staying within 3RR) revert Giovanni's version. It's also interesting that three other brand new users appeared at the same time, making the same arguments/reverts, and showing up at the same articles. I don't think Belinda is Giovanni33, since his IP address (User:64.121.40.153) and her probable (semi-confirmed) IP address are in different cities, according to this. She may be a meatpuppet. The other three may be sockpuppets (I'm going to request a check later), but in any case, there's a lot of disruption going on, and Belinda and Giovanni both continued to revert repeatedly after being made aware of the rule. AnnH (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, this looks a bit of a mess (well the article edit history is) but I've blocked BG for 8 hours. The 4RR are there (even excluding the possible IP) but OTOH she has backed off since midday, and there appears to be evidence that she will stop. Feel free to review (Yes I mean that). William M. Connolley 20:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC).

User:Robsteadman
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Reported by: Eoin 19:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments: And many more reverts besides. The type of edit he is trying to put in doesn't (in my opinion and several other wikipedians) belong in the introduction.

I blocked him for 24 hours. I note, though, that the diff for the first one is not a revert. Nevertheless, he did violate the rule, even though the diff is wrong. On looking into it, this is what I found:


 * First setting of his version 7:57, 25 January 2006 (not counted as a revert).
 * Revert at 20:25, 25 January 2006
 * Revert at 20:33 25 January 2006
 * Revert at 07:15 26 January 2006
 * Revert at 18:31 26 January 2006
 * Partial Revert at 18:54 26 January 2006 (may or may not be counted)

AnnH (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: The first diff - Ooops! My fault, sorry! Eoin 23:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Hogeye 2
Three revert rule violation on.


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:00, 25 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 15:17, 26 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:55, 26 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:24, 26 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:42, 26 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:42, 26 January 2006

Reported by: - FrancisTyers 19:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User continues to insert disputed image in opposition to consensus. User has been blocked previously (see above ) for edit warring on this article. - FrancisTyers 19:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. Demi T/C 19:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

User:24.248.212.133

 * 5th revert: 01:25, 27 January 2006

Comments:


 * This anonymous user is a suspected sockpuppet of User:Hogeye - FrancisTyers 10:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Giovanni33 combined with User:64.121.40.153
Three revert rule violation on and  and and , which he edits under when not logged in:

Early Christianity
 * As he has been reverting for several days, it is hard to choose four diffs. I am giving several. In some (but not all) cases, four in a row will be within a 24-hour period.


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:34 22 January 2006
 * Revert at 09:20 23 January 2006
 * Revert at 16:04 23 January 2006
 * Revert at 16:50 23 January 2006
 * Partial revert at 05:16 24 January 2006 Same material (which had been contested on talk page), different wording.
 * Revert at 11:11 24 January 2006
 * Revert at 23:11 on 24 January 2006
 * Added paragraph at 23:16 on 24 January Not a revert, but he frequently reverted to it later.
 * Revert at 00:32 on 25 January 2006
 * Revert at 03:00 on 25 January 2006
 * Revert at 15:50 on 25 January 2006 Unobjectionable revert (IMHO), and not connected to dispute, but still a revert.
 * Partial revert at 03:50 on 26 January 2006 Same material. Slight change in wording. Didn't wait for consensus.
 * Revert at 15:58 on 26 January 2006
 * Revert at 17:16 on 26 January 2006 The last two are outside of 24-hour period, but show an intention to continue reverting, even after being given a serious warning about edit warring, partial reverts, gaming the system etc.

Christianity


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:59 on 25 January 2006 (see here)


 * Revert at 02:46 on 26 January
 * Revert at 04:21 on 26 January
 * Partial revert at 10:21 on 26 January 2006
 * Almost full revert at 10:50 on 26 January 2006 Edit summary doesn't make clear it's a revert, but see here for proof.
 * Revert at 11:05 on 26 January 2006
 * Revert at 12:48 on 26 January 2006

In addition the following (from 01:31 to 18:51 on 22 January):

          

are all reverts or partial reverts (though the last one was not a point of contention).

Transubstantiation
 * Previous version reverted to 03:19, 17 January 2006 (See here)
 * Revert at 16:26 on 23 January 2006
 * Revert at 16:35 on 23 January 2006
 * Revert at 05:34 on 24 January 2006
 * Revert at 11:48 on 24 January 2006
 * Revert at 11:55 on 24 January 2006

Reported by: AnnH (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC) with update at 01:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User:Giovanni33 is also User:64.121.40.153 (See here and here).
 * I warned him here, here, and here about the 3RR rule. I have also mentioned it frequently on the talk page of articles he edits (as have others), and I know he reads those talk pages.
 * See case of User:BelindaGong reported above.
 * This is my first time ever to report a 3RR violation. However, this user has continued unrepentantly despite numerous warnings from several users, and I don't think anything other than a block will stop him.
 * He does not use his IP address to circumvent the 3RR rule. He gets logged out without realizing it. There are concerns about sockpuppets who showed up to support him with no prior history at Wikipedia, but there is no evidence that he is any of those users.
 * Blocked for 3RR vio and edit warring.--Tznkai 23:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Additional comment
 * Although Giovanni33 has was blocked after I reported his violations at Early Christianity, I have decided to go ahead and report his violations at Christianity and Transubstantiation as well, although I am not looking for an additional block. But because of his past behaviour, I find it unlikely that he will stop edit warring, so I think there should be a full record here, in case it is needed later. AnnH (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Tznkai
Three revert rule violation on.


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:46, 25 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 23:20, 26 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 23:45, 26 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 23:51, 26 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 00:09, 27 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 00:09, 27 January 2006

Reported by: 128.226.198.62 00:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I did infact revert several times, although I consider it reverting disruption, I'm willing to accept a block however if another admin disagrees. However, I'd appreciate it if my accuser decided not to hide behind an IP address.--Tznkai 00:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I just put the times in and changed it to the "last" format per below, and for the record I was putting this report together myself and agree fully with T's comment about an IP address. - brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  00:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And since we don't do punative blocks, if T will just say that xe won't revert again, it's moot. - brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  00:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've blocked for 2 hours. His last revert was less than an hour ago, and I think there needs to be a cooling off period. -Greg Asche (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am a bit of a coward, I'll admit. I don't like getting my name is these sort of disputes, as a personal thing.--128.226.198.62 00:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

User:JDG
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:19, 24 October 2005
 * 1st revert: 17:12, 26 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 22:02, 26 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 23:18, 26 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 00:17, 27 January 2006

Reported by: Monicasdude 01:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Textbook violation; user has reinserted same previously deleted text four times in 8 hours. Identical text in all instances. Text previously deleted by two different editors. Fourth edit summary shows user is aware of 3RR violation, but denies it w/o explanation. Monicasdude 01:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the second spurious 3RR allegation made against me by this user. The edit he lists as "1st revert" is a page edit separated by months from my last activity on the article. By definition it is no reversion... This user, in his most recent RfC, was found to be in the wrong by a vote of 14-1, for just this sort of thing... If any Admin feels this is requires even a moment of his/her time, please contact me on my Talk page (I'll be active over the next 4 or so hours). JDG 03:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could cite the part of the "definition" that exempts reversions to months-old text? Monicasdude 03:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "Months-old" > 24-hours. Do you get it now? Plus, my edit of 17:12 does not revert to the same article as it existed in October. So, 1) it's not a revert and 2) it doesn't answer to the timeframe of the 3R Rule. JDG 03:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Four reverts in 24 hours, restoring text originally deleted by two different editors. That other editors made unrelated changes in the interim is not relevant. Your first revert was a complex revert, in part because it incorporated intervening changes. But you still don't get a free revert under the rule just because you waited for other editors to make unrelated revisions. That's gaming the system, a releated violation. Monicasdude 04:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Wrong. This was a restoration of one line in the article, months later and after dozens of edits. And the reason it needed to be restored was... your deletion of it! I'm done trying to get this sort of thing through your head. If an Admin wants to take this up with me, I'll be here. JDG 04:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Textbook revert, as per the definition: "Reverting in this context means undoing the work of another editor. It does not necessarily mean going back into the page history to revert to a previous version. The passage you keep adding or deleting may be as little as a few words, or in some cases, just one word." And I was the second editor to delete the passage, after you reinserted it with a phony citation to a source that didn't support the claim. Monicasdude 05:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you are one revert short, Monicasdude. A readdition of text months after does not qualify as a "revert". A revert has to be quite recent. If many edits take place after the initial revision, it is no longer a revert. However, JDG, I must chide you as the 3RR is an electric fence and you should generally stay away from it as much possible. Elle <font color="#CC9920">vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 05:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting interpretation, but it's not in the policy statement. And for good reason, because restarting a sterile edit war is even less helpful than starting a stale edit war. It hasn't been discussed much, because so few editors restart old, apparently settled disputes. Monicasdude 05:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Elle... I thought that buzzing sound was a fly. I'll try to give these fences wide berths, but you know it's difficult avoiding these guys with nuclear powered cattle prods and the ill will to use them. JDG 06:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

User:64.107.220.179
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1st revert: 00:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2nd revert: 00:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3rd revert: 01:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4th revert: 01:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Reported by: AJR | Talk 02:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Hour-long revert war between this anon and User:Dknights411, who also broke 3RR (see article history for a frankly rediculous number of reverts by both) but stopped immediatly and apologised upon being warned. I proposed a compromise wording based on what sources I could find with a quick google, which the anon promptly reverted.  I tried to mediate and get some discussion going on Talk:1998-99 NBA season, but not even the cute kitten technique worked. AJR | Talk 02:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Since they've apologized, I see no point in blocking. I've protected the article until they can work things out at the talk page. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

User:LeeHunter
Violation on.


 * One:
 * Two:
 * Three:
 * Four, Complex Reverting:

Reported by: Queeran 03:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Also possible tag-teaming violation (gaming the system) in assistance of user:Yuber on that page. Queeran 03:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like 4RR to me. And Again, please stop edit warring. when you yourself are in the edit war is not helpful. Please mark your reverts as such. William M. Connolley 14:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC).

User:71.29.141.160
Three revert rule violation on.


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:34, 25 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 19:40, 26 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 21:02, 26 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 21:06, 26 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 21:17, 26 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 21:17, 26 January 2006

Reported by: <font color="#2f4f4f">Jwissick <font color="#2f4f4f">(t) <font color="#2f4f4f">(c) 05:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Will discuss, but reverts anyways. <font color="#2f4f4f">Jwissick <font color="#2f4f4f">(t) <font color="#2f4f4f">(c) 05:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: appears to have been blocked by WHK: William M. Connolley 15:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC).

User:Duncharris
Three revert rule violation on.




 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: 22:00, 27 January 2006 Duncharris m (Reverted edits by Agapetos angel (talk) to last version by Pgk)
 * 2nd revert: 21:47, 27 January 2006 Duncharris m (Reverted edits by Agapetos angel (talk) to last version by Duncharris)
 * 3rd revert: 20:11, 27 January 2006 Duncharris m (Reverted edits by Agapetos angel (talk) to last version by JoshuaZ)

Duncharris, involved in edits, banned Agapetos angel for 3RRs on the third revert, only to then make a third revert himself(which he marked as 'minor', even though they are not minor revisions-they, instead, conflict with his POV).

Reported by: 58.162.252.236 23:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This is not a 3RR violation, a user can revert three times. Once they revert the fourth time, then they are violating 3RR. Also, next time please include links to diffs. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As 58 was attempting to point out, I was banned on the third (not fourth) revert, where Duncharris was involved in the edits (he was reverting by placing disputed material back into the article, he didn't document talk at first, hasn't shown that the many instances of "some critics" in that section is cited, and he marked all these major reverts as minor). The main point, however, is that someone involved in editing  shouldn't be blocking another (opposing) user, and certainly shouldn't be allowed to do it on the third revert. agapetos_angel 01:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And people shouldn't be reporting non 3RR violations on the 3RR incidents page. If you have an (on-going) problem with the (earlier) incident, take it to AN/I or RFC.  Alai 05:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There were four edits by Agapetos angel - I was in the process of trying to determine whether the first edit was a revert to a previous version (and thus legit) and I was about to contact Dunc to make sure he hadn't made a mistake with the block when AA switched to the IP and reverted the page again. At that point, whether or not s/he had originally been guilty of a 3rr violation or not, s/he was not guilty of both block evasion and a 3 rr violation.  Since then the user has been complaining about the "unfair" block.  Guettarda 06:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, it all comes flooding back. At any rate, I think we're pretty safe in saying that the 3RR hasn't been lowered by case law to a 2RR for this article or otherwise, and so this isn't a violation of this non-rule.  OTOH, I do agree that Dunc would be well advised to report any future vios here, rather than enforcing them himself, lest there be any appearance of a conflict of interest.  Alai 07:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Guettarda, Duncharris is guilty of a conflict of interest (and now so are you). Instead of accusing me in the article's commentary, I request that you come to talk in the article and justify where you 'see' sources that prevent that section from being original research (beyond links to the AiG website and True Origin, which do not) as requested in talk.  I've asked GregAsche to please review the situation as well. (Just for the record, I did not revert in the first edit {see talk/history, rather than just jumping in on Duncharris' side, and you would have known that right away} or block evade/3rr {not my IP}.  If this is your 'problem' with me, please drop it as invalid and look at the article with a professional eye, seeing that my point about original research is valid.) (copied from Guettarda's talk, so this inappropriate reporting ends here).  agapetos_angel 00:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't a conflict of interest to block your sockpuppet/IP for block evasion and continued reversion after being blocked for a 3rr violation. As to whether Dunc's block was a mistake, or whether the first edit was a reversion to an earlier version - I was in the process of investigating the legitimacy of the block and was about to email Dunc about it when you chose to evade the block and revert the article again.  So the investigation was rendered moot.  Guettarda 05:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

User:KDRGibby
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:59, 27 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 05:03, 28 January 2006
 * 2nd revert:   (complex revert, gaming the 3RR)
 * 3rd revert: 05:12, 28 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 05:20, 28 January 2006
 * A fifth, partial revert - gaming again by inserting same material in smaller pieces:

Reported by: <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 05:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Repeatedly reinserting uncited material (e.g. this) into the article. I usually discuss instead of edit warring, but this would be pointless in this particular case - see Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby for details. He has done this before - see . He has falsely accused me of reverting "five times" - in fact, I made an initial edit to remove blatant WP:NPOV/WP:CITE violations and then reverted his POV edits three times. See also what he thinks of our "socialist" admins:

Update: User:Curps has since reverted and KDRGibby then did a 5th revert.


 * Blocked for 24 hours. —Cleared as filed. 05:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Gidonb

 * Removing extenal links to official website of Barry Chamish . --Haham hanuka 10:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed per consensus on talk page. I refered the user several times to this discussion on the talk page, but he refuses to contribute, only puts his pet website upfront. Complainer is a serial POV pusher and well-known troll, frequently long-term barred from using Wikipedia. I have a full-time job just undoing the edits by him and other persons from the Israeli extreme right. I would like this matter to be thoroughly investigated and action to be taken, because I cannot go on contributing to Wikipedia without additional assistance. gidonb 11:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've more than 4000 good edits. gidnob is a PoV pusher who vandalizing wiki by adding his POVs about Israeli issues. See --Haham hanuka 12:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please follow the referenced links. It leads to the undoing of many POV contributions and the few other constructive contributions that my time still permits. gidonb 12:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This all looks a bit of a mess. I don't see any consensus on talk page but I don't see any 3RR breaking by Gidonb either. Please specify the diffs, as per instructions. William M. Connolley 14:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC).


 * The discussion and consensus were on Talk:Yitzhak_Rabin_assassination_conspiracy_theories. This is the other place where he tries to insert this link, but he referred only to this page in his awkward request in the Wikipedia name-space accusing falsely accusing me of WP:3RR (Haham hanuka is about as much banned as he is allowed to participate on Wikipedia). I offered Haham hanuka to join the discussion and add his opinion, but instead he reverts me every time. I am totally fed up with his troll behavior. That said, his friend who accuses me of murder is worse. I think that the admins can do somewhat more to protect me and my edits. See also for example his false accusation here . I think that all his latest edits and accusations should be undone and that he should be called to order for the umpteenth time. This is really a bad day for this discussion because those who know his political agenda pushing and my excellent record in POV addressing cannot edit today. I ask that Haham Hanuka will be blocked for a cool off period and that all his latest edits will be undone. gidonb 15:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Haham hanuka (24h; previous violations) and Gidonb (8 hours) for pretty much the same revert war at Yitzhak Rabin assassination conspiracy theories. William M. Connolley 18:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC).

User:Jimmy James
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert: 09:22, 28 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 09:15, 28 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 09:09, 28 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 08:57, 28 January 2006

Reported by: &mdash;This user has left wikipedia 14:29 2006-01-28

Comments: Suspected Lightbringer, every single edit is on Freemasonry and he's removed huge amounts of info SEVERAL times that I wont be listing, see:.


 * As I write he has seven - 7 - edits he calls reverts in his editsummaries. Could something be done to stop him? WegianWarrior 14:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Appears to have been blocked indefinitely by Shanel as sockpuppet. William M. Connolley 17:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC).

User:65.122.236.133
Three revert rule violation on, :
 * Previous version reverted to: 02:28, 23 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 00:18, 28 January 2006 * by User:65.122.232.3, an address in the same range but not the exact address
 * 2nd revert: 06:53, 28 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:47, 28 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:06, 28 January 2006

Reported by:  OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User ignores suggestions from two editors that disputed section blatantly violates NPOV policies. Though two IP addresses are covered, they are both in the same range, and both appear in the talk page expressing the same sentiment.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 8 hours; sadly even .133 is now up to 4RR even without the .3. I wasn't sure how long to block for... if they are determined, they'll probably just switch to another IP. William M. Connolley 19:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC).

User:TuzsuzDeliBekir
Three revert rule violation on, :
 * Previous version reverted to: 20:59, 26 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 08:42, 28 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 09:02, 28 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 16:35, 28 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 17:22, 28 January 2006
 * 5th revert: 17:57, 28 January 2006

Reported by: Khoikhoi 19:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User is deleting entire sections and insulting people. --Khoikhoi 19:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 3 hours for a first offence as a fairly new user (hmm, now I look, I must ask you to stop this meaningless revert war on his talk page is a bit suspicious for a new user...). For future use, can I suggest that you warn people on their second or third revert? William M. Connolley 19:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC).


 * Wonderful. The 3h is no sooner up than he reverts again. 24h. William M. Connolley 23:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC).


 * User has been evading his block at --Khoikhoi 18:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

User:158.143.151.125
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:53, 24 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 02:17, 28 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 13:31, 28 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 14:05, 28 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 14:24, 28 January 2006
 * 5th revert: 15:49, 28 January 2006
 * 6th revert: 18:35, 28 January 2006

Reported by: Demiurge 19:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Keeps inserting a factual inaccuracy into the article, and will not engage in discussion on talk page. Demiurge 19:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 8 hours. Feel free to review. William M. Connolley 19:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC).


 * Has resurfaced as User:158.143.182.49, same article, same revert. Blocked that IP for an additional 24.  Alai 10:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ... and again on the same article, as the original IP, which is a fresh 3RR violation in itself. Knew I should have reblocked both.  Have blocked that one for 24.  Alai 19:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Nixer
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:49, 29 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 17:01, 29 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 17:15, 29 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:24, 29 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 17:41, 29 January 2006
 * 5th revert: 19:08, 29 January 2006

Reported by: Latinus 19:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Look at Nixers block log - he has been blocked many times for 3RRvios and admins have started blocking him for weeks. Could we get one of those this time. I don't know what his problem is, maybe he doesn't understand the 3RR. Latinus 19:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weeks might be over-egging it, but 24 hours and 48 hour blocks have been tried, seemingly to little effect. Blocked for 72 hours.  Feel free to vary to taste, perhaps we'll get the magic number eventually.  Alai 19:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

second lot added in

User:Blueboar
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freemasonry&diff=38306984&oldid=38305153 Revision as of 13:12, 5 February 2006
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 13:41, 5 February 2006
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 14:11, 5 February 2006

Reported by: Basil Rathbone 14:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I have misunderstood the revert rule. I am under the impression that three reverts are allowed, and then you have to stop.  If this is not the case, please inform me and I will not do it again.  Please note that Basil Rathbone is far more guilty of this violation than I am... he has already been blocked from Wikipedia for violation of the 3rr rule, and the reverts listed above are in responce to his returning to the Freemasonry page and simply picking up where he left off as soon as the block was lifted.Blueboar 14:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right. From WP:3RR: "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period." (my emphasis) --Malthusian (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment:


 * Quoted from Wikipedia:Three-revert rule:


 * The 3RR is intended as a means to stop sterile edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every twenty-four hours. If you find you have reverted more than even once in a day, it indicates there is a serious problem and you should try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, starting with the article's talk page.


 * It is obvious that taken with actions of other Masons, all of whom have taken extreme POV oaths to each other, that this Editor as well as the others are violating Wikipedia guidelines of 3rr. The Masonic Editors outnumber non-masonic editors by many times over and are acting as a single revert/deletion block to control content of the page. Blueboar deleted my contribution three times in a short period with the sole purpose of getting me to go past 3rr rule. If he got himself banned in process it was incidental because the remainder of the group would just carry on. The object is to get me, a non-masonic editor permanently banned, and to ensure none of my contributions remain on the page. If this isn't a violation of Wikipedia 3rr then I don't know what would be. Furthermore the 3rr ban of me yesterday was wrong and I complained about it. I never deleted the exact same material three times, it was always for different para's or slightly different variations. I was being tag-team deleted by a group of masonic editors who were working in a co-ordinated fashion to violate Wikipedia 3rr rules together as they have done with every other non-masonic editor who tries to make contributions to Freemasonry related pages. Basil Rathbone 16:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

User:KDRGibby
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:39, 29 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 16:02, 29 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 17:58, 29 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:09, 29 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:35, 29 January 2006
 * 5th revert: 19:30, 29 January 2006
 * 6th revert: 20:05, 29 January 2006

Reported by: <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 19:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * KDRGibby simply refuses to follow any Wikipedia policies. See Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence for more details. Not only has he violated the 3RR *again* on this article (an offense that he has been blocked for numerous times in the past), but he also continues his characteristic violations of WP:CIVIL in his edit summaries, as shown in the difflinks above. Is it at all possible to block him for longer than 24 hours due to the repeat, blatant, and willful nature of his offenses? <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 19:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * He has since reverted a 6th time. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 20:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat tempted to follow Alai and impose more, but settle for 24h. Feel free to review. William M. Connolley 20:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC).


 * I just blocked for 48 (acting independently from WMC, so his block will currently stand), and reckoned he was getting a bargain at that, candidly. 5 earlier 24h blocks for similar, uses "moronic" and other such delightful characterisations of opposing arguments on a semi-regular basis.  Anyone else want to opine?  Alai 20:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah... I think you're right (if there was doubt, this edit comment seals his fate; I copied it to his RFA page). William M. Connolley 20:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC).
 * OK, I reset the block to 48, then. Alai 20:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Mike18xx
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: 16:58, January 29, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 17:05, January 29, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:10, January 29, 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:57, January 29, 2006

Reported by: a.n.o.n.y.m   t 00:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User keeps inserting original research which is the main issue here. I have warned him and asked him to discuss, but he blanked his talk page. Now he has started with personal attacks which is a problem and is starting on other articles too. I recommend a long block because of incivility and revert warring which started in edit summaries but has started on talk pages too - this one to an editor he only met on an article once.
 * Note that he usually calls some additional edits he makes to the article "grammar edits" but his version is still a revert even if it is accompanied by them. 3rr applies to the revert including the changes. I would take action here but I am also involved. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 00:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have warned him, and will block if necessary. Tom Harrison Talk 00:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It turned out to be necessary. I have blocked the user for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison Talk 01:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Voyevoda
I don't know if this really counts as a violation of Three revert rule, though for sure it borders vandalism;. :


 * 03:01, January 29, 2006
 * 03:54, January 29, 2006
 * 16:12, January 29, 2006
 * 19:55, January 29, 2006
 * 20:01, January 29, 2006

Reported by: Halibutt 00:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Doesn't look remotely like vandalism is to me (rather, a very familiar-looking type of editing dispute), and if it's not a 3RR vio, what's it doing here? You don't label the above diffs, but it looks to me like one original edit, one reversion of the deletion of that edit, and three of the addition of a "fact" template.  Which is technically a vio, but I'm just going to warn this time, as no-one had troubled to do so, or use the talk page (of course), so there may be some confusion in the mind of the editor of the application of the rule.  Alai 02:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair solution to me. Halibutt 14:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Simonides
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:32, 30 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 01:04, 30 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 01:49, 30 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 02:45, 30 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 03:00, 30 January 2006

Reported by: BlueGoose 03:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:


 * This is the second 3RR issue for Simonides (see his talk page as well). BlueGoose 03:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 4 identical reverts after his original edit, all in under 2 1/2 hours. The edit summaries got rather abusive, too. Wyss 03:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * BlueGoose has merged my own report on the incident into this one, which is ok, the diffs were identical. Wyss 03:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Not identical, but close enough. Blocked for 24 hours, esp. given this is indeed repeat business.  I notice that Simonides from his talk-page comments seems to think that the above two reporters are acting in concert to "provoke" 3RR violations.  (To which I counter, "so don't make 'em".)  Alai 03:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * We weren't. Lots of experienced editors watch that page, is all. Wyss 03:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I express no opinion on the accuracy of said opinions, just repeating them for the sake of full disclosure (esp. given that S. won't be making them here for a while) and the convenience of anyone reviewing the block. Alai 03:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

User:65.94.130.76 (sock puppet User:65.94.129.80)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:53, 29 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 01:33, 30 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 1:56, 30 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 02:16, 30 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 02:37, 30 January 2006
 * 5th revert: 12:23, 30 January 2006

Reported by: Asim Led 08:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Diffs are a mess -- and in fact, aren't diffs at all -- but this is indeed four reverts for certain. Will block for 8 hours.  (Use of anon IP makes it impossible to say if this a serial offender, or someone unaware of the 3RR, but seems unlikely to be a genuine newbie.)  Please, anyone who is familiar with this pattern and has a better insight, review either way.  Alai 08:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * He's done it again. This time under a slightly different IP, but there's really no doubt its the same person. Asim Led 19:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the sockpuppet for violating 3rr. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 19:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Will block "new" IP for 24. Is a a point of pride at that article not to use the talk page, or something?  Alai 19:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, failed to read the above comment by anonym after editing the page, as you all were. Alai 19:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe the article should be protected? There have been so many 3rrs. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 19:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added comments on the discussion page but it generally falls on deaf ears. I support locking the article but it should be reverted to its original version before 3RR's.--Dado 19:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The page has been semi-protected. -Husnock 19:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think protection is a probably a good idea. I'm not much moved by the "wrong version" argument;  it's not even a substantiative difference, just as dispute as to whether to include tags to indicate there's a dispute(!).  (ec)  But semi, isn't.  Alai 19:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

So we had this user that ended up blocked for violating 3RR and his only purpose on the article was to drag a dispute tag over the article, not necessarily to actually take time and discuss the issue (probably because he has no credible arguement). I have asked for an article to be reverted to the version before the 3RR violation and I have offered to discuss the issue on the talk page. What we got now instead is the article that is protected with a tag that serves no purpose other than to appease violators while no one is willing to touch the issue with the 10 foot pole. I ask you kindly one more time to revert the article. --Dado 22:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

User:-Inanna-/User:85.97.21.239
Three revert rule violation on by.


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:35, 29 January 2006


 * 1st revert 01:59, 30 January 2006 (-Inanna-)


 * 2nd revert: 08:03, 30 January 2006 (-Inanna-)


 * 3rd revert: 19:28, 30 January 2006 (85.97.21.239 - sockpuppet)

Reported by: Khoikhoi 20:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

The last time this user was blocked it was for 2 days, so I suggest making it longer this time. I also request that an admin watch this page after this, because Inanna is known to use sockpuppets to evade blocks and violating the 3RR. --Khoikhoi 20:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, thats only 3R you've reported William M. Connolley 20:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC).

User:158.143.151.125 and User:158.143.182.49
Three revert rule violation on.


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:44, 24 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 18:54, 30 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:03, 30 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 20:21, 30 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:27, 30 January 2006

Reported by: Demiurge 21:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments: same IP addresses were blocked yesterday for 3RR on same article, has resumed reverting despite this. Demiurge 21:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Repeated offence, not the slightest inclination to use the talk page: blocked for 48h this time (please review if needed). William M. Connolley 21:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC).

User:Agapetos_angel
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert: 00:13, 30 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 01:46, 30 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:04, 30 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:21, 30 January 2006
 * 5th revert: 15:26, 30 January 2006
 * 6th revert: 16:03, 30 January 2006
 * 7th revert: 16:28, 30 January 2006

Reported by: FeloniousMonk 23:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Blocked for 24 hours. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This was invalid, as the 7 edits were not all related. This is NB for future reporting by FM who isn't checking Talk before reverting consensus, and is submitting block for those opposed to his POV pushing. agapetos_angel 07:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to chime in here (as I said to AA I would, in such cases), I have to part-agree with both. These are not all related, but the intro-revert seems to me to be essentially the same one, four times.  Note that the rule is 3 reverts at most per article, not necessarily per edit, however.  (Though several consecutive edits may only be "one revert", in effect.)  Alai 10:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

User:84.59.88.9 and User:Zoe
3 revert war on Arthur Travers Harris (and several other articles, see.

84.59.88.9:

First edit at 15:28, January 30, 2006

2nd edit at 16:27, January 30, 2006

3rd edit at 84.59.88.9

4th edit at 16:46, January 30, 2006

Editor steadfastly refuses to cite his opinion, but puts links to op-ed pieces from some questionable websites on the Talk pages. Since I have suddenly realized that I have reverted four times, I will voluntarily stay off Wikipedia for 24 hours. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked 8 hours in the first instance. I'll go check you, since you've turned yourself in William M. Connolley 14:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC).


 * See further down page for another IP starting with 84.59 (has multiple ip's in the title) for another 3rr violation. Swatjester 17:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Darth Dalek
Three revert rule violation on.




 * 4th revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 1st revert:

Reported by: Ardenn 00:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Keeps reverting a personal attack he made. Ardenn 00:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As the subject of the personal attack, I have to disagree with this characterization. The attack didn't show up for the first couple of diffs listed above, so he's "good" for now.--SarekOfVulcan 00:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I only see 2 reverts there... the first 2 he's adding comments on a talk page. His only 2 reverts are him adding back his personal attack that you guys removed the first revert he was adding back content that SarekOfVulcan removed (your "3rd revert"), and then adding back content that Ardenn removed (your "4th revert"). Simply adding comments to a page does not count as a revert as far as 3rr goes. Seraphim  00:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Ardenn
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:23,, 29 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 06.09, 30 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:24, 30 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 00:03, 31 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 00:24, 31 January 2006

Reported by: Salix alba (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * On an AfD page users keeps reverting what he claims to be a personal attack. 4th revert is not an exact revert but still changing another persons words. User nominated the AfD. --Salix alba (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As directly below - 4th edit not a revert, best solution is everyone just moving along. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Ardenn
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:23, 29 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 06:09, 30 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:24, 30 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 00:03, 31 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 00:24, 31 January 2006

Reported by: Monicasdude 01:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments: AfD nominator is repeatedly removing comment questioning whether nomination was made in good faith, insisting comment is "personal attack." Fourth revert is obvious attempt at gaming, reducing the comment to gibberish rather than deleting it entirely. Monicasdude 01:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * He's removing my attempt to Remove personal attacks. Ardenn 01:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The fourth edit is not a revert. I have spoken with Ardenn, and I think the best solution to this unfortunate misunderstanding is everyone just moving on. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Monicasdude
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Reported by: Ardenn 01:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Reverts my attempts to remove personal attacks made against me and claims it is vandalism. Fourth revert is his so-called "justification" for reverting. Gaming as he calls it. Ardenn 01:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Bad faith report, violating WP:POINT. 4th "revert" is simply a comment; no existing text was removed; no previously deleted text was reinstated. User:Ardenn has previously been sanctioned for 3RR violation, and knows this report is false. And deleting other users' criticism of your editing practices is vandalism, unless it's done on your own talk page. Monicasdude 01:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Not bad faith at all. I'm allowed to put up article on AfD that fits the criteria for deletion. See also WP:RPA. Ardenn 01:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The fourth edit is not a revert. Mackensen (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Horgen & User:Themackie
Three revert rule violations on. & :


 * 1st revert: 01:46, 31 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 01:40, 31 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 01:38, 31 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 01:34, 31 January 2006

Reported by: Eurosong 02:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Silly image revert war by these two. I have placed notes on both their talk pages.. hope they'll stop soon.

User:pookster11
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:01, 31 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 03:05, 31 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 03:41, 31 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 03:49, 31 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 04:01, 31 January 2006

Reported by: 84.59.67.92 04:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Deleted whole sections from 2003 invasion of Iraq, made false claims material were moved somewhere else, deleted neutrality dispute tag and even discussion about it from talk page  as well as warning on his user page. . 84.59.67.92 04:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: User who originally filed this is making a WP:POINT and is himself a violator of the 3RR under multiple IP's. Users claims that Pookster deleted things are false and in bad faith: user also has a pending Request for Comment and Request for Mediation against him. Finally, the article in question has been protected. Swatjester 18:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Gimmiet
1RR (he's on ArbCom ruling limited to one revert per article per day) violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:16, January 30, 2006
 * 1st revert: 16:38, January 30, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 23:42, January 30, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 00:06, January 31, 2006

Reported by: DreamGuy 06:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * And if the first edit by User:69.195.126.177 was him signed out, as he is known to do, then he made a full 3RR violation while on 1RR.DreamGuy 06:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That IP is within his range. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 07:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. Whee.--Sean Black (talk)  07:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Already did that an hour ago, so I guess in total it's a 25 hour block. Considering the flagrancy I don't see this is a problem. Bryan 07:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Sean Black (talk)  08:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI: Per the findings of his arbcom decision: "Should Gabrielsimon violate the revert limit imposed on him he may be banned for a short period, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses." ... He's certainly repeatedly violated it over and over, not sure when the last one prior to today was though. He "is limited to one revert per day per article. In addition he is limited to three reverts in total per 24 hours. He is instructed not to revert war at all and instead engage in dialogue on the talk pages of articles." He also reverted twice on Sanguinarian and twice on Cahokia. Oh, and I see once on Chastity (comic book). That's at least 9 reverts in a 24 hour period (with a maximum allowed of 3), 4 on one article (with maximum allowed of 1). DreamGuy 09:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A longer block is probably in order and it's reached the point where an indefinite block might be wiser. He's been blocked 13 times as, 12 times as , 11 times as , indefinitely as , and indefinitely as , plus lots of anon IP edits, which he invariably pretends aren't him, even as he's e-mailing from the same IP.


 * The arbcom ruling said: "If problems evidencing immaturity emerge ... he may be banned for up to an additional month by any three Wikipedia administrators who, based on his edits and behavior, identify him and feel an additional month's ban may aid him him in gaining maturity." Any thoughts? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 10:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Deserves final warning to only revert once per day per article or else. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I'd be uncomfartable blocking indefinitely, however, if only because the ArbCom has heard his case before. Looking at this, though, I'm thinking that any more edit warring of this nature (that is, several reverts in one day) could warrant a longer block.--Sean Black (talk)  16:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * At this point, I would support the maximum-length block permitted under the ArbCom decision, and also a request to the ArbCom to review their decision. android  79  16:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest someone inform him next time if you post something about him here. I have done it this time, but full disclosure is in our best interest. Thanks. -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  17:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So it's another final warning then? I was thinking 38 blocks and 200 warnings might be enough already. ;-) Can we agree on what should happen if when he violates his 1RR again? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 18:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Since the Arbcom ruling mentions blocks of up to a week in case of repeat offences, and since he's been repeating offences quite flagrantly since then, how about we block him for a full week each time he violates parole in the future? He's had so many last chances by now that I don't think this'll be unfair. Bryan 00:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds fair enough to me. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Same here. android  79  01:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Aye, one week block(s) should work.--Sean Black (talk)  01:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sean. As we have three admins agreeing, I'll put a note on his talk page to the effect that, from now on, he gets a one-week block for any violation of 1RR-per-day-per-article or three reverts overall per day. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Qatarson
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:47, 31 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 07:34, 31 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 07:39, 31 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 08:01, 31 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 08:17, 31 January 2006
 * 5th revert: 08:21, 31 January 2006
 * 6th revert: :31, 31 January 2006

Reported by: Eixo 09:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Page has now been blocked for editing by anonymous users, but Quatarson remains a problem. He is also adding POV content. The article is top news on the front page, I believe action must be taken swiftly to stop this vandalism.


 * 2006-01-31 10:47:05 Secretlondon blocked "User:Qatarson" with an expiry time of 24 hours (legal threats re:Mohammad Drawings) William M. Connolley 14:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

User:158.143.134.132
Three revert rule violation on.




 * Previous version reverted to: 13:44, 24 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 20:03, 30 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:21, 30 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 20:27, 30 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 10:42, 31 January 2006

Reported by: Demiurge 11:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments: My third time reporting this user for a 3RR vio on this article. Two of this user's IP addresses were blocked for 48 hours yesterday for 3RR vios. An attempt was made to compromise after yesterday's block (see Talk:Strabane), but to no avail. Time to protect or semiprotect this page? Demiurge 11:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Make a request at WP:RFPP for semi and reference this. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * blocked for 48 hours. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Tt1
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: did not revert to the same version each time - he was partially reverting, he was adding a bogus rank each time (Komandor). According to the rule: Do not revert any single page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours. Tt1 made the same partial revert six times within the last 24 hours (gaming the system).
 * 1st revert: 18:53, 30 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:59, 30 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 20:37, 30 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 21:26, 30 January 2006
 * 5th revert: 17:35, 31 January 2006
 * 6th revert: 17:58, 31 January 2006

Reported by: Latinus 18:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Tt1 is a suspected sockpuppet of User:Roitr and has been trolling this article for quite some time - single handedly revert warring against multiple users. Latinus 18:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Can someone please see to this? He's still reverting! Latinus 21:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 48 hours to constant edit wars and violation of the Three Revert Rule. -Husnock 21:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

USER:84.59.67.92 (and other IPs)
Three revert rule violation on. From multiple IPs: mainly, 84.59.67.92

Reported by: Swatjester 19:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Previous version reverted to: 19:19, January 30, 2006
 * 1st revert: 19:38, January 30, 2006 : Note, same user, different IP, also in violation of 3RR
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 20:01, January 30, 2006
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 20:03, January 30, 2006
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 20:07, January 30, 2006
 * 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2003_Invasion_of_Iraq&diff=37442120&oldid=37437600 Revision as of 20:09, January 30, 2006
 * 6th revert: Revision as of 20:10, January 30, 2006
 * 7th revert: January 30, 2006
 * 8th revert: Revision as of 20:24, January 30, 2006
 * 9th revert: Revision as of 20:33, January 30, 2006
 * 10th revert: Revision as of 20:43, January 30, 2006
 * 11th revert: Revision as of 20:49, January 30, 2006
 * 12th revert: Revision as of 20:56, January 30, 2006
 * 13th revert: Revision as of 21:48, January 30, 2006
 * 14th revert: Revision as of 22:35, January 30, 2006
 * 15th revert: Revision as of 22:46, January 30, 2006
 * 16th revert: Revision as of 22:59, January 30, 2006
 * 17th revert: Revision as of 23:06, January 30, 2006

Comments:This user continuously reverts anything he doesn't agree with. There is a significant effort underway to rewrite and restructure this overly-large, rambling article. Any edits made, this user reverts, with condescending remarks about proper use of Wikipedia. This user is currently under an RfC for harassment of other users, as well as a RfM has been placed for this article. (links can be found in the talk section of the article at the bottom) I'm requesting a significant length block on this user. Note, this user uses multiple IP addresses.


 * I highly advise whatever admin takes care of this to do a history on that thread, and include any IP's starting with 84.59 that have multiple edits, because they are all him.Swatjester 05:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * User has a current RfC against him Requests_for_comment/84.59.112.101


 * user has a 3rr block noted above

User:TheFEARgod
Three revert rule violation on. Possible sock puppet User:212.138.47.21


 * 1st revert: 15:45, 31 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:46, 31 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 21:53, 31 January 2006
 * 4th revert 22:16, 31 January 2006

Reported by: --Dado 22:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Comments:

User:67.80.3.198
Three revert rule violation on :


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:08, January 30, 2006
 * 1st revert: 04:46, January 31, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:34, January 31, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:48, January 31, 2006
 * 4th revert: 17:18, January 31, 2006

Reported by: Jtrost 23:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User violated 3RR rule despite our constant pleas to leave the article alone.

User:Wyss
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:15, 31 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 19:52, 31 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:58, 31 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 20:12, 31 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:22, 31 January 2006
 * 5th revert: 20:32, 31 January 2006
 * 6th revert: 22:02, 31 January 2006

Reported by: Simonides 01:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * The user refuses to use the Talk page when requested to, or during reverts, and/or ignores specific requests to provide encyclopaedic information that will help reach consensus when on the Talk page. Extremely uncooperative and does not abide by own editing "standards".
 * I have blocked the user for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison Talk 02:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Clarification: there was another revert earlier in the day and as documented on the Talk page at Talk:Adolf_Hitler, at least three users besides myself complained about the re-insertion of a phrase that the user continued to add back into the article. -- Simonides 03:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User:202.5.152.193
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: [00:29, 1 February 2006]
 * 1st revert: 00:45, 1 February 2006
 * 2nd revert: 00:56, 1 February 2006
 * 3rd revert: 01:14, 1 February 2006
 * 4th revert: 01:24, 1 February 2006

Reported by:  OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Continues to revert to poorly written POV version of article without discussion, starting with this edit .  OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison Talk 01:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Appleby
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:31, 1 February 2006
 * 1st revert: 02:12, 1 February 2006
 * 2nd revert: 03:34, 1 February 2006
 * 3rd revert: 03:40, 1 February 2006
 * 4th revert: 03:51, 1 February 2006
 * 5th revert: 04:12, 1 February 2006

Reported by: Endroit 04:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Appleby has been involved in Edit Wars in East Sea, East sea (small letter), East Sea (disambiguation), Hwarang, and Korean-Japanese disputes in the last 24 hours.

Appleby believes (as stated in his comments) that if an information is "properly sourced" (according to his own opinion), then he is free to revert others, even if he has no concensus.--Endroit 04:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It would seem to me to be impossible to revert to a version created after the time of a given edit. -Splash talk 05:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I find the following 4 reverts: ,, ,. Appleby appears to be serially violating 3RR (see his block log), so I'm going to block him for 48 hours this time. Some additional comments:
 * Nlu should not be using rollback, as that isn't vandalism
 * I don't really understand why Appleby is being reverted blindly himself. -Splash talk 06:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not aware of any regulation that states that rollbacks are limited to vandalism.
 * As for the reason why Appleby's being reverted -- well, against, see Talk:Sea of Japan and Talk:East Sea/Archive 1. He believes that East Sea has one primary meaning despite everyone else's opinion otherwise.  --Nlu (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is very common convention that rollback is restricted to vandalism; check on WP:AN if you like, but see the final comment in Revert. Moreover, it is very important that admin tools not be used, ever, in an editorial dispute in which one is involved. -Splash talk 06:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Ubi comp
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: [13:28]
 * 1st revert: [12:28]
 * 2nd revert: [12:47]
 * 3rd revert: [13:07]
 * 4th revert: [13:23]

Reported by: Phr 13:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * persistently removing image from page. 5x reverts or more, still at it.  not participating in talk page despite edit comments implying the opposite.  May be a sock of Qatarson, who is also back.

Blocked 24h, although its probably a waste of time as she is probably only a sock and has stopped... William M. Connolley 16:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

User:WillC
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: Jan. 30 18:11
 * 1st revert: Jan 31 18:21
 * 2nd revert: Jan 31 19:27
 * 3rd revert: Jan 31 19:50
 * 4th revert: Feb 1 06:47

Reported by: &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 16:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Warned here that one more revert would place him in violation of 3RR. (His response was to call me a vandal and revert again.) &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 16:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have Form; blocked 24h William M. Connolley 16:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

User:85.250.193.168
Three revert rule violation on. :

Reported by: StuffOfInterest 19:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Previous version reverted to: 01:09
 * 1st revert: 05:51
 * 2nd revert: 06:54
 * 3rd revert: 14:29
 * 4th revert: 14:43
 * 5th revert: 15:00
 * 6th revert: 15:26
 * 7th revert: 15:29 - come on, someone help here please

Comments:
 * blocked for one week. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Alexr23
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:26, 1 February 2006
 * 1st revert: 15:32, 1 February 2006
 * 2nd revert: 16:10, 1 February 2006
 * 3rd revert: 20:53, 1 February 2006
 * 4th revert: 21:06, 1 February 2006

Reported by: Latinus 21:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Alexr23 is a suspected sockpuppet of who is already serving a 3RR block and has a history of evading them through sockpuppets. In case he isn't, he had been warned on his talk page of the 3RR and ignored it. Latinus 21:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Never mind - he's already been blocked by admin Husnock. Latinus 21:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User:SkeenaR
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Reported by: MONGO 21:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

It was not my intention to violate the 3R rule and will refrain from any further edits on the page for 24hrs. I will try and resolve the problem on the discussion page. Thanks for your consideration. SkeenaR 21:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good to hear. Report again if there's more reverting. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 22:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Infinity0
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:15, 1 February 2006
 * 1st revert: 21:07, 1 February 2006
 * 2nd revert: 21:27, 1 February 2006
 * 3rd revert: 21:50, 1 February 2006
 * 4th revert:22:32, 1 February 2006

Or differently:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Reported by: Ultramarine 22:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments: In addition, personal attack: "dude, you fucking twit"
 * I've blocked this user for 24 hours.  howch e  ng   {chat} 23:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Wikizach
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:22, 2 February 2006
 * 1st revert: 04:28, 2 February 2006
 * 2nd revert: 04:32, 2 February 2006
 * 3rd revert: 04:42, 2 February 2006

Ok, I lost count, but he's reverting and inserting POV language. Please act quickly, as the page is top news.

Reported by: Eixo 03:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've blocked him for 24 hours.  howch e  ng   {chat} 07:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

User:4.152.96.220
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:19, January 26, 2006
 * 1st revert: 21:49, February 1, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 22:03, February 1, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 22:10, February 1, 2006
 * 4th revert: 22:17, February 1, 2006
 * 5th revert: 22:54, February 1, 2006
 * 6th revert: 22:58, February 1, 2006
 * 7th revert: 23:03, February 1, 2006
 * 8th revert: 23:08, February 1, 2006

Reported by: BWD 03:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * The above user insists on reverting back to a version of the article that was not fact checked. He was warned of WP:3RR twice. --BWD 03:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * User has been warned multiple times by multiple users. User is a sockpuppet of User:Bumpusmills1 and User:WECoyote. &mdash; Scm83x talk [[Image:Hookem_hand.gif|18px]] 04:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please also note that this IP user is also a likely sockpuppet of User:4.152.180.67 (based on IP information, style of edits, choice of language, and the similarity of articles edited), who was blocked yesterday for incivility on the Administrator's Noticeboard, in addition to blanking vandalism on numerous user pages and violations of civility elsewhere. &mdash; Rebelguys2 <sup style="color:#CC5500;">talk 04:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Further, this user is making personal attacks. --BWD 04:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No specific article, pretty much all of them--152.163.101.12 05:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Chooserr
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:35, February 2, 2006
 * 1st revert: 04:56, February 2, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 05:20, February 2, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 05:32, February 2, 2006
 * 4th revert: 05:39, February 2, 2006

Reported by: —Locke Cole • t • c 05:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User was warned of 3RR in edit summary of article, user has been blocked for 3RR previously. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. This individual has a history of evading blocks via sock puppet accounts and anonymous IP addresses, so please be on the lookout for such behavior.  &mdash;David Levy 05:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

User:220.245.180.133
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:03, 31 January 2006


 * 1st revert: 07:00, 1 February 2006 "scientist" assertion
 * 2nd revert: 07:21, 1 February 2006 Commentary on relevance of age of earth
 * 3rd revert: 07:29, 1 February 2006 "scientist"
 * 4th revert: 07:52, 1 February 2006 Variant commentary #2
 * 5th revert: 02:05, 2 February 2006 Variant commentary #3
 * 6th revert: 05:28, 2 February 2006 Variant commentary #3
 * 7th revert: 05:32, 2 February 2006 "scientist" + Variant commentary #3
 * 8th revert: 05:54, 2 February 2006 Variant commentary #3

Reported by: Alai 08:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Also edits from 220.245.180.134, and less recently from 220.245.180.130 and 220.245.180.131. Range block would be good.  Reporting rather than blocking myself, as I'm now distinctly "embedded" in the article (though mainly on the talk page, at least latterly).  I've added comments to each diff, as this is a bit of a messy one:  two separate pieces of text are involved (assertion in the lead that subject is a scientist, this is disputed this, and some editors prefer a different wording;  and added commentary in later section discussing claims and counter-claims as to such status).  Some reverts are "partial" (slight rewordings of the commentary section);  others are "compound" (several of the above are consecutive, to revert each of the above separately).  They're all very disruptive, at any rate.  Has ignored talk completely on one point, and intervened belatedly on the other.  Some edit summaries misleading (and others complaining about others' "heavy-handed reverts", ironically).  Alai 08:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No takers on this one? Alai 20:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I set a range block for 220.245.180.128/29, intending to block .128 to .135. I hope that's right.  howch e  ng   {chat} 21:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds right to me, thanks. It's a real struggle with one's patience when one is "reduced" to filing reports again, rather than acting on them, I'd have to admit rather shame-facedly...  Should probably also post a blocked notice on at least the main anon user page.  (Again I'd do it myself, but...)  Alai 04:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

User:ombudsman
Three revert rule violation on. :

Persistently adding the {totally disputed} tag Reported by: Midgley 09:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * and declining to either improve the article or provide any actual discussion of what he charges to be POV or incorrect on the talk page. He is pushing a POV heavily here as he has in many articles, mostly ones lacking merit, in the past.

Would diffs, a time interval, and a correct link to the article be too much to ask? If you mean Anti-vaccinationists, tag seems to have been restored twice, ever. User not blocked; user not even warned. Alai 09:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

User:62.0.116.49, User:62.0.172.247, User:62.0.124.174, etc
Three revert rule violation on. ,, :

Reported by: StuffOfInterest 12:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Previous version reverted to: 02:59
 * 1st revert: 03:22
 * 2nd revert: 03:24
 * 3rd revert: 03:42
 * 4th revert: 03:53
 * And at least three more...

Comments:
 * Same user working from another IP block (see User:85.250.193.168 above) was blocked yesterday. --StuffOfInterest 12:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The Cunctator has stomped on several of these, e.g. William M. Connolley 15:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

User:88.105.24.134
This IP just hit ten reverts, if any admin happens to think that's too many. It's at the Muhammad Drawings article, of course, where IPs are given unlimited reverts because we don't want to hurt their feelings. Babajobu 16:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Maybe sprotect time again... William M. Connolley 16:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be loath to do this on any article linked from the main page. Such articles are our most effective invitations to edit. I think we should be as reticent to semiprotect as we would to protect. Demi T/C 17:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Demi, usually I would share that sentiment, the only problem is that in the past 48 hours this article has attracted virtually no constructive edits from any new editors. What is has attracted is a locust-storm of socks and IPs that engage in revert wars over the image without ever showing up on the talkpage. If ever a main-page-linked article were worthy of semi-protection, this has got to be it. Babajobu 18:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wasn't saying we should never ever semiprotect an article linked from the main page, just that we should do so with the same reticence we reserve for full protection, because semiprotection in this case has an inordinate effect on the usual function of an article so linked. Demi T/C 18:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, yeah. Babajobu 20:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Thparkth
Here's another who reverted a dozen times Muhammad Drawings article and is still going. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 16:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I just left a warning on his talk page. The IP had been warned six times, but Thparkth had not received any warnings yet. Which brings me to a question...how many warnings should a user get for 3RR before being blocked. In IRC one person told me that they must receive a test-4 warning before being blocked for 3RR...is this true?? Babajobu 17:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No only one actually. So next time user reverts then block. However that leaves me to question the block on the above IP. Why was he/she blocked when they clearly had no warning about 3rr? -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 17:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * He had six warnings along the way to his ten or so reverts. Surely six warnings should be enough. Babajobu 17:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Six 3rr warnings? What talk page are you looking at? I am talking about the IP that you reported above. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 17:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * He was given six warnings not to remove the image again, none of which he responded to, none of which changed his behavior. Why, is there a specific 3RR warning template that should have been used, rather than just telling him to stop reverting? Babajobu 17:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * He should have been informed that he could do it no more than 3 times. Just saying he could be blocked doesn't make it effective, it makes it seem as people are just doing that to threaten him. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 18:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay...well then I wouldn't object to unblocking him with the understanding that if he reverts once more in the next 24 hours, he's blocked. Two questions to AE and anyone else: are registered users also entitled to one explicit warning about 3RR before being blocked? If so, doesn't that usually amount, then, to a four revert rule, since presumably the warning often comes after violation of 3RR? Also, if someone reverts different content in the same article, do those both count toward 3RR? That is, if I revert "ooga booga" and then "eega beega" (assuming those are both legit edits, not vandalism), does that count as two reverts? Babajobu 18:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's four reverts and I am sure those count as two. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 18:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello, I believe my edits have mainly been reverts of simple vandalism by anonymous IPs. a.n.o.n.y.m may be referring to my removal of his {neutral} tag - despite requests he has not justified why he thinks this is needed, and the consensus is against it. In any case my edits have all been in good faith. Won't revert no more. Thparkth 17:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You have reverted enough different people not just the two to the tag. Reverts are reverts. Please stop doing it. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 17:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * AE, do you have me confused with someone else? Apart from actual simple vandalism, I think I've only reverted your {neutral} tag and even then only twice. Most of my contributions to that article have been positive and substantive. Thparkth 18:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't count as "simple vandalism" in this case because the picture itself is an actual dispute so just like the IP who was reverting above. So just don't revert again. -- a.n.o.n.y.m   t 18:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

User:172.135.51.15
Three revert rule violation on by : In the article Walter O'Malley the user keeps adding the non NPOV statement "But greed got the best of him and after trying to get NYC government leaders to break New York State law and give him land it did not own to replace Ebbets Field, following the 1957 season, he moved the Dodgers to Los Angeles. If I change it once more am I guilty of violating the rule or is the anonymous person who added the information? I will withhold changing the information until I hear from an editor. Reported by: --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1st addition:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

RAN - please stop reverting it; you're as guilty as the anon (in fact the anon isn't yet guilty, having *added* the material once and only reverted 3 times). Consider this your warning. Next time, please paste a warning onto the anon's talk page. William M. Connolley 20:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC).


 * I will let the information stand.

User:Rajab

 * 1st revert: 22:02
 * 2nd revert: 22:16
 * 3rd revert: 21:45
 * 4th revert:

I've already blocked him. Mark1 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * grazi. Babajobu 22:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

More stuff - 11:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Netoholic
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:44, February 1, 2006
 * 1st revert: 14:23, February 2, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 23:02, February 2, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 23:27, February 2, 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:32, February 2, 2006 (in this diff, he places inuse on the page, a veiled attempt, IMO, to game 3RR)
 * 5th revert: 23:40, February 2, 2006 (in this diff, he places a banner across the top of the page with at least one personal attack (calling those he disagrees with "template geeks"))
 * 6th revert: 23:49, February 2, 2006 (this time with a comment at the top, stating something better said on the talk page)

Reported by: —Locke Cole • t • c 23:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User has twice before been blocked for violating the 3RR, and is aware of the rule. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think he still needs a warning. I left one on his talk page. If he reverts again I'll revert and block him. Babajobu 23:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * He edited again (this time with personal attacks as well). See the 5th revert listed above. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I ask admins to ignore this. I did not violate 3RR, nor game the system. Direct opponents of this very active proposal (see history) have tried deletion and removal of proposal tags to kill it, rather than argue on the merits.  Developer Brion Vibber recently reviewed this proposal, and mentioned only a couple fixable changes he desired.  Opponents of a proposal should not remove proposal tags - kind of like an admin shouldn't probably vote for an article deletion and then actually delete the page - it's a conflict of interest.   Protection, with the accurate "proposed" tag, is preferable at the moment. -- Netoholic @ 23:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The page in question was proposed, soundly rejected, forced into policy status based on claims of developer mandate, and removed from policy status when the lead developer (Brion) said there was no reason it should be policy. Ergo, the most accurate 'tag' would likely be &#123;{rejected}}. Continued efforts to 'repolicify' the page are pointless in face of the fact that there is no significant need for the suggestions on the page and Brion has stated that he intends to get conditional logic built into MediaWiki "sooner rather than later"... which will make the entire issue largely obsolete, even if it weren't insignificant to begin with. Thus, continued fighting over it seems somewhat pointless. Leave it alone already. --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 00:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You did violate 3RR, you just think you had a good reason to do so. Don't revert again, please. Babajobu 23:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Netoholic for 48 hours. This is a violation on two of his arbcom-imposed remedies, a violation of the 3RR, and his last edit is disruptive and uncivil. Demi T/C 23:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Netoholic claims that these were not reverts, and these arbcom-imposed bans do not apply. I disagree; nothing has been lifted, instead individual arbitrators have recommended a certain tolerance as long as Netoholic is not being disruptive. Since he is engaging in the very behavior these remedies were designed to stop, I consider that they apply. Nevertheless, this is not an edge case, the rules that everyone must abide by were violated, and by a serial violator, which is why I chose a longer block period. Demi T/C 00:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added a 6th revert/edit diff. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Badagnani
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:22, February 2, 2006
 * 1st revert: 08:28, February 2, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 12:53, February 2, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:05, February 2, 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:11, February 2, 2006
 * 5th revert: 19:05, February 2, 2006

Reported by: DTC 00:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This version took several weeks of discussion and the participation of 5 editors to come to a consensus that all involved agreed upon, for user:Badagnani to jump in now and start a new edit war is unaceptable.


 * TDC consistently reverts without addressing why s/he is deleting valid interwikis (the reason for my edits was to restore them each time they were all removed); removing valid interwikis is wrong no matter how many reverts it takes. The consensus to delete links and interwikis was not agreed upon by me, and TDC does not "own" this article.  Badagnani 00:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's still no excuse for reverting five times in one day, and as said, this is a compromise version. Ten Dead Chickens 05:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours.  howch e  ng   {chat} 17:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

User:62.23.29.196
User deleted repeately leading image at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

--KimvdLinde 01:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1st revert: 19:51
 * 2nd revert: 19:56
 * 3rd revert: 19:59
 * 4th revert: 20:06
 * 5th revert: 20:07
 * 6th revert: 20:07


 * He's already blocked. Babajobu 01:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

User:202.129.12.14
Three revert rule violation on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.


 * 1st revert: 21:19
 * 2nd revert: 21:21
 * 3rd revert: 21:23
 * 4th revert: 21:29
 * 5th revert: 21:31

Reported by: Thparkth 01:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * He has been blocked for 24 hours. Johntex\talk 01:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

User:patesta
Three revert rule violation on List of Family Guy episodes. :


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:

Reported by: Discordance 02:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * He is not only undoing content like reinserting episode details I have confirmed to be wrong, he is undoing formatting and blanking the reference section and so far not talking on the talk page. User:G11 has also broken 3RR trying to restore the page to its current state, I have informed them both on the talk page of 3RR and that they may both be blocked, I've only listed patesta here as he is the disruptive one verging on vandalism. Discordance 02:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I gave him his warning, and told him if he reverts once more he'll be blocked for 24 hours. Babajobu 02:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hes reverted a 9th time, this revert didnt revert the content he seems so concerned about he reverted the formatting and blanked notes. Discordance 17:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Deiaemeth
Three revert rule violation on. :

Reported by: Saintjust 03:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: 03:41, 2 February 2006
 * 2nd revert: 04:13, 2 February 2006
 * 3rd revert: 00:20, 3 February 2006
 * 4th revert: 00:31, 3 February 2006
 * 5th revert: 03:34, 3 February 2006

Comments:
 * Deiaemeth has been reverting the article in the same manner for the last couple of days or so, although this seems to be the first time to revert 4 times in 24 hours. --Saintjust 03:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I warned him in the talk page but he did not hear me. It is pity. --Corruptresearcher 03:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Warned. Earlier reversion was not nearly so frequent, and no previous warning issued, so I'll refrain from blocking this time.  Alai 15:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

User:216.248.124.126
Three revert rule violation on. :

Reported by: KimvdLinde 06:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
 * 1st revert: 1:11
 * 2nd revert: 1:26
 * 3rd revert: 1:30
 * 4th revert: 1:32
 * 5th revert: 1:38
 * 6th revert: 1:41
 * 6th revert: 1:49

Comments:

Already done. Warned, ignored, blocked. Gamaliel 06:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

User:155.232.250.19
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:15 30 Jan 06
 * 1st revert: 08:35
 * 2nd revert: 10:58
 * 3rd revert: 11:12
 * 4th revert: 11:19

Reported by: Localzuk (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * The user refuses to add a reference for the changes they are making. Also, it appears they are coming in from many different IP addresses, such as: 155.232.250.19, 155.232.250.51 (close to 3rr on its own) and 155.232.250.35 (talk page only)
 * Please report violations using diffs, not version links. Also, easy on the bold, please.  Seems to be currently short-term blocked, as it's a shared IP.  I'll warn them if they edit that article again today, they'll be re-blocked.  Alai 14:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, messed up on the diff front. Also what do you mean by 'easy on the bold'? -Localzuk (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No prob, just for reference next time. Your original comment was entirely in bold.  I've looked back in on the page, no resumed reverting, just yet at any rate.  Alai 00:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I must have forgot to close the speech marks or something. Odd. -Localzuk (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Roitr
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:15, 1 February 2006
 * 1st revert: 18:11, 2 February 2006
 * 2nd revert: 23:08, 2 February 2006
 * 3rd revert: 04:47, 3 February 2006
 * 4th revert: 14:16, 3 February 2006
 * 5th revert: 14:34, 3 February 2006

Reported by: --Latinus (talk (el:)) 14:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Roitr is a probable sockpuppet of and  who are already blocked for 3RRvios. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 14:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24h. If the sockpuppet evidence is circumstantially compelling, or if you have this confirmed by a checkuser request, entirely willing to lengthen.  Alai 15:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I had put in for a checkuser request for Roitr and Tt1. Result was inconclusive. See Requests for CheckUser/Archive/January 2006.  howch e  ng   {chat} 17:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Basil Rathbone
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:46 3 February 2006
 * 1st revert: 10:55 3 February 2006
 * 2nd revert: 11:04 3 February 2006
 * 3rd revert: 11:22 3 February 2006
 * 4th revert: 11:27 3 February 2006
 * 5th revert: 11:39 3 February 2006
 * 6th revert: 11:50 3 February 2006
 * 7th revert: 12:01 3 February 2006

Reported by: Vidkun 17:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * THIS IS OUTRIGHT DECEPTION THE ABOVE EDITS ARE NOT IDENTICAL AT ALL AND THEIRFORE DO NOT VIOLATE 3RR RULES. ALSO THE EDITORS LISTED BELOW CONTINUOUSLY COMBINE THEIR EDITS TO CIRCUMVENT THE 3RR RULES BY DELETING ANY AND ALL EDITS BY NON-MASONIC EDITORS. THIS IS EXTREMELY UNFAIR AND UNJUST.Basil Rathbone 13:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Rathbone is using misleading edit summaries to avoid pointing out changes, did multiple vandalizations
 * 04:59 6 December 2005
 * 05:02 6 December 2005

Blocked for 24h, though not necessarily for the diffs you gave (which are against the current version... (err, I may be wrong about that...)) William M. Connolley 17:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC).


 * Corrected the links, my bad.--Vidkun 19:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The reasons for the reversions were explained multiple times - the edits were not within the scope of the article or were unverifiable information, and his edits also included a copvio both in pictures and text. A lengthy discussion also came to naught, as Basil is more interested in pushing his POV than sticking to verifiable fact. MSJapan 21:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Appleby
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 06:12, 1 February 2006
 * 1st revert: 17:35, 3 February 2006
 * 2nd revert: 17:48, 3 February 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:03, 3 February 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:06, 3 February 2006

Reported by: Endroit 19:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Please check the block log. Appleby just broke 3RR again after returning from his 48-hour 3RR block.--Endroit 19:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked 72 hours. Hopefully he'll get the message -- alhtough I'd be remiss if I didn't warn Endroit and Nlu that nobody should be edit warring, really. Perhaps when this expires the apge should be protected to encourage some discussion instead of edit warring. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 19:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Ardenn
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:18, 2 February 2006
 * 1st revert: 18:06, 3 February 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:10, 3 February 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:36, 3 February 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:07, 3 February 2006

Reported by: Monicasdude 19:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments: 4 reverts in barely an hour (unexplained deletions of pertinent links from articles) that appear to be no more than random vandalism. Uses misleading edit summaries (e.g, marks deletions as minor and describes restoration of links as vandalism. Similar activities on other articles. Monicasdude 19:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, there it takes two to tango. Good job tricking an excitible user into exceeding the 3rr by reinserting links like, and following him around the encyclopedia! You win! Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Random deletion of pertinent links from an article, without explanation, is vandalism. Are you really saying that the vandal's excitability somehow excuses the vandalism, or should prevent its rectification? There was no rhyme or reason to these deletions; and the links in question were originally inserted by different editors.  Maybe one of the deleted links was dubious, but the others were clearly pertinent. And more dubious links were left it, including one to a site that's little more than a more attractively formatted mirror of the Wikipedia article . This user is a vandal, no more, and shouldn't be defended in this fashion. And I think the fact that User:Ardenn is, right now, apparently running through every active AfD I've commented on lately and casting a boilerplate contrary vote should be a sufficient demonstration of bad faith, excitable editor or otherwise.  Monicasdude 20:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The first wasn't a revert, it was a cleanup of the links listed. Ardenn 19:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The good news is, neither editor has actually broken the 3RR here. (Ardenn is correct that the first "revert" was not in fact one, though "tidying up" seems to be a euphemism for "arbitrary deletion".  The bad news is, if you two keep this up, what the arbcom'll eventually do to you will make you beg to merely be blocked for 24 hours.  ("Wikistalking" seems to be sufficiently vaguely defined as to take in cases like this, and "edit warring without reference to talk pages or regard to consenus" is an old favourite.)  Please, calm it down, both of you.  Alai 22:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

User:216.248.122.218
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
 * 1st revert: 1:52
 * 2nd revert: 1:57
 * 3rd revert: 1:58
 * 4th revert: 2:26

Reported by: Valtam 19:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Had to clean up my formatting here.

Blocked for 24 hours. Babajobu 20:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Macedonian876
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:07, 2 February 2006
 * 1st revert: 19:39, 3 February 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:46, 3 February 2006
 * 3rd revert: 21:25, 3 February 2006
 * 4th revert: 21:39, 3 February 2006

Reported by: --Latinus (talk (el:)) 22:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Macedonian876 was revert warring with who has already been blocked for a 3RRvio, but the blocking admin didn't block Macedonian876. As the policy says that all parties should be treated equally, Macedonian876 should be blocked as well. I think it should be taken into consideration that Macedonian876 has probably been using sockpuppets to revert war as well (check the revision history). If this is so, it is because Macedonian876 knows of the 3RR because I informed him yesterday (check his talk page). --Latinus (talk (el:)) 22:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is currently being discussed between User:Jonathunder and myself. Jkelly 22:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The diffs make the history clear. I have blocked User:Macedonian876 for 24 hours and posted a note on his talk page. Jonathunder 22:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Alienus and User:Loxley
Three revert rule violation on.




 * Previous version reverted to: 19:42, February 3, 2006
 * 1st revert: 19:58, February 3, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:15, February 3, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 20:31, February 3, 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:47, February 3, 2006



Reported by: User:Noisy | Talk 01:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Previous version reverted to: 15:17, February 3, 2006
 * 1st revert: 15:39, February 3, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 16:09, February 3, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 16:16, February 3, 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:47, February 3, 2006

Comments:
 * I'm not going to pick sides, so I'm reporting both.
 * Thank you, concerned citizen. Me neither, so I'm blocking both for 24 hours.  Neither were explicitly warned beforehand, though one did make a comment about blocking to the other, but as this was 18 reverts each, anything less would seem a little inadequate.  If anything, I'm inclined to block for longer.  Alai 03:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Observation: one of these users has posted a lengthy reply to my blocking message, largely a complaint about the other;  the other has a talk page restructured around the fact that half of it's related to his dispute with the first.  I think this one could run and run.  I'd encourage informed editors to try to moderate the effects of this dispute, if possible (as well as on an admin-enforcement basis).  Alai 16:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

User:-Inanna-/User:81.213.100.24
Three revert rule violation on by.


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:55, 2 February 2006


 * 1st revert 21:32, 3 February 2006 (-Inanna-)


 * 2nd revert: 22:53, 3 February 2006 (-Inanna-)


 * 3rd revert: 23:12, 3 February 2006 (85.99.156.235)


 * 4th revert: 01:46, 4 February 2006 (81.213.100.24 - sockpuppet - proof: this edit)


 * 5th revert: 02:02, 4 February 2006 (81.213.100.24 - sockpuppet)


 * 6th revert: 02:11, 4 February 2006 (-Inanna-)

Reported by: Khoikhoi 04:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

The last time this user was blocked it was for 2 days, so I suggest making it longer this time. I also request that an admin watch this page after this, because Inanna is known to use sockpuppets to evade blocks for violating the 3RR. --Khoikhoi 20:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours, without prejudice to anyone reviewing this for aggrevating circumstances if they want to make it longer (or hey, shorter...). Will absolutely re-block for longer if any further sockpuppetry or anonpuppetry occurs.  Right now though, I have to sleeeeep.  BTW, the IPs in your report are a little inconsistent, but the gist seems clear (they're the same ISP, though I assume from the ranges it's a large one).  Alai 05:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I fixed the IP names. --Khoikhoi 05:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Serinity
Three revert rule violation on by :


 * 1st revert: ,diff with last


 * 2nd revert:, diff with last


 * 3rd revert:, diff with last.


 * 4th revert:, diff with last


 * 5th revert:, diff with last

Note: As can be seen from the above links, this user reverted to an old version, sometimes making cosmetic changes (for example, he reverted and changed the pixel size on an image in edit number 2. In edit number 4, he reverted, and followed it up by replacing one entry in his list by another).

Also: I note that user lied in their edit summary. This edit, which was described as "rearranging sections. Putting up POV." contained wholesale deletions of much of the article.

Also: 152.163.100.10 has been reverting to the same pages. Both began doing this almost simultaneously. Should be checked for sockpuppetry.

Reported by:Pierremenard 06:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Update: Oh crap....I'm sorry to say that I just violated the 3RR rule myself in reverting above-mentioned user's edits. I've been waiting until 24 hrs passes since my first edit so that I can revert the unencyclopedic material added (user added stuff from the wikipedia talk page to the article), but my watch was off by 3 mins. --Pierremenard 08:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh dear... I'm going to warn both of you and suggest that you take it to the talk page before either of you edit again (that would be the smart thing i think). Remember: edit wars are bad. Sasquatcht|c 09:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Pierremenard should be blocked entirely. In the brief time that he has been a registered user, he has gone around vandalizing the contributions of many other users. Just take a look at his editing history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.110.255 (talk • contribs)
 * Not much of a vandal to me. In fact, seems to be a bit helpful  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) 11:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'll also notein my defense that two other editors, including an admin, expressed the opinion that my fourth revert was undoing vandalism. --Pierremenard 19:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Space Cadet
Three revert rule violation on by


 * 1st Revert: Revision as of 21:00, February 3, 2006


 * 2nd Revert: Revision as of 23:06, February 3, 2006


 * 3rd Revert: Revision as of 01:10, February 4, 2006


 * 4th Revert: Revision as of 09:04, February 4, 2006

Reported by: Calgacus 09:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I screwed up, but let me redo it. Space Cadet 09:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicolaus_Copernicus&diff=38125823&oldid=38123351 Space Cadet 09:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * heh, nice to see users solving their own problems for a change. Kudos to Space Cadet :-D no block nessacery Sasquatcht|c 09:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would disagree. Because a user simply self-reverts when reported here for violating the 3RR, he or she should not go completely unpunished and be able to continue reverting elsewhere (which Space Cadet did ). The fact that Space Cadet apparently loves revert warring and was blocked twice for violating 3RR before should not decrease the sin, either. Sciurinæ 02:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocking is not supposed to be a punishment. It is supposed to prevent disruption and damage to the encyclopedia. This user has decided to stop edit warring so does not need to be blocked. -Localzuk (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocking is supposed to discourage destructive revert warring, which he permanently did, does and is going to do with this legal position. I'm not aware of the holy forth revert, a self-revert, that forgives the sin, but if it really exists, I'll make use of it in the same way the moment I should ever be reported in the future. If we were equal before the law, I would necessarily have to be treated equally. What's become of the three-revert-rule as "electric fence"? As you can see, Space Cadet was reported again. Having seen Space Cadet go unpunished before months ago, is it the third times he enjoys this impunity? Sciurinæ 19:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Space Cadet does appear to be a revert warrior. He makes easy use of reverts, and rarely explains himself, and so his reverting is highly unproductive. However, he does normally make an effort to avoid slipping up and going over the maximum three reverts. His fifth revert above hardly merited Kudos (unless monitoring this page and trying to avoid a block merits such Kudos), because he resumed reverting after the 24hr period. I reported him again (below), but here he thought he had avoided it because, as he understands it, reverts to the same page can only be counted cumulitavely if they're exactly the same. I'm sure if his understanding was different, he would not have done it again so soon afterwards. - Calgacus 20:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

User:HeadleyDown
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert: 13:23, 3 February 2006
 * 2nd revert: 17:36, 3 February 2006
 * 3rd revert: 06:22, 4 February 2006
 * 4th revert: 06:48, 4 February 2006
 * 5th revert: 09:01, 4 February 2006

Reported by: Metta Bubble 10:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Is 67.184.14.210 also you, Metta Bubble? KillerChihuahua?!? 10:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Has been blocked for 24h for WP:NPA just now by JzG, anyway William M. Connolley 12:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC).

User:216.248.124.210
Three revert rule violation on. :

Quite obvious, more than 4 reverts, all with the same edit comment "Pool 3 (Vote For Just One Cartoon without the Image of Mohammed)", see contribs. Appears to have been blocked before under a different IP.

Reported by: Eloquence* 11:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 1h as a first offence... errrm... which different IP? William M. Connolley 12:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC).

User:Mike18xx
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:49, 4 February 2006
 * 1st revert: 11:04, 4 February 2006
 * 2nd revert: 12:59, 4 February 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:13, 4 February 2006
 * 4th revert: 21:18, 4 February 2006

Reported by: Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * I warned him about 3RR on his Talk page at 20:45 4 February 2006. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 2006-02-05 06:43:06 FeloniousMonk blocked "Mike18xx (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (24 for 3RR at People of the Book and Protest Warrior, additional 24 for personal attacks in edit summaries William M. Connolley 16:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Eggster and User:151.201.32.118
Three revert rule violation on and. and :


 * (NiMUD) Previous version reverted to: 14:57, 3 February 2006
 * 1st revert: 14:15, 4 February 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:41, 4 February 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:55, 4 February 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:58, 4 February 2006


 * (Online Creation) Previous version reverted to: 15:03, 3 February 2006
 * 1st revert: 14:12, 4 February 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:39, 4 February 2006
 * 3rd revert: 20:05, 4 February 2006
 * 4th revert: 21:16, 4 February 2006
 * 5th revert: 10:18, 5 February 2006

Reported by: Atari2600tim 01:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC) (and updated to include Online creation later --Atari2600tim 08:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

Comments:
 * I noticed that Eggster was reverting things without discussing them and referred to the earlier version as vandalism, while a simple glance will see that it's not. Reasons in favor of the 15:23 3 Feb 2006 version of the article last contributed by Thoric are written on the talk page by Thoric and myself, none of which have been addressed by Eggster.  Reverted info is in regard to Locke/Eggster writing false claims about his own software and removing links to usenet articles on Google Groups (added by Thoric) that disprove his claims.    Also his software is not public domain, but is worded in such a way as to imply so.  One of his edits acknowledges that it is not public domain, yet he still changed it to say public domain.
 * Oops, the public domain thing was in regards to his reverts on Online creation. The rest still stands.Atari2600tim 01:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I just noticed that he did 4 reverts on Online creation as well, so I'll just tack that on here I guess.
 * Don't expect us to do content. As to the substance: if you think that Eggster and 151.201.32.118 are the same, please present some evidence. Oh, and please warn them on their talk pages. William M. Connolley 16:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC).
 * I know not to ask about you doing content, that was just an example of something that was getting messed up repeatedly for no apparent reason and isn't very relevant to this 3RR report. As far as I can tell, Eggster hasn't claimed to be the IP, but the IP has claimed to be Eggster.  67.165.85.111 also seems to be the same person because all that one ever did was revert... but I didn't list that because it didn't contribute to the 3RR violation since it was another day.  I think the last one is in violation of the no personal attacks policy, but oh well.
 * Since there's not a post from Eggster saying "oh, that was me" (I didn't even think to ask... what kind of evidence do other people use? I don't think anybody would admit to it), here are why it's pretty clear that they're the same person:
 * Here the IP refers to himself as Eggster. Eggster has edited other stuff and most likely would have looked at the talk page and seen someone else impersonating him and yelled at them if it wasn't him.
 * Sorry to be picky, but that just says "Locke via eggster"; which could be interpreted in several ways, including being some text from a chap called Locke passed to the anon by eggster. Which implies communication, but not ness the same person. William M. Connolley 20:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC).
 * That one edit on it's own looks like the anon is correcting a quote that Eggster posted which he got from Locke (as if Locke e-mailed Eggster, and then Eggster posted it verbatim, and then the anon wanted to point out that it was just a copy and paste and not Eggster's words); click previous edit twice and see that the anon is also the person who posted the quote to begin with though. For this interpretation to work, the message would have gone through Locke-->Eggster-->Anon-->Anon posting it to Wikipedia on their behalf, which is unlikely since Eggster has been active on Wikipedia lately, and Locke was active on Wikipedia in the past and is familiar with how to add discussion himself if he wants to. --Atari2600tim 01:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The reverts that were pointed out in this report thing have similar edit summaries (the IP and Eggster both feel that me not talking to Locke is evidence that his side is right), and are essentially both writing similar additions, which are promotion of his software. They're also reverting the same content without discussion, obviously, which is why this was posted here in the first place.
 * In the edit history it has 151.201.32.118 responding to edit summaries that I addressed to Eggster; On Feb 2 I put at 00:29 "(Eggster, please contact Locke and ask him about what he has posted. He disagrees with you.)", he reverted to his version at 08:02 and put "(rv Email him yourself at heg@andrew.cmu.edu)" and at the same time removed the links to Locke's usenet posts which showed the opposite of what he wants to claim. In my summary, I said for Eggster to ask Locke for details because allegedly Eggster is just someone who talks to Locke, and Locke has allegedly stopped going to Wikipedia (presumably to take advantage of the not biting newbies policy).
 * Sorry about not putting warnings on his talk pages, I warned him last year when he was doing it with other names and am sure he is aware of it (why else would he have logged off before doing the later reverts?). I'll post some warnings on his pages right now.  I guess I'll be seeing you again next week when he has some new names, I'll post warnings on all of 'em first I guess ;)
 * --Atari2600tim 18:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, please put warnings on the talk pages of Eggster (done, but sign it) *and* the anon. Since this is a first offence, he'd probably get a warning anyway. alwys worth remembering at the 2nd revert :-) William M. Connolley 20:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC).
 * As this edit shows, yes, he was already aware of the rule ahead of time. It seems to me that he should be held accountable. --Atari2600tim 14:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add that this is certainly not the first time Eggster has repeatedly reverted this article on this point. I have provided him with numerous pieces of solid, clear evidence to the "official public release" date of the software in question, which he continues to ignore in favor of his own fragmented anecdotal claims.  --Thoric 00:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

User:85.101.15.247
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:54, 5 February 2006
 * 1st revert: 03:53, 5 February 2006
 * 2nd revert: 03:53, 5 February 2006
 * 3rd revert: 03:49, 5 February 2006
 * 4th revert: 03:48, 5 February 2006

Reported by: Eixo 02:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Etc. Please stop him now.
 * 2006-02-05 02:55:22 Brendanconway blocked "85.101.15.247 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Continupus vandalism despite warning)

User:Light current
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:29, 5 February 2006
 * 1st revert: 22:40, 5 February 2006
 * 2nd revert: 23:28, 5 February 2006
 * 3rd revert: 23:43, 5 February 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:46, 5 February 2006
 * 5th revert: 23:51, 5 February 2006

Reported by: Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * His attempts to reverse longstanding and fundamental policy have been reverted by four separate editors (and counting). After making 3 simple reverts, started gaming the system by making complex and sometimes nonsense reverts.  Has been warned about reverting and complex reverting, but continues to revert. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  05:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Space Cadet (2)
Three revert rule violation on by


 * 1st Revert: Revision as of 23:24, February 5, 2006


 * 2nd Revert: Revision as of 23:32, February 5, 2006


 * 3rd Revert: Revision as of 01:55, February 6, 2006


 * 4th Revert: Revision as of 03:17, February 6, 2006 - revert of this

Reported by: Calgacus 03:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So the fourth revert is completely different, so where is the violation? Space Cadet 03:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Reverting... means undoing the actions of another editor", but I'm not a 3RR interpretational lawyer. I'm just reporting and I'll leave it to others to judge. - Calgacus 03:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked. If you're going to be a Revert Warrior you need to learn the rules William M. Connolley 20:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC).

User:68.214.59.196
Three revert rule violation on by :


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:

Reported by: Pierremenard 04:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has undone changes by other users at least nine times in the last four hours.
 * I have been making new edits and improvements to an article being POV'ed by this complainer. --68.214.59.196 05:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Would get a warning, but for comment above, and edit comments claiming familiarity with brocedure. William M. Connolley 19:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC).

User:Ricanboy718
Three revert rule violation on by :


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Reported by: Noah 06:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * We have requested he stop reverting the link descriptions to be bolded. He refuses. Thank you kindly for your help.
 * Blocked for 24 hrs.  howch e  ng   {chat} 07:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Ch'marr User:220.225.32.229 User:193.63.43.5 User:Ass12345
Three revert rule violation on. but the problem is really the vandalism that is being reverted:

See Reported by: User:AlMac|(talk) 10:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Previous version reverted many times:

Comments:
 * If User:AlMac|(talk) reading the history correctly
 * Ch'marr is reverting to an earlier version in which some text has been lost, that was valid, but can be cleaned up later.
 * 220.225.32.229 had done mass deletion of stuff that I think belongs in the article
 * then 193.63.43.5 made a series of vandalism edits which Ch'mar reverted, then 193.63.43.5 made more input, of which the vast majority was vandalism, which Ch'mar reverted, and this continued 4 more times
 * User:193.63.43.5 had done a series of vandalism, in need of reverting, such as this, , , , ,
 * This edit is not vandalism but rather a shift in the appearance and content of the article, in which some of the content has validity, but some is a dramatic change that ought to be ironed out on the ERP talk page.
 * Honstly, I missed that edit. Personally, I wasn't going to pick through the vandal's edits to see if he 'hid' something legitimate in there :) However, it's not legitimate; it's a cut paste from this web page: . -- Ch&#39;marr 18:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Colour me stupid, that segment is actually a copy of the very same page (whether or not the 'planware' page is a copy of wikipedia or the other way around, I don't know). However, if you look at the diff, you'll see  [edit]  marks scattered around; the vandal just cut-pasted the display content into the edit. I don't think that's legitimate 'shift-in-appearance' :) -- Ch&#39;marr 17:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * then Ass12345 got into the act, and now Ch'marr reverted both of them 5 more times before
 * Where 193.63.43.5 had changed one section to "it sucks", Ass12345 changed next section to say it also does
 * User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me got into the act and so far has only done 2 reverts, then
 * User:Shanes done one revert.
 * It is clear to me that 193.63.43.5 needs to be blocked, and many of us need education reminder on how to go about reporting incidents where persistent vandals are causing trouble.
 * User:AlMac|(talk) 10:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I wanted to make sure User:193.63.43.5 and User:Ass12345 had a chance to read the test2, 3 and 4 warnings before reporting them on WP:AIAV... makes for a lot of vandalism and reverts for two users, though. If I can handle the situation better next time, please drop me a note! (PS: Oo! I made a Admin Noticeboard page!! :) ) -- Ch&#39;marr 17:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

193.63.43.5 has been blocked as has Ass12345  and I don't see what Ch'marr has done wrong, he was reverting vandalism. It would have been a good idea for him to point out that he was, though :-) William M. Connolley 22:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC).
 * Yes :) Perhaps that javascript needs a 'revert vandalism' option, rather than just 'revert' :) -- Ch&#39;marr 23:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Mel Etitis
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * More reverts: ,

Reported by: -James Howard (talk/web) 13:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User has repeatedly readded linkspam list under guise of "Examples" despite fact he has been told established policy at External links names this behavior as clearly inappropriate. Additionally, user has |vandalized page removing new information to revert and re-add spamlist. User has stated, ad nauseum, list is necessary to understand article.  I challenged assertion by stating if that were true, they could be turned into genuine references.  User in question then, repeatedly over several months, deletes request for citations and re-adds spamlist. -James Howard (talk/web) 13:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't mislead admins and don't bully valuable editors too. Posting here is not the proper way to promote your agenda. --Ghirla | talk 13:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This does not seem to be a 3RR violation from what I can see, rather a content dispute. This should be raised as a WP:WFC from what I can see. -Localzuk (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, content disputes are what usually lead to 3RR violations. But in this case, there was no 3RR violations; the reverts didn't happen within a 24-hour span.  --Nlu (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You should use the talk page to discuss your difference of opinion with Mel Etitis instead of using the edit summary to accuse him of vandalism when the dispute is clearly a legitimate content dispute. Gamaliel 17:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Skull 'n' Femurs
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:21 EST, 6 February 2006
 * 1st revert: 09:28 EST, 6 February 2006
 * 2nd revert: 10:02 EST, 6 February 2006
 * 3rd revert: 10:34 EST, 6 February 2006
 * 4th revert: 10:43 EST, 6 February 2006

Reported by: Vidkun 15:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * This user may also be using multiple accounts to hide edits and revisions, based on the following archived user pages for Blue Square and Skull 'n' Femurs
 * In addition, the edit of 10:43 used a misleading edit summary to revert to debated point of the last line of the Forget Me Not article, not simply an edit to the Organization Structure section

2006-02-06 21:01:25 Banes blocked "Skull 'n' Femurs (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (personal attacks, edit warring, and pov issues) William M. Connolley 22:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

User:-Inanna-
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: [ 23:53, February 6, 2006 Altau]
 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AAltau&diff=38548221&oldid=38547498 01:19, February 7, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 01:28, February 7, 2006 -Inanna- (feeble begger)
 * 3rd revert: 01:31, February 7, 2006 -Inanna-

Reported by: &mdash;WAvegetarian TALKCONTRIBSEMAIL 01:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * That would appear to be three reverts (I conclude, on the basis that you're provided three diffs (which are something of a mess, btw). If this is improper tag-removal, you have the wrong page;  if you're looking for confirmation of sockpuppetry, then determine if you have a basis for a request for checkuser, i.e. is there suspicion of contra-policy use of socks.  Alai 03:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It does look like 3. But bearing in mind the suspicions of sockpuppetry and previous blocks, I blocked Inanna for incivility for . Let me know if I've gone overboard. William M. Connolley 17:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Molobo
Three revert rule violation on by


 * 1st Revert: Revision as of 01:53, February 7, 2006


 * 2nd Revert: Revision as of 02:02, February 7, 2006


 * 3rd Revert: Revision as of 02:18, February 7, 2006

Reported by Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC).
 * 4th Revert: Revision as of 02:26, February 7, 2006

Not really, the last edit you pointed out(4th) is entering new information about different states that had control over the city and doesn't revert your changes.Only the first three were reverts of your claims. --Molobo 02:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Quick! Your "new information" had already been removed as POV, and you restored it. I'm sure you've slipped up this time, but as I have no power over such things, I have to leave it to be judged by others. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) [[Image:UW_Logo-secondary.gif|15px]] 03:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please calm yourself-I don't know what you are talking about. The information on time as Free City is still there-just go on to talk on the page. --Molobo 03:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like three reverts to me, though since they were in just over half an hour, I'm tempted to say "but watched this space". Please take the other commentary elsewhere.  Alai 03:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the second revert is a plain revert. The third is another revert plus the installation of new text, and the fourth is the reinstallation of that text (which has been removed as POV). The first revision looked like it could be an effective revision of this, but that is of course open to question. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) [[Image:UW_Logo-secondary.gif|15px]] 03:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with your analysis of #2, #3 and #4; thus, three reverts.  Alai 03:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Your lenient attitute towards rabid revert warriors is deplorable. Take care, Ghirla | talk 09:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Basil Rathbone
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 23:35, 6 February 2006 UTC
 * 1st revert: Revision as of 04:42, 7 February 2006 UTC
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 04:56, 7 February 2006 UTC
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 05:24, 7 February 2006 UTC
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 05:27, 7 February 2006 UTC
 * 5th revert: Revision as of 05:57, 7 February 2006 UTC
 * 6th revert: Revision as of 11:12, 7 February 2006 UTC
 * 7th revert: Revision as of 11:14, 7 February 2006 UTC

Reported by: Vidkun 17:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Yet another revert war by Basil, immediately in the wake of a revert war, personal attack campaign, and vandalism in regards to the Forget Me Not issue. I personally left the forget me not section alone until the person who kept putting it IN stopped, as I was attempting to put in a counterpoint regarding the validity of the claims about the forget me not.  However, neither party (User: Basil Rathbone and User:Skull 'n' Femurs, wish to deal with consensus on talk pages.  There are two POVs regarding the forget me not claims, and both should be shown, IMO--Vidkun 17:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems to be at least 4RR, hence blocked again William M. Connolley 17:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC).

User:TripleH1976
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:36, 7 February 2006 (comment: None of us knew Jacob Robida enough to say he was fascinated or obsessed with nazi imagery. I thought this encylopedia was suppose to be neutral.)
 * 1st revert: 18:26, 7 February 2006 (this one is a likely anon revert) (comment: Remove NPOV)
 * 2nd revert: 22:50, 7 February 2006 (comment: Did Jacob himself tell you he was obsessed with nazi imagery? If the answer is no, then you don't know his true feelings concerning the topic.)
 * 3rd revert: 23:01, 7 February 2006 (comment: removing image. Upon closer inspection I've realized this photo if a fake. The nazi images were inserted into it. Some low life has a lot of free time)
 * 4th revert: 23:14, 7 February 2006 (comment: removing it, because we dont know how this picture was obtained.)
 * 5th revert: 23:28, 7 February 2006 (comment: removing due to the fact that it comes from a queer-apologist site. Even in death Jacob should not be besmirched.)
 * 6th revert: 23:35, 7 February 2006 (comment: Do you honestly think a queer-apologist website is going to release something objective about him?)
 * 7th revert: 23:52, 7 February 2006 (comment: removing image. Not enough is known about it's authenticity. This is not vandalism.)

Reported by: NTK 23:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * See Talk:Jacob D. Robida also. NTK 23:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Also tried discussing it with TripleH1976 via talk page of article and his talk page, continues reverting, looking at his contribs history, seems to pay no attention to 3RR rule SirFozzie 00:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours.  howch e  ng   {chat} 00:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Leyasu
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
 * 1st revert: 02:35, 7 February 2006
 * 2nd revert: 03:35, 7 February 2006
 * 3rd revert: 03:46, 7 February 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:35, 7 February 2006
 * 5th revert:23:47, 7 February 2006

Reported by: Danteferno 00:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Revert war over band's genre, however this revert war has gone on for days with the same editor in subject.


 * I went ahead and blocked him for 24 hours, as he has violated 3RR before and that is currently mentioned in the evidence for his arbcom case (Requests for arbitration/Leyasu). He violated 3RR again on the same page today.  I'm an admin, and he requested that I block him, but I'm not sure that I can do that since I'm also a party in the case.  Though since he requested it, I went ahead with that.  (I've asked about this at Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule just so that I'll know.) --Idont Havaname (Talk) 05:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

/
It looks to me that an anonymous user ( / ) has repeatedly reverted the Stony Brook University page to a version that contained a link that he favored, and then, once he ran out of reverts, logged into an AOL account to continue reverting. Due to my involvement in the reversion, I ask that sombody take a look at this to evaluate the situation. – ClockworkSoul 02:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 17:41, 7 February 2006 152.163.101.13 (edits)
 * 15:23, 7 February 2006 152.163.101.13 (details)
 * 14:09, 7 February 2006 69.86.130.215 (citation)
 * 00:48, 7 February 2006 69.86.130.215 (redid boosterism)


 * Appears to have continued as, which is AOL; but since you have sprotected the page, I assume there is little point in blocking the original IP? Incidentally, 152 and 205 both seem to have edited a pearl-harbour type page which might prove their identity. William M. Connolley 19:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC).


 * No point in blocking the 152 and 205 IP's as they are certainly AOL, 69.86.130.215 is not AOL but only has 2 reverts, but if hes the same user as the AOL one, block for a 3rr. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 23:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)