Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive17

User:RichardMalter
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:, but keeps making additions to it in between as well.
 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bi-Digital_O-Ring_Test&diff=53824587&oldid=53823322
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bi-Digital_O-Ring_Test&diff=53825360&oldid=53824794
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bi-Digital_O-Ring_Test&diff=53825739&oldid=53825436
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bi-Digital_O-Ring_Test&diff=53826893&oldid=53826352

Reported by: Philosophus T 08:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As an update to this we now have: For the category reversion, I also did not notice this one: --Philosophus T 16:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Comments:
 * 5th revert:
 * 0th revert:

I unfortunately was not able to warn this user in time, but as he kept telling me to read Wikipedia's policies, I thought he had read them. The user keeps removing any pseudoscience/quackery category, and also the assertion that the "diagnostic" has not been published in any reputable peer-reviewed journal. All other editors on the talk page seem to be in agreement with the rationale behind these additions. --Philosophus T 08:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Philosophus, we need to see the diffs showing his four reverts. If you put them up, I'll take a look. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, I copied the wrong links! I've fixed that now. --Philosophus T 09:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Philosophus. I'm going to warn him because I see he didn't revert again after your warning, and there's no indication he was made aware of the 3RR rule. We tend to give new users one warning before blocking. I see this is the only article he's edited, so I'll keep an eye on him in case he starts again, and he'll be blocked next time. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This user has now reverted again, and has responded to the warnings on his talk page. I also notice that I forgot one of the earlier reversions from the last 24 hours. --Philosophus T 16:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Ptmccain 3
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 11:51 May 17
 * 16:26 May 17
 * 21:26 May 17
 * 05:38 May 18
 * 06:53 May 18
 * 07:04, May 18

Reported by SlimVirgin (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Ptmccain has been revert warring over the intro for a couple of weeks, trying to delete, move, rewrite, or bury two sentences about the Nazi's use of Luther's writings about Jews. He has violated 3RR several times at this article, and has been blocked for it twice. The six reverts above are not to the same version of the intro, but he is reverting any changes that other editors make (even when correcting his errors, like repeating sentences twice), and will only allow his own version(s) to stand. The reverting is accompanied by personal attacks, calling other editors "duplicitous,"   "shameful and dishonest,"  "obnoxious,"  accusing someone of vandalism, and demanding that editors "state [their] qualifications." SlimVirgin (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Has been blocked twice before in the last eight days. With six reverts, there's no possibility of an accident. 48 hours. AnnH ♫ 12:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ann. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Saladin1970 also editing as User:62.129.121.63
Three revert rule violation on. aka :

Version reverted to: 06:41 May 18
 * 1st revert 10:06 May 18
 * 2nd revert 10:41 May 18
 * 3rd revert 11:14 May 18
 * 4th revert 11:35 May 18
 * 5th revert 11:57 May 18

Reported by SlimVirgin (talk) 11:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Four straightforward reverts within 90 minutes to the same version. I have no evidence that Saladin1970 is 62.129.121.63 but it seems highly likely, and that IP has turned up before on this page to revert to Saladin1970's versions. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * He's just reverted for a fifth time, so I've added that diff above. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've blocked both for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison Talk 12:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tom. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was hesitating, but I think Tom is right. I've seen this happen before at Christianity where IPs would suddenly turn up to help out a registered user who had run out of reverts. AnnH ♫ 13:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Saladin1970 emailed me saying he didn't do it. I invite anyone to review and act as they think best. Tom Harrison Talk 13:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How about unblocking Saladin, and leaving the IP blocked? If Saladin is not that IP, he'll be able to edit again, and if he is, he won't. AnnH ♫ 13:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea, Ann. In the meantime, I'll request a check user, because the same IP has turned up there before, so we may as well get it sorted out for the future. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 13:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, good idea. I've unblocked Saladin pending checkuser. Tom Harrison Talk 13:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * CheckUser confirms that this is the same editor. He's been playing a fair bit of pretending to be different people by logging in and then not logging in, and I see no useful edits whatsoever; it's all unsourced POV, copyright violations, and only partly comprehensible attacks on the Talk: pages. I'm blocking permanently. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking it out, Jay. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 16:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

just for the record. this is my first ban ever and here are the response to the allegations 1) unsourced pov. There has only been one possible unsourced POV (non reliable source), everything else has been sourced. Granted with two references, i used another wiki page, and a home page as a source. I was never warned that these are inadmissible. Is this justification for a permenant ban

2) copyright violations. This turns out to be a false charge. There has only be one citation by jaygy for copyright violations and this turns out to fufil every criteria listed on wikipedia for fair use.

3)attacks on the talk pages. There has only been only one possible example of personal attacks. This was when i stated that jayg was following me around and this is what you expect from a zionist. Hardly ranks in the hall of fame of personal attacks, and one has to question if this remotely comes near justification for an indefinate ban, or ban at all.

4) sock puppet. As i explained earlier, shared computer, same ip, same session on the internet explorer. But that aside there was only one single instance of this alledgedly being used to violate wikipedia rules. Where on one occasion . Note one occasion only in the entire history of my wikipedia usage a page was reverted more than 3 times.

given any fair, and clear policy by wikipedia, an inpartial adminstrator would question a ban at all, let alone an indefinate ban.

Also I would like to question the predjudice of many of the administrators who have commented on this case (see the wiki email section). I post under the name of saladin. My email is abuhamza1970@hotmail.com. During the last 5 days I have been accused of being an al qaida sympathiser, of not sharing the views of civilised society, sympathise with 911, and am a general threat to wikipedia, all because my email is abu hamza, and i have made contributions to the 'zionist' page and reverted changes to the harold shipman page, amongst many other contributions. All of which fall within the remit of wikipedia rules and NPOV (see major, minor view, proportinality etc).

My experience over the last 3 days has been a real eye opener, and i have been exposed to the most horrendous predjudice, accusations ranging from al qaida operative to 911 sympathiser to anti semetic, etc, etc. And these are from the administrators (slim virgin jaygy, philip welch). This hardly gives me or my community a fuzzy warm feeling that Wikipedia is an open community based project that seeks to include others outside of the anglo american community. If my experience is anything to go by, then it does not bode well for my community or other non anglo american, judaic communities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.129.121.62 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 22 May 2006

User:Wangoed and User:Zagozagozago Result: 4h each
Three revert rule violation on. and :


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:00, May 18, 2006
 * 1st revert: 07:04, May 18, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 09:33, May 18, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 09:55, May 18, 2006
 * 4th revert: 10:10, May 18, 2006

Reported by: Jtrost (T | C | #) 16:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Reverts were made to the first paragraph under Chart Performance. Both authors made other, minor changes throughout the article, but the cause of conflict is this first paragraph. Jtrost (T | C | #) 16:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I left messages for this other fellow telling him to keep it to the discussion page (where I started a sub-heading for the point in question) and on his user page, linked all sources, etc. This worked & the editing from both sides stopped, but thanks for your vigilance where the rules are concerned. Wangoed 16:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Both blocked for 4 hours, first offense. Stifle (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

User:24.145.184.199
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:46, 18 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 01:39, 18 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 12:17, 18 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 12:24, 18 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 12:29, 18 May 2006
 * 5th revert: 13:35, 18 May 2006

Reported by: Stbalbach 17:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User was previously blocked from editing for 24hrs yesterday for edit warring at Inquisition. -- Stbalbach 17:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy you know? 18:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Reddi
Violation of arbcomm 1/7RR parole on. :


 * First revert:
 * Second revert
 * Third revert

Note: all 3 are labelled, correctly, as reverts. Reddi is limited to 1R per week, and is aware of this - see his talk page William M. Connolley 19:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's strange, normally WMC is enforcing this page, not reporting, and he didn't even format it correctly! (24h) Stifle (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, & thanks :-) William M. Connolley 21:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Avraham, TheActuary
Three revert rule violation on. : Three revert rule violation on. :

Comments:Might as well delete the article. The owners of the site are trying to use wikipedia as free advertising rather than an accurate historical account of what has happened there. Rather than allow balance and different points of views on events they delete any point of view different than their own. No team work. No balance. No tolerance for differences of opinion.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blisterino (talk • contribs)
 * Um... any chance of a few diffs so we can check it? Stifle (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked. B wins the prize for the worst formatted 3RR report I've ever seen. Avraham is in the clear. TA has 3 definite reverts but the first identical edit isn't a rv as far as I can see. But I'll warn him William M. Connolley 20:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello. User:Blisterino is also most probably User:Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA, User:Kentucky Janitor, and User:Just the facts maam as well as the two IP edits. Further I suspect him of registering the User:Tom Troceen ID, and he is by no means Tom Troceen, rather, he has a personal vendetta against Mr. Troceen, Mr. Penland, and Mr. Cooke for their, belated I may say, responses to his gross insenstivity, flame-baiting, race-baiting, and other POV issues on the board under discussion. The last I checked Wiki policy, vandalism reversion is not considered a violation of the 3RR. I would request that any admin please look at the history, the talk page of the article, and the talk pages of Smythe, Blisterino, and the IPs. Further, I think that registering Tom Troceen, someone elses real name, is a clear vioaltion of wiki principles and should be sanctioned. He is engaging in sock puppetry to smear his POV over a heretofore respectible article, and measures should be taken to prevent that. -- Avi 20:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no user Tom Troceen . Stifle (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It was a typo. Check the edit history: he meant User:Tom troceen William M. Connolley 22:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have started the sock puppetry issue here: Suspected sock puppets/Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA -- Avi 21:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

User:MetaStar
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
 * 1st revert: 10:53, 18 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 23:26, 17 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 23:25, 17 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:24, 17 May 2006

Reported by: Exvicious 21:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Can't verify this because firstly the original version was not filled in, and secondly, you have provided oldids and not diffs. Please read carefully the correct format and try again. Stifle (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Commodore Sloat (result:24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:05, 18 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 18:01, 17 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:04, 17 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 09:07, 18 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 14:33, 18 May 2006

Reported by: ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The editing is going on in Juan Cole/sandbox because Juan Cole is protected. The corresponding talk is Talk:Juan Cole. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * He's been blocked before for 3RR earlier this month, so 24h. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Hganesan and suspected socks User:169.229.65.29 User:169.229.65.30 User:169.229.65.35 (resolved elsewhere)
Three revert rule violation on. :

I'm not sure how to fill this out correctly but there has been a lot of reverting going on from this user on that article and others, and after he was banned, from some IPs that are defending his edits. All three IPs so far have been banned for varying periods...

See


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/169.229.65.29
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/169.229.65.30
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/169.229.65.35

Reported by:  + + Lar: t/c 23:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I may have been too hasty in handing out some of these blocks, I dunno (I see User:Sam Blanning gave some out too. I wasn't intending to get involved, I was just marvelling at how well written this was and wanted to see what the fuss was about and next thing you know I'd reverted one article 3 times myself trying to get it to hold still. Oops. Sorry if this is the wrong place or format.  + + Lar: t/c 23:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a dup.. see Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR above. Sorry. Feel free to delete if you want. I was told on IRC that a range block has been put in place to slow things down a bit.  +  + Lar: t/c 00:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * May as well leave it here for reference. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Zer0faults
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:52, 17 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 01:03, 18 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:01, 18 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 20:17, 18 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 22:32, 18 May 2006

Reported by: Mr. Tibbs 02:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Also a mediation request related to this here:. Went through this entire arguement a long time ago too:. -- Mr. Tibbs 02:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a first offense and he hadn't prevously been warned, but it seems that he knows edit warring is bad, even if the exact 3RR isn't known to him. 8h. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * On reflection, Mr. Tibbs broke the 3RR too by a whisker, and gets 8h as well. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:67.159.26.65
Three revert rule violation on Roger Needham. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:06, 17 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 17:19, 17 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 23:59, 18 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 00:58, 19 May 2006

Reported by: Rosicrucian 04:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Repeated and intentional vandalism of article, stated intention to continue vandalism on talkpage.


 * Thats only 3, but I've blocked the IP for incivility/vandalism anyway William M. Connolley 12:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:72.57.230.179
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:40, 17 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 02:26, 19 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 11:47, 19 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 12:02, 19 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 12:18, 19 May 2006

Reported by: Telex 12:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Anon keeps adding a trollish inflammatory userbox to the project page. People have tried to reason with him on his talk page, but he won't listen; he calls it censorship. He has been blocked for violating the 3RR before, and has also been blocked for trolling. --Telex 12:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just warned him. I will look through the diffs now... - FrancisTyers 12:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours. - FrancisTyers 12:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Deucalionite (result: 8h)
Three revert rule violation on. :

Previous version: 5 May, 17:10
 * 1st revert: 18 May, 18:05
 * 2nd revert: 18 May, 21:31
 * 3rd revert: 18 May, 22:19
 * 4th revert: 19 May, 13:35
 * 5th revert: 19 May, 13:55

Reported by: Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User insists on inserting a longish section, half based on some fringy racialist study by Carleton S. Coon, half OR, trying to push the POV of a racial connection between ancient Illyrians and Greeks. Was warned about 3RR on his talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 8h for a first offence William M. Connolley 15:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:192.197.82.153
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
 * 1st revert: 17:26, 19 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 17:29, 19 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:34, 19 May 2006
 * 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Marsden&diff=54061550&oldid=54061067
 * 5th, 6th, 7th, etc., see article history

Reported by: <b style="color:#DF0001;">Buck</b><b style="color:green;">ets</b><b style="color:grey;">ofg</b>✐ 17:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This is this users second time violating 3RR for this page; he's been blocked three times before for vandalizing this page.


 * 2006-05-19 17:50:38 Kungfuadam blocked "192.197.82.153 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (vandalism) William M. Connolley 19:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:203.144.143.9 (result: 8h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:23, 18 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 23:58, 18 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 00:36, 19 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 06:29, 19 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 22:43, 19 May 2006

Reported by: Paul C 17:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Unregistered user editing under similar IPs (User:203.144.143.9 and User:203.144.143.8 - changing biographical image to image with irrelevant subject Paul C 17:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

8h as a first offence William M. Connolley 19:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Xed (result: 48h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:27, 14 May 2006
 * 1st revert:10:01, 19 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 13:07, 19 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 13:27, 19 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 13:40, 19 May 2006

Reported by: Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User had been warned both on his personal talk page as well as the article's talk page. As you can see on his last edit summary he indicated that he was aware of the 3RR and that he was in violation of it, but chose to disregard it. He has been blocked several times before.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 48h: repeat offender, deliberate breaking of 3RR William M. Connolley 11:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

User:12.134.204.214
Previously reported and blocked as User:Hganesan (see entry on this page from a day or two ago) and numerous IPs. Almost certainly a sockpuppet, judging by writing style, pages edited and actual content of edits. Requesting a substantial block here (more than just a few hours).

Reported by: Simishag 03:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Madchester blocked "12.134.204.214 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (npov violation, despite warnings) William M. Connolley 10:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

User:72.130.21.164 (result: 3h)
Three revert rule violation on. :
 * Previous version reverted to:23:11, May 19, 2006
 * 1st revert: [18:04, May 19, 2006 72.130.21.164]
 * 2nd revert: [22:38, May 19, 2006 72.130.21.164]
 * 3rd revert: [0:06, May 20, 2006 72.130.21.164]
 * 4th revert: [00:14, May 20, 2006 72.130.21.164]

Reported by: DivineShadow218 05:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:User keeps rverting to delet an external link is a site with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in the article. discluding these reverts, this user has less then 10 edits, I have also warned him/her/it about it.


 * Poorly formatted but I'll let you off. 3h. No comment on appropriateness of content William M. Connolley 10:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Checking, I realise that has of course broken 3RR too: 3h by symmetry William M. Connolley 10:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)... oh dear, make that 24h by virtue of having previous blocks William M. Connolley 10:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

User:AutumnLeaves
Three revert rule violation on. :
 * Previous version reverted to:09:50, 20 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 06:30, 20 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 08:32, 20 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 09:32, 20 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 09:50, 20 May 2006

Reported by: --24.196.175.110 10:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User continues to delete a useful and relevant link. It appears that the account has been created solely to address this page. Warning given.


 * It would seem that you too have broken 3RR. I shall let you both off with a warning William M. Connolley 10:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention. While I understand the spirit of the rule, I have conformed to "the 3RR applies to reverts after the third within a 24 hour period". --24.196.175.110 11:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Netscott
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:  07:12, 20 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 07:21, 20 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 07:52, 20 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 08:19, 20 May 2006
 * 4th revert:  08:54, 20 May 2006
 * 4th revert:  08:54, 20 May 2006

Reported by: <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> talk 13:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Following up revert scuffle reported on AIV at Fethullah Gülen, users warned on that talk page, page now protected. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> talk 13:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is an unmerited report as both myself and Azate were essentially combatting new user vandalism. My primary editing in this regard was to replace a repeatedly removed tag. The admin who blocked User:Mokotok and initially User:Azate agreed in as much as he/she said, unblocking.  was essentially reverting what amounted to vandalism by a new user at the time he/she unblocked him. A pity that <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> talk  appears to not have researched this prior to making these reports. Netscott 16:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, I should have noticed that blocked, as well as protected the page. Due to "real life" commitments there was a lag between my investigating the report on AIV and making these reports. Rest assured I don't enjoy making more work for myself and will be careful to double check this kind of thing in future. However, the edit summaries and reversions the three parties indulged in hinted at a little more than "combatting new user vandalism", rather differences over POV in a quickfire 17-revert content dispute, and there is no harm in bringing such potential flare-ups to the attention of the community, or in confirming that action was taken. Of course, Kitty has taken the necessary steps and I trust the matter is closed. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> talk 17:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Netscott is a true reverter. He is not only reverting Fethullah Gulen article, he is doing that in many others (e.g. Hirsi Ali). I am surprised that nobody is taking an action against him. The reverts are documented and are clear above. User:Netscott is insisting on an irrelevant tag while the work on the aricle is in progress.
 * I am trying to put the article into a neutral form. User:Azate is hiding some facts and blanking necessary infromation from the article and categorizing the article under irrelevant categories with POV, doing original research. All these are documented on Fethullah Gulen talk page. Mokotok 21:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It is important to note that Mokotok is now indefinitely banned as a sockpuppet of the indefinitely banned user. -- Cyde↔Weys 17:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Mokotok
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:53, 20 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 05:55, 20 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 06:02, 20 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 07:16, 20 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 07:29, 20 May 2006


 * Shortly followed by, , and

Reported by: <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> talk 13:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Following up revert scuffle at Fethullah Gülen, users notified and warned on that talk page. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> talk 13:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless you're posting this report as a review, I would recommend doing full proper research to help others and yourself save time prior to actually making a report as this user is already blocked for the 3RR violation. Netscott 16:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am trying to put the article into a neutral form. User:Azate is hiding some facts and blanking necessary infromation from the article and categorizing the article under irrelevant categories with POV, doing original research. All these are documented on Fethullah Gulen talk page. User:Netscott is a professional reverter, is insisting on an irrelevant tag while the work on the aricle is in progress. Mokotok 21:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Azate
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:51, 20 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 05:59, 20 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 06:22, 20 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 07:33, 20 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 07:47, 20 May 2006
 * 5th revert: 08:39, 20 May 2006

Reported by: <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> talk 13:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Following up revert scuffle at Fethullah Gülen, users notified and warned on that talk page. Page protected.<FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> talk 13:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In the interests of saving others some time on this report User:Azate was blocked but subsequently unblocked with the reasoning: unblocking. was essentially reverting what amounted to vandalism by a new user (as I've just added in Deiz's report of my own supposed violation). Netscott 16:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am trying to put the article into a neutral form. User:Azate is hiding some facts and blanking necessary infromation from the article and categorizing the article under irrelevant categories with POV, doing original research. All these are documented on Fethullah Gulen talk page. Mokotok 21:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

user:Jeff3000
Three revert rule violation on.


 * 1st
 * 2nd
 * 3rd

Reported by mav 14:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments I have not done a fourth revert, so I have not passed a 3RR. Secondly Mav never warned me.  -- Jeff3000 14:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Consider this a warning. I guess I have one more revert. --mav 15:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Mel Etitis (result: 24h each)
Three revert rule violation on. [& ]


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

I had told him that it was a tidied up job, but he seems not to believe or understand this and I don't sees any problems with my version, unless he could point it out, unfortunately he refused. Some of the edits are really just a minor changes, which is why it doesn't required any reasons on edit summaries.

Reported by: Eiorgiomugini 18:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As the above indicates, this user's English isn't terribly good, and it may be that the problem lies there. However, he has been insisting on removing much-needed copyedit templates from articles, adding material without citaion or source, and making a general mess.  He refuses to accept that he might be mistaken, refuses to discuss the issue (aside from the repetition of the obscure "it's a tidied up job").  I'm currently asking for advice on dealing with him at WP:AN. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 18:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I repeat, I said it was a tidied up job, but he seem not to believe or understand this, I don't sees any problems with my version, unless he could point it out, unfortunately he had refused to do so. Again he has been adding material of his claims, and making a general mess into Chinese classic texts. Eiorgiomugini 18:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the second cases onwards. Its perfectly clear that you've both broken 3RR. Sigh. 24h each William M. Connolley 19:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Petrejo (result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :

Reported by: Non-vandal 04:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Comments: Thats 5R, but not in 24h or close. An awful lot of new users there... socks? On both sides? William M. Connolley 09:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * There's plenty more of those from this guy. There's a lot of talk in the articles talk page under "Petrejo's changese" and "Please do not..." but this bloke doesn't discuss his changes, and is simply a vandal as dull as they come. Petrejo is also 66.143.165.1: . Looking at both user titles' contributions reveals the extent of their dirty work. I'd recommend a block of both users from the article entirely, but we'll see how it's handled. Thanks.
 * He's still at it. Non-vandal 05:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think there are socks on both sides - there's a number, at least 4, of editors reverting Petrejo's edits, but I'm pretty sure he is using sockpuppets - I noticed a new user earlier today who'd edited Petrejo's talk page and no other pages, and that account may have subsequently been used on Friedrich Nietzsche. I'm sure the faction, including myself, who've been reverting Petrejo aren't without blame, but could we get this guy blocked already, seriously? mg e kelly 10:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, I count 5R in the last 8 hours from Petrejo's own account. mg e kelly 10:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The bloke's at it again. We may need a permanent block of this blockhead.Non-vandal 04:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * User was not warned. Warning issued. Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy you know? 11:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Petrejo has reverted this article four times in the last four hours. mg e kelly 17:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I've resurrected this from the archive since the violator is still very active. We need some serious action undertaken. Thanks.Non-vandal 20:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: 2006-05-17 23:49:20 Shanel blocked "Petrejo (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (using IP to evade 3RR on Friedrich Nietzsche) William M. Connolley 20:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked now for 24h William M. Connolley 20:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Ilir pz (result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:02, 19 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 22:37, 19 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 23:03, 19 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 00:53, 20 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 10:30, 20 May 2006

Reported by: Krytan 21:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Ilir keeps pushing his Albanian propaganda by removing a map of Kosovo as a part of Serbia and Montenegro. As you know, the current status of the province is being discussed at Vienna, but for now, according to the UN resolution 1244, Kosovo remains a part of FRY, which has changed its name to Serbia and Montenegro in February 2003. This is clearly stated in the article (or was, maybe he removed it again). Something must be done about this. --Krytan 21:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The time difference is over 24h. Asterion <font color="Green">talk to me 21:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Not on the clock style I'm using. 24h William M. Connolley 21:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I must be totally stupid (I read 18th). I need some rest. Asterion <font color="Green">talk to me 21:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Pansophia
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:49, May 19, 2006
 * 1st revert: User:66.219.146.142 19:20, May 19, 2006
 * 2nd revert: User:71.132.239.209 23:49, May 19, 2006
 * 3rd revert: User:58.239.206.239 09:33, May 20, 2006
 * 4th revert: User:63.205.91.226 17:01, May 20, 2006
 * 5th revert: User:63.205.91.226 17:26, May 20, 2006
 * 6th revert: User:63.205.91.226 17:30, May 20, 2006
 * 7th revert: User:63.205.91.226 17:59, May 20, 2006
 * 8th revert: (as Pansophia now) 22:07, May 20, 2006
 * 9th revert: (as Pansophia now) 22:41, May 20, 2006

Reported by: Rhobite 21:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User:Pansophia stopped editing through his own account after he was blocked for a 3RR violation on May 15 (see Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive16). Now he is abusing open proxies and editing from public libraries and dialups in order to circumvent the 3 revert rule. He has edited from User:131.220.141.131 (tor proxy), User:66.219.146.142 (shared webhost, probably a proxy), User:71.132.239.209 (SBC DSL account in Northern California, probably his own IP), User:58.239.206.239 (verified open proxy in Korea), and User:63.205.91.226 (Berkeley, California public library). Rhobite 21:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The page was semi-protected, and lo, Pansophia has suddenly reappeared, and has taken up reverting again. See here and here for the most recent. --Calton | Talk 02:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

2006-05-21 03:57:06 JoshuaZ blocked "Pansophia (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (48 hour block for 3RR and abuse of anons) William M. Connolley 10:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

User:DrBat
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:35, 20 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 16:00, 20 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 02:03, 21 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 02:09, 21 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 02:21, 21 May 2006

Reported by: SoM 01:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User previously blocked for 3RR. - SoM 01:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

2006-05-21 03:47:36 JoshuaZ blocked "DrBat (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RRV on Rachel Summers) William M. Connolley 09:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

User:MetaStar
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: :*18:39, 19 May 2006 (R1)
 * 03:55, 20 May 2006 (R2-4)


 * 1st revert: 02:56, 20 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 01:59, 21 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 02:05, 21 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 02:18, 21 May 2006

Reported by: SoM 01:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User reminded DrBat of the 3RR while also breaking it himself. Also throwing around insults in edit summaries. - SoM 01:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've given both the Dr and Meta 24 hour blocks in which time they will hopefully cool off. JoshuaZ 03:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Irgendwer (result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 06:58, 18 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 13:02, 20 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 01:08, 21 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 02:19, 21 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 02:38, 21 May 2006

Reported by: --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 07:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has already been blocked once for 3RR/vandalism on this article. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 07:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 09:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong conviction!

The "1st revert" was the original and "4th revert" was because of vandalism of rehpotsirhc who want to kill User:Irgendwer. --Krtzskpsjf 14:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Nelodkan (result: 12h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:22, 20 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 08:19, 21 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 10:14, 21 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 11:04, 21 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 11:13, 21 May 2006

Reported by: Elephantus 09:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: A note was left about WP:3RR on this user's talk page before his 4th revert here. All times are CEST (subtract 02:00 to get UTC, shouldn't be too important as it's about intervals, not absolute times). --Elephantus 09:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * comment: User:Mir_Harven has made 3rr violations at Neo-nazism and Elephantus is his sock/meatpuppet. The clique of Croatian users revert and push their own POV. They should be treated as one user, and they also edited the zerjavic article under anonimous ip. Also, I made only 3 reverts to the article, I have attributed the claims that were supposedly OR, so I did not break the rule. Nelodkan


 * Please, don't accuse people of sock/meatpuppetry without some justification and evidence. I've been a contributor here since 23 April 2005 and Mir Harven since 9 August 2003. In the past several weeks we've had our hands full dealing with loads of blatantly POV/unsourced/plainly wrong material being added by a number of recently opened/activated accounts, one of which is User:Nelodkan. These users have several things in common - unwillingness to engage in any serious discussion on Talk pages, little or no understanding of WP:NPOV or WP:V and using Wikipedia as a soapbox to slander Croatia in general. --Elephantus 09:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have not broken the rule. Have you been conspiring with other Croatian users, as it seems, or not I dont know. But fact is that Mir Harven as an experienced editor as you say he is should not break 3RR, and provoke other editors with insults! Nelodkan

You have broken 3RR and are now blocked for 12h for it William M. Connolley 10:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Adding vanity of to Giggleswick School and School of Oriental and African Studies self-important 24-year old founder of a "think tank", which consists of one webpage and has one google hit. Has violated 3RR on Giggleswick School. I've spent all my reverts. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 10:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I can only see 3R (looks like first is a new addition). And its not always quite the same IP William M. Connolley 10:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, whatever, but you could at least rv it for me. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 12:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * KC did it :-) William M. Connolley 13:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Now aka, and created a vanity page. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 16:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on.


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:44, 21 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 11:49, 21 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 12:12, 21 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 12:24, 21 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 12:26, 21 May 2006
 * 5th revert: 12:41, 21 May 2006
 * 6th revert: 13:05, 21 May 2006
 * 7th revert: 13:07, 21 May 2006
 * 8th revert: 13:14, 21 May 2006
 * 9th revert: 13:18, 21 May 2006
 * 10th revert: 13:24, 21 May 2006
 * 11th revert: 13:26, 21 May 2006
 * 12th revert: 13:57, 21 May 2006
 * 13th revert: 14:01, 21 May 2006
 * 14th revert: 14:08, 21 May 2006
 * 14th revert: 14:08, 21 May 2006

Reported by: Liftarn 14:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * On the user page he/she/it states that "he is banned from editing on both Wikipedia in bokmål and nynorsk" and boldly states that his mission on Wikipedia is to spread his POV ("The matter which occupies him now, is to remove all "right-wing extremism" words from articles which concern national socialism, as that directly is an incorrect claim. The nazism is a version of socialism, just like the social democracy we have here in Norway.") // Liftarn

2006-05-21 15:23:22 Katefan0 blocked "The Middle East Conflict Man (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Three revert rule violation at Template:Socialism)William M. Connolley 15:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I also blocked his opponent,, for 3RR. (He should probably also have an indef name block, but I'll give him the courtesy of at least considering volunteering to take a new username first.) &middot; Katefan0 (scribble) 15:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Greier yet again (Sheesh) (result: 72h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:40, 20 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 17:08, 21 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 17:26, 21 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:37, 21 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 17:44, 21 May 2006

Reported by: Telex 17:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * This is a 3RR violation, although it may not seem like on when looking at the diffs. See the following diffs:, , and ; he kept reverting to his version, the one with the "History of Romania" template at the head of the page. He has been blocked numerous times for violating the 3RR before. --Telex 17:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice try! It doesn`t look like a 3RR for the simple reason that it`s not a 3RR. Why didn`t you used the exact required rules when reporting a 3RR. What`s with those links? Where`s the 3RR in these, , , . It`s an edit war, not a 3RR. greier 18:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's odd - I see 4 pure reverts. Let's see what the admins think...--Telex 18:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup, 4 reverts there. 72h, given past history. Telex, you're sailing close to the wind, though, and I'd warn you to keep WP:POINT in mind. Stifle (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen Telex as a tollerant guy here. --Vlachul 19:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Prince_06 (result: warning)
Three revert rule violation on. :


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

Reported by: Anwar 22:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This editor keeps reverting to his POV, which itself changes over time. He blanks links in the process.
 * He hasn't been warned, I've warned him now. Stifle (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

User:12.134.204.214
Continued use of sockpuppet, now making threats as well. User from this IP is almost certainly a sockpuppet of User:Hganesan who has already been blocked for at least a week (maybe more) for revert warring, personal attacks, ranting on WikiEN-L... the list goes on and on.

Now he has posted a threat to myself and/or User:Duhon on my talk page. 

Reported by: Simishag 23:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Update: at least 2 other users have attempted to sprotect Steve Nash but this guy is removing the protection tags to continue making his own edits. Simishag 23:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked for a week. Making 6 reverts within 15 mins... and just after being released from a 24 hr. block is not really the way for him to get his point across.  --Madchester 00:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Deiaemeth
Three revert rule violation on. :


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

Reported by: OneVeryBadMan 00:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I'm sorry, I couldn't figure how how to get the information for DiffLink and DiffTime. But this guy and another have made about 20 reverts between them over the last hours.

It looks like User:RevolverOcelotX and User:Deiaemeth have both broken 3RR. Have given both 24 hours to cool down. JoshuaZ 01:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Philwelch
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:31, 15 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 12:23, 15 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 12:24, 15 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 12:26, 15 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 12:30, 15 May 2006 Philwelch

Reported by: Travb (talk)  01:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User began to edit section when I put an tag in the section, when I brought this to his attention on his talk page, he told me it was my fault, not his, and then began reverting my graph, despite  tag, stating: "no edits in past hour so apparently not in use" which is clearly not true because of the edit 1 minute before.Travb 12:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) At 13:16, 15 May 2006 User:Philwelch admitted he was guilty of a 3RR violation, stated he was going to voluntarily boot himself,  (...I also apologize for repeatedly reverting you. As per Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR, I shall block myself for 24 hours, which is the standard remedy. See you in 24.)
 * 2) At 13:22, 15 May 2006 User:Philwelch six minutes later unbooted himself stating he "changed his mind", making me assume, mistakenly based on his own statments, that he had first booted himself, then unbooted himself, without checking the block log.
 * 13:55, 15 May 2006 User:Philwelch blocked himself.
 * 14:00, 15 May 2006 Jareth then unblocked him.

I would like Phil Welch blocked for 3RR, as per policy. He started the revert war. 5 minutes later Jareth unblocked him.

Philwelch stated here: Administrators' noticeboard/3RR And I've already blocked myself for 24 hours—I had no idea Jaroth would unblock me, and I don't even know him. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 22:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not true:  Phil does know Jareth, despite what he said. Phil has worked with Jareth before.

Jareth is not the impartial observer that he claims, and Philwelch stated he didn't know Jareth, when he does.

I would like someone who has never been involved in this incident, who does not know the three of us, to resolve this matter. I will be satisfied with the result. And this incident will die.

This whole incident reeks of favortism. Travb (talk)  01:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Guy, this is a report of something that happened 'a week ago. Just let it go, already: the 3RR is explicitly NOT intended punishment. --Calton | Talk 07:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Remind me: what's the statute of limitations of abuse of admin powers? Al 04:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Calton, hi, if you recall, we debated on the Talk:Samuel Dickstein (congressman) page quite rigorously. Although we may share the same POV, and I appreciate your comments, you do not qualify as "someone...who does not know the three of us". All I asked is that a disinterested third party investigate this situation and render a verdict, which I will abide by. Travb (talk) [[Image:Police_Man_No.png|25px]] 15:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Subwaynz (result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:21, May 21, 2006
 * 1st revert: 02:10, May 21, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 09:05, May 21, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:34, May 21, 2006
 * 4th revert: 21:51, May 21, 2006

Reported by: Llort 02:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:This is the second time this user has violated the 3RR rule on this article - and has been blocked once already. A number of editors have attempted to get Subwaynz to gather consensus, but have been ignored. Subwaynz has also stated that he will "re edit this every time"

24h William M. Connolley 08:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Mir_Harven
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:16, 20 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 22:39, 20 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 08:21, 21 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 08:42, 21 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 08:52, 21 May 2006
 * 5th revert: 09:27, 21 May 2006

Reported by: Maayaa 04:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: The user has been banned several times for 3RR, incivility and personal attacks, including a ban on 24h for 3RR previously . Maayaa 04:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Maayaa, are there other 3RR violations on this page? I'm seeing a lot of reverting, including by Nelodkan. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 08:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, user Nelodkan seems to have also broken the 3RR. Maayaa 08:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll block Mir Harven for 24 hours, and Nelodkan too depending on warnings and diffs. If s/he hasn't been warned or blocked previously, I'll warn instead. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 09:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. User Nelodkan was first warned yesterday and blocked for 12 h; he broke the rule on two articles at that time. Maayaa 09:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

2006-05-21 12:57:39 William M. Connolley blocked "Mir Harven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (incivility; extending) - will that do? William M. Connolley 09:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Maayaa, I'm confused now. Was Nelodkan blocked for 12 hours for this particular 3RR violation? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 09:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is about Nelodkan block, it is on this page Thats all I know. Maayaa 09:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see it now, Maayaa, thanks. It was a different violation, so I blocked for 24 hours for this one. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 09:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Roberta_F.
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:39, 20 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 01:47, 21 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 02:10, 21 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 02:16, 21 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 01:01, 22 May 2006

Reported by: Maayaa 04:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * The user was warned against breaking the rule on user talkpage, but has made the 4th revert after that. Maayaa 04:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As s/he was warned, I'll block for 24 hours. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 08:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

User:SpinyNorman (result: 24h)
3RR violation on by


 * Version reverted to: 17:44 January 9
 * 1st revert 06:39 May 22
 * 2nd revert 06:52 May 22
 * 3rd revert 07:15 May 22
 * 4th revert 07:27 May 22

Reported by SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 07:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

These are straightforward reverts by SpinyNorman, four in under two hours, to previous versions, changing that "Robin Webb runs the Animal Liberation Press Office in the UK to "Robin Webb is press officer for the Animal Liberation Front in the UK." He has been warned before about 3RR.


 * The first co-called "revert" was not a revert all, but a legitimate edit. Yet you characterize it as a "revert".  Why?  --SpinyNorman 23:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

SpinyNorman turned up at several vivisection and animal-rights related articles in December 2005, and proceeded to add small errors to them, repeatedly reverting to his versions against all arguments, and being very disruptive. He stopped after a few weeks, but suddenly started again today, reverting to the same versions.


 * Just because you dislike my edits for apparently conflicting with your blatant POV, that doesn't make them "disruptive. You apparently inability to maintain civil conduct here is puzzling.  --SpinyNorman 23:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

His change at Robin Webb implies that Webb only answers media enquiries for the Animal Liberation Front, which is not correct, and that he is their only press officer, which is also not correct. In fact, Webb runs the Animal Liberation Press Office, which handles media enquiries for a number of activist groups (as their website makes clear ), and there are other press officers working under him. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 07:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It implies nothing of the sort. Your inference is incorrect and not supported by the language of the edit.  Webb is described by the reference in the article as the ALF Press Officer and also described himself as the ALF press officer.  If you have a problem with this, I suggest you speak to Webb about it and stop damaging the article.  --SpinyNorman 23:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

User:SpinyNorman 2
He has also violated 3RR on, which is run by the Washington lobbyist Richard Berman, removing that it's funded by the alcohol and tobacco industries. Even though 3RR is not dependent on content, here are some sources indicating that it is indeed so funded. Berman himself is a well-known lobbyist on behalf of tobacco and alcohol.


 * Version reverted to: January 8, 2006
 * 1st revert 05:49 May 22
 * 2nd revert 06:54 May 22
 * 3rd revert 07:18 May 22
 * 4th revert 07:29 May 22

Reported by SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 08:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * For repeated violations blocked for 24h. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you had checked the edits, you would have seen that Slim's characterization of this is as inaccurate as the last one. She should not be taken at her word on edits to articles related to her POV-pushing. --SpinyNorman 23:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Humus. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 11:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Irishpunktom
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:56, 21 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 08:36, 22 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 08:46, 22 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 08:51, 22 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 09:16, 22 May 2006

Reported by: Karl Meier 09:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Irishpunktom has just returned from his previous 3rr ban on the same article, and for some reason he immidiately started to revert the efforts that has been made to make the definition of the term that is mentioned in the intro section referenced and attributed to the mentioned source. Several editors including myself has opposed his actions, but despite this, he has continued to revert. -- Karl Meier 09:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * To the admins please be aware that through discussions myself (one of the editors involved here) and User:Irishpunktom have agreed to pursue the dispute resolution process. Netscott 10:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The 3rr is still a 3rr and the "dispute resolution" that Netscott is talking about apparently include extreme personal attacks against me, as it is obvious from Irishpunktoms comments on Netscotts talkpage. -- Karl Meier 10:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I cannot self revert, because Karls version is the one at the moment. I am not editing the page till the dispute resolution has taken place. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: Irishpunktom har already been blocked 10 times for violations of 3rr and the most recent was only a couple of days ago, for a 3rr on the same article. -- Karl Meier 10:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I do agree with User:Karl Meier that User:Irishpunktom's usage of the word "racist" in his regard is very inflammatory and directly contravenes WP:NPA and should be addressed. I've discussed this as well on Irishpunktom's talk page. Netscott 10:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Seeing as the parties are making a good faith effort at dispute resolution I'm inclined not to block anyone, at least for the time being. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Do your definition of good faith efforts towards dispute resolution include calling people racists? Irishpunktom is obviously trolling, and is surely not making any good faith efforts as it is also obvious from the diffs provided in the 3rr report, and the following personal attacks against me. -- Karl Meier 11:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

User:83.22.217.63
Three revert rule violation on. :


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

Reported by: Ukrained 11:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Repetitiously adding inflammatory unsourced statements/pictures, accompanied by trollish foreign language edit summaries.


 * 12:28:21 Kungfuadam blocked "83.22.217.63 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation of Ukrainian Insurgent Army) William M. Connolley 19:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Vlatkoto (User:194.141.39.2) (result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. , :


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:18 May 21
 * 1st revert: 18:10 May 21
 * 2nd revert: 03:48 May 22
 * 3rd revert: 12:19 May 22
 * 4th revert: 13:24 May 22
 * 5th revert: 14:27 May 22

Reported by:  /FunkyFly.talk _   17:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * The user has been blocked before for 3RR. He self-admittedly edits from 194.141.39.2.  /FunkyFly.talk _   17:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 19:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Bbagot (result: 27h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:52, 17 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 07:38, 19 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:34, 19 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 22:12, 19 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:58, 19 May 2006


 * 5th revert: 03:08, 22 May 2006
 * 6th revert: 15:35, 22 May 2006
 * 7th revert: 01:22, 23 May 2006

Reported by: Andrew c 03:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: On May 19th, Bbagot broke the 3RR rule. I informed the editor as a warning because the user is new. However, Bbagot never reversed the violation. Fast foward to tonight. The editor is back at it again with the edit warring. The editor is intent on adding a disclaimer warning at the top of the article, and removing a sentence explaining the Jewish POV (that was sourced after initial concern by Bbagot). I have also been involved in slow edit wars with this user at Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Luke, and Messianic prophecy. I have tried to voice my concerns on the talk pages, but this editor seems to be a little trigger happy about adding disputed content to the article right in the middle of content disputes. I personally feel the best corse of action at this time would be administrator intervetion informing the user of policy and pointing out the disruptive nature of their edit warring. (A ban may be prudent as well, but it may be premature for that. However, obviously that isn't my call).--Andrew c 03:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Andrew, you left out that jayjg broke the same rule in the same article in the same time period. And unlike jayjg, I try to add extra material with my edits instead of just a blatant "undo".  As you are aware, any effort to put a Christian POV into the Jewish views of Jesus is quickly removed as "off topic".  And that's fine.  I happen to believe that Jewish views of Jesus and Christian views of Jesus should actually contain information consistent with their titles.  All I ask is that the same standard be allowed to exist for Christian views of Jesus that exists for Jewish views of Jesus.  So far this has not been allowed.
 * I'm sorry you wish to have me censored. Even if we don't see eye to eye, I've incorporated many of your edits into my writings as well as listening to your thoughts on the talk page and sharing mine.  I believe both of us have made factual additions that have improved the quality of the articles we have worked on.

Bbagot 03:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot


 * Bbagot, that is a fine basis for reporting Jayjg, but not an excuse for your own actions. Oh, and good luck getting Jayjg blocked for the violation; he's an admin and on ArbCom. Al 04:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It was not my intention to get anyone blocked, but I will point out if a similar pattern to my own is being mirrored in the same article. That he is an admin in inconsequential in altering my reaction. Bbagot 15:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot

3h each William M. Connolley 07:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * William, I can't see where Jayjg violated 3RR. He appears to have made only three edits to that page within that 24-hour period. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 07:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologize for allowing this misconception to occur. You are of course correct.  Being new and not yet being intimately familiar with the 3RR rule, I just assumed that if I was being reported that I had broken it with 3 edits.  It never crossed my mind that Andrew c was reporting me before a recent infraction took place.  Both jayjg and myself had 3 edits at that point. Bbagot 15:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot


 * You know, the last few times Jay was blocked for 3RR or disruption, he got 24-hour blocks. Working from my own experience, I would think that a 48-hour block would be appropriate at this point.
 * Instead, he's getting a 3-hour block in the middle of the night, which is so minor that he'd probably miss it if it weren't pointed on his Talk page. Frankly, this is barely a slap on the wrist and makes me seriously wonder whether you admins treat each other more gently than you do the rest of us.  It certainly leaves behind the appearance of impropriety, and that's bad enough. Al 07:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and in case you might want to suggest that the block duration is fair because both participants got 3 hours, please note that this is the first time Bbagot's gotten into trouble, while Jayjg is a repeat offender. Compare block logs for yourself. Jay clearly deserves a longer block, somewhere between 48 and 72 hours, I'd say. Al 08:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Alienus, having a long block log that is mostly made up of blocks that were made in error (including this one) and unblocks when the error was realized does not make Jayjg into "a repeat offender" who "deserves a longer block, somewhere between 48 and 72 hours." AnnH <b style="font-size:medium;">♫</b> 09:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur with SlimVirgin. Jayjg made only 3 edits to the page in the 24 hour period. His 4th edit was 32 hours after the first.


 * 1) (cur) (last) 10:54, 21 May 2006 Jayjg


 * 1) (cur) (last) 19:47, 21 May 2006 Jayjg
 * 2) (cur) (last) 11:27, 22 May 2006 Jayjg
 * 3) (cur) (last) 18:34, 22 May 2006 Jayjg Doright 08:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Essjay has left a note on William's talk page pointing out that Jayjg did not violate 3RR, and has said he'll undo the block if William doesn't get back to him shortly. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 08:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Per SlimVirgin, I have unblocked Jayjg. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Sjakkalle. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 09:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record there was an 8th revert (7 minutes off from a 2nd 3RR violation) -Andrew c 13:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 8th revert: 03:15, 23 May 2006


 * Then this is when you should have first reported me and not sounded the alarm at 3. I'm sure there are many people who aren't pleased with the edits of others and would like to see them get into trouble.  I would imagine though, that most wait until the infraction occurs.  Bbagot 15:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot


 * I wonder why Bbagot was blocked for only three hours for eight reverts on an article he violated 3RR on just a few days ago, and was warned about. And Jayjg, who didn't violate it all, was blocked for the same amount of time.
 * I'm minded to increase Bbagot's block to 24 hours if no one objects. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 13:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've blocked him for 24 hours. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 14:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry... I've been offline. Apologies to Jayjg: I was too hasty. Bbagot would have got longer only I wanted to be symmetrical for once; so the block increase, now, is fine by me William M. Connolley 15:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

User:A.J.A. (result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:09:48, 2006-05-20
 * 1st revert: 17:44, 22 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:40, 22 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 21:50, 22 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 22:16, 22 May 2006

Reported by: DavidBailey 03:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: On May 22nd A.J.A. broke the 3RR rule. I informed the editor as a warning. User continues to revert over multiple edits by multiple users claiming that the information is inaccurate when it is at least reasonably relevant and pertinent as to warrant discussion rather than wholesale reversions. (IE- definition of Theosis and other related information) User has been requested by moderator to adopt a less critical tone and to discuss rather than continue to revert. User has continued reversions, insults, and condescending tone. It is obvious from user's talk page that edit wars and reversions have been an issue and that he is used to getting his way regardless of other views or editing efforts.


 * The issue here is that User:DavidBailey believes WP:V doesn't apply to him. The content is question is not only unsourced, but is a statement as fact of a very controversial opinion. I'm perfectly willing to discuss a compromise provided it's within Wikipedia policy. A page lock might be in order. A.J.A. 04:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a content dispute, not vandalism. Al 04:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:V isn't limited to vandals. A.J.A. 04:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Vandalism is the one thing you're allowed to revert as often as you like. In contrast, content disputes do not give you a license to exceed the 3RR limit.  Got it? Al 04:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:V and WP:NPOV explicitly override all other policies. A.J.A. 05:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not just me, but a half-dozen other users that are being run roughshod by A.J.A.'s POV. He thinks because he backs up a POV with two references, he can introduce several other POVs, revert edits that improve the article, and ignore other contributions without bothering to deal with consensus or multiple viewpoints. For example The article Theosis plainly illustrates that there are more views than his two sources, yet he ignores this. I will take this to other forum because A.J.A. has become so adept at avoiding 3RR that he monitors this page so he can dispute anyone who reports him. DavidBailey 04:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's true. He does have a history of pushing POV.  However, this is about his 3RR violation, which is open and shut. Al 04:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There may be other references, but you didn't include them. It's not my job to go find your references. Even if you had references, it would only be acceptible to include that reported as someone's POV, not as fact. (It already was, BTW.) I know there are more views than mine: do you know there are more views than yours? A.J.A. 04:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've helped solve many POV/content disputes on several articles. The problem here is that anyone who says anything different from your perspective gets reverted. Makes it difficult to edit an article. DavidBailey 04:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what you've done in the past. You still don't get to state your opinions as fact in Wikipedia articles. I'm sorry you disagree with that perspective, but it happens to be non-negotiable policy. A.J.A. 05:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have found working with A.J.A. to be nearly impossible on the Jesus-Myth article where his obsession with this subject has spilled over. Since his involvement the article, whilst not perfect before, has been reduced it to "trash" in the words of one editor as a quick look at the article will confirm. Attempts by me to add the references asked for by A.J.A. were reverted on the grounds that he didn't like one section I had replaced with those references . A.J.A. has shown a canny awareness of the current ambiguity of 3RR and will page revert rather than section edit to "save" his revert allowance  - look at the diffs between these edits  and you will see there were several edits in between where I attempted to modify the text and ^^James^^ was working with me. At this point a community ban would seem an appropriate reaction to give A.J.A. time to think about his current choice of editing style. Just as background I should add I'm an athiest who regularly works on the Christianity and Jesus articles and the editors there, although disagreeing with me completely on some topics, work constructively and co-operatively on these topics.  Sophia  07:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 07:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to apologize to everyone for losing my temper last night. It was late and I was tired, however it is inexcusable. I was frustrated because repeated attempts to edit an article and then add references had been reverted and I over-reacted. I will try to remain more civil through disputes in the future. DavidBailey 11:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Col. Hauler
3RR violation on by Reported by SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  13:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments These are straightforward reverts, each time removing text about off-wiki attacks being policy violations. He has been blocked before for 3RR (actually 9RR). This time, he was warned and was offered the opportunity to revert himself but did not do so. User_talk:Col._Hauler SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 13:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Col. Hauler 14:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC): I did not break the 3RR. SlimVirgin reverted 3 times, I reverted 3 times.


 * The crux of this is he is claiming my first edit was a revert to this version on 17:54 May 7 (oldid 52009009)


 * Look at my first edit compared to that and you can see this is patently untrue:<br/ >
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks?diff=54696383&oldid=52009668


 * My reverts:
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3


 * SlimVirgin's reverts:
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3


 * He removed the same section about off-wiki attacks four times, and the first time he did it was a revert to a previous version. He has also vandalized this report. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  13:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "the first time he did it was a revert to a previous version." - FALSE. My first edit WAS NOT a a revert. This is a blatant lie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks?diff=54696383&oldid=52009668


 * I reverted 3 times, as did you. No more. My first edit was clearly NOT a revert.


 * As for "vandalizing this report", I did no such thing, I reformatted it and added in links that are actually accurate, without the deliberately POV descriptions. My first edit was clearly NOT a revert. --Col. Hauler 14:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24hrs. FeloniousMonk 14:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: maybe it's me, but this report seems malformed. SlimVirgin, shouldn't there be links in your report to diffs that demonstrate four reverts (or effective reverts)? My own search shows three, and I want to be sure I'm not missing something. Thanks. <tt> Radio Kirk </tt> <tt> talk to me </tt> 16:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this block. It seems punitive. User:SlimVirgin did not present the proper evidence of violation of 3RR. This seems like an attempt to keep a version of a page against consensus in talk. -- User:Malber (talk • contribs) 16:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Having looked, I think this is 4R by CH; the first edit is indeed a revert, e.g. to William M. Connolley 17:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If I'm reading the diffs right, some of those changes are the same but there are significant differences suggesting this is not a true "revert".
 * On the other hand, in an effort to get Col. Hauler in on the discussion regarding the issue that led to his 9RR block, I offered to request of the blocking admin that the block be lifted. Everyone agreed, and it was done. Five days later, there has been no effort to discuss the content dispute at Wii and, instead, Col. Hauler gets himself in trouble over another potential 3RR issue. Since the lifting of the 9RR block was contingent upon his involvement in the Wii dispute&mdash;to which he agreed&mdash;my recommendation is that the original block be restored, prorated to the remainder that was to be served. <tt> Radio Kirk </tt> <tt> talk to me </tt> 18:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is suggested that the issue mentioned above was a breakdown in communications so, in good faith, I withdraw my recommendation. We now return you to our regularly scheduled 3RR discussion, already in progress... :) <tt> Radio Kirk </tt> <tt> talk to me </tt> 19:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Ed g2s
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:  In the begining he made two revisions which disguised a revert.
 * 1st revert: Took out one set of images
 * 2nd revert: Took out another image
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Reported by: Malamockq 16:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * First two revisions were of him removing images, disguising a revert.
 * Malamockq has failed to give fair use rationales for the images he has added, other than "they're for educational purposes". I therefore treated his action as copyright vandalism. ed g2s • talk 16:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We were discussing the matter, and I gave ample justification for their depiction as fair use as seen on his talk page. He continued to revert before the matter was settled.  Malamockq 16:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Your first few reverts were "this is fair use". There is still no fair use claim on the image pages as is required. Furthermore as I have already explained, free images are available. You could probably find some cc-by ones on Flickr if you spent less time trying to get me blocked. ed g2s • talk
 * This section isn't about fair use. It's about the 3RR.  Malamockq 17:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't a WP:3RR violation. Even if we ignore the fact that the user was cleaning up unfree-copyright images and being reverted (!), the user made two edits and then reverted three times, not four.  Editors reverting image cleanup are cautioned to not do so in the future.  Jkelly 22:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I made it clear that those two edits were to disguise a revert. He removed some images in the first edit.  Then removed the last image in the second edit.  It was the same as a revert. Malamockq 03:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This Admin Holds weaker standards for himself than he holds for other users. He has Offended Multiple users by removing fair use images yet has a userspace with one of the worst Fair use Violations on wikipedia. I have addressed the issue on his talk page. A block in nothing he should loose admin privileges User_talk:Ed_g2s --E-Bod 02:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if this were true, this noticeboard is not the place for it. Jkelly 04:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Firstly, my userspace has no fair use violations - so this is simply untrue. Secondly, my admin priveleges do not come into question here as they have not been used, let alone abused. ed g2s &bull; talk 15:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry That was an old picue but when i pisted this their was Only one fair use immage an it was likly tageg fair use after. I had assumed you had more.  A while earlyer i had removed 3 fair use images form that page and after i cheked back again to find one more there i and i saw an out of date page that said 24 fair use images were on the page i.  My report was unfair.  Sorry.  Yet their still was one fair use image tht has  been removed after my post .  Again that was only one not multiple (4 in total) and I should have discused this with the user first and given time for him to respond.  It was just i had warned the user before and i though he was going to chek his usperpage again.
 * I am really sorry this is an old issue and this user has reformed. Alhough this user still does offend multiple users when removing fair use immges.  It was not as bad as I thought--E-Bod 21:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This user has Since gotten Into More revert wars enforcing  the fair use Policy Talk:List_of_Lost_episodes. During this revert war Other uninvolved Constructive edits were reverted back and forth and not just the issues at had. This user May have every right to Enforce WP:FUC but he is not good at avoiding conflicts. I need to be more civil when dealing with this user but he can't continue to remove Fair use images if he does not care to remove them in the least offence manner.--E-Bod 22:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Denix
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:29, 23 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 15:32, 23 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:53, 23 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 16:08, 23 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:29, 23 May 2006

Reported by: User:Telex 16:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User has been blocked before for violating the 3RR on this article. --Telex 16:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  19:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

User:72.144.60.85
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 2006-05-23 08:48:56 (72.144.150.233)
 * 2nd revert: 2006-05-23 18:29:50 (72.144.60.85)
 * 3rd revert: 2006-05-23 18:58:56 (72.144.60.85)
 * 4th revert: 2006-05-23 21:25:23 (72.153.86.152)

Reported by: William M. Connolley 22:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Note that all 4 are (correctly) marked as reverts, so I didn't fill in prev version
 * Note comment on rv 2: '(rv) to Pokranjac (and will continue to do so until this article is treated sanely))''


 * Not all of the above edits are from the same IP address. Jkelly 22:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That is true, but they are in the same block, and the second IP seems to be responding on the talk page as the first. --Philosophus T 22:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh b*ll*cks, this just isn't my day :-(. OK, add (72.144.150.233) as the 0th revert. The 72.144's are almost without a doubt the same (they locate to florida). Hmm, but that would require a range block to be of any use. Semi-protect perhaps? William M. Connolley 22:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And another just now: (72.153.86.152). --Philosophus T 23:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

User:C-c-c-c
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:23, 24 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 00:27, 24 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 00:39, 24 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 00:45, 24 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 00:52, 24 May 2006
 * 5th revert: 00:59, 24 May 2006

Reported by: Telex 00:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * He is edit warring, on another user's userpage, and continues after the owner has told him not to. Also, admire the personal attacks in his edit summaries. --Telex 00:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is just vandalism, warned with a blatent vandal template. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  01:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 25 hours. JoshuaZ 01:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Lexio
Three revert rule violation on and. :

(and on a substantially similar page)
 * Previous version reverted to: 04:34, 24 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 04:34, 24 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 05:38, 24 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 06:50, 24 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 05:34, 24 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 06:52, 24 May 2006

Reported by: Chaser (T) 07:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I warned him on his talk page without response. Both of the articles are candidates for redirect and protection to prevent him from messing again, IMHO. Chaser (T)


 * I deleted the page, it was just spam William M. Connolley 08:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Vlatkoto
Three revert rule violation on. a.k.a. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:47, 23 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 20:02, 23 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 23:35, 23 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 08:14, 24 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 10:36, 24 May 2006

Reported by: Telex 11:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * The first three reverts are by Vlatkoto, the fourth revert was by User:194.141.39.2, who has admitted to being Vlatkoto. He keeps inserting a bogus flag, and has been blocked for violating the 3RR on this article before. --Telex 11:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this still a problem? Jkelly 21:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Karatekid7
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:45, 23 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 15:53, 23 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 23:11, 23 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 23:23, 23 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:44, 23 May 2006
 * 5th revert: 10:12, 24 May 2006

Reported by: LloydEstralondo 12:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * I don't see that he's been warned on his talk page. Someone needs to warn him before blocking. FeloniousMonk 18:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I know and admit that I have reverted the article more than 3 times. However I believe that there is a bit of sockpuppetry involved here that is trying to get me into trouble.

Editors to the page apart from me are:

all I believe are the same person. who is perma banned disruptive vandal and master of puppets
 * sockpuppet of themadtim
 * check out the username surely a WP:ATTACK
 * Open Proxy blocked there were more of these which I was suspicious of.
 * No translation on this username thankfully
 * Open Proxy blocked there were more of these which I was suspicious of.
 * No translation on this username thankfully
 * No translation on this username thankfully
 * No translation on this username thankfully

The user who reported the 3RR violation has one edit to his name? You would have to be very familiar with Wikipedia policy that your first edit to wikipedia is to report a violation of WP:3RR but if you are a sockpuppet of a user who is known to attack other users such as user:공수 아이는 수음자 이다 then it is not so strange is it?

--Karatekid7 19:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been sort of following this saga. All of the edits were reverting sock-puppets of a blocked user who is also resorting to using open proxies to continue his abuse. As they were removing changes made by a blocked user, the 3RR doesn't apply. The reporting user is probably yet another sock. --GraemeL (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Another new sock has appeared. TheMadTim has previously accused me of using user:Bill_the_Bear as a sockpuppet a fact that I totally dispute. This must surely be a username violation? --Karatekid7 23:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Demiurge010 (result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:16, May 24, 2006
 * 1st revert: 05:53, May 24, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 07:28, May 24, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 08:24, May 24, 2006
 * 4th revert: 09:53, May 24, 2006
 * 5th revert: 13:20, May 24, 2006
 * 6th revert: 13:29, May 24, 2006
 * 7th revert: 13:48, May 24, 2006
 * 8th revert: 13:54, May 24, 2006
 * 9th revert: 14:06, May 24, 2006
 * 10th revert: 14:15, May 24, 2006
 * 11th revert: 14:34, May 24, 2006

Reported by: Weregerbil 14:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC); adjusted by: Lambiam Talk 16:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Inserts link from article space to user space. The user page is an article that has been AfD'd and deleted twice as WP:OR and speedily deleted as repost 10-20 times. I'm also breaking 3RR there, I hope it falls under "correcting simple vandalism". Weregerbil 14:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is simple vandalism (so why are you reporting it as 3RR...?). Blocked 24h anyway. William M. Connolley 17:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the fifth sockpuppet incarnation of User:Ndru01, all of which did just this: keep adding and adding the same link, in the last three weeks more than 60 times. Should we really each time go through the warnings test through test4, as required for reporting "simple vandalism", or is there a shortcut procedure for such cases? --Lambiam Talk 19:44, May 24, 2006 (UTC)
 * See also WP:ANI#Sockpuppet Demiurge011 evading block. --Lambiam Talk 21:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

User:TodorBozhinov
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: 09:29
 * 2nd revert: 16:34
 * 3rd revert: 17:12
 * 4th revert: 17:43

Reported by: Todor Bozh inov    → 15:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Report myself — involved in a dispute with a troll, I felt obliged not to leave the article in the state he'd like to see and forgot about the 3RR. I'm sorry. Todor Bozh inov    → 15:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I'm not going to block you. I suggest you stop reverting. Blocks are preventative measures, not punishments- and something tells me you're not going to revert again. Stick to the rule, and you'll be fine. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 15:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Хаха (note the name is partially in cyrillic characters)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:03, 21 May 2006
 * 1st revert: Revision as of 06:29, 24 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 08:00, 24 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 09:43, 24 May 2006
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 10:40, 24 May 2006
 * 5th revert Revision as of 11:08, 24 May 2006
 * 6th revert Revision as of 11:39, 24 May 2006
 * 7th revert Revision as of 11:47, 24 May 2006

Reported by:  /FunkyFly.talk _   15:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:


 * This user is a known troll in the Bulgarian wikipedia. He has been already warned.  /FunkyFly.talk _   15:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The user has also previously trolled from various IP addresses and has been warned for his actions. His area of activity are all Stara Zagora-related articles and he continues to assert that the city is actually the 5th largest in Bulgaria by population, ahead of Rousse, where the official calculations and other reliable sources are on the contrary opinion, and the margin is about 15,000. This is the user with whom I was involved in a dispute. Todor Bozh inov    → 15:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hr. FeloniousMonk 18:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Demiurge011 (result: indef)
Three revert rule violation on. :

Reported by: Lambiam Talk 21:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Previous version reverted to: 14:34, May 24, 2006
 * 1st revert: 18:33, May 24, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:25, May 24, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 20:45, May 24, 2006
 * 4th revert: 21:09, May 24, 2006
 * 5th revert: 21:55, May 24, 2006
 * 6th revert: 00:21, May 25, 2006
 * 7th revert: 06:00, May 25, 2006

Comments:
 * Inserts link from article space to user space; together with other sockpuppets now all together 67 times.
 * See also Administrators' noticeboard/3RR and WP:ANI#Sockpuppet Demiurge011 evading block.
 * In view of persistent behaviour and sockpuppetry indefinite blocks are warranted, also proactively for User:Demiurge101 and User:Demiurge110. --Lambiam Talk 21:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocked all 3 as socks William M. Connolley 08:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

User:69.114.54.15 (result: 3h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:10, May 24, 2006
 * 1st revert: 20:34, May 24, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:38, May 24, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 22:25, May 24, 2006
 * 4th revert: 22:35, May 24, 2006

Reported by: Bill 22:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Seems to have stopped; can have 3h as a first offence William M. Connolley 09:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

User:192.88.212.43 (result: 8h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:53, 24 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 17:03, 24 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:43, 24 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 21:03, 24 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 22:53, 24 May 2006

Reported by: Telex 23:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Anon keeps removing the sourced fact that these people were ethnic Greeks (while having cited no sources saying that they weren't) and was informed of the 3RR before the fourth revert. --Telex 23:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

8h William M. Connolley 15:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

User:MatriX (result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:48, 24 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 10:04, 25 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 10:22, 25 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 10:31, 25 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 10:49, 25 May 2006

Reported by: Telex 11:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * In the first three reverts, the user keeps reverting the bolded name added by User:NikoSilver a few hours earlier (and the name former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia from the header). In the last revert he reverts a fact I added to an extremely dubious and POV statement (as far as I know, this country is more ofter referred to as FYROM, especially by the UN, NATO and the EU), and he takes the chance to revert the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia from the header yet again. I'm making this report acting on advice (User talk:William M. Connolley). This user has been warned of the 3RR and has been blocked for it under his previous username (see ). --Telex 11:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That is not a 3RR violation. MatriX was bolding the other names in a row. He didn't reverted it. He was only making minor corrections. Bomac 11:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's odd. I see four reverts; 1, he reverts NikoSilver's bolding, 2, he reverts all my edits, 3, he reverts all my edits, 4, he reverts the fact I just added and removes the name former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia from the header for the fourth time. According to a discussion I had (User talk:William M. Connolley - near the bottom of the section), reverts don't have to be related; all reverts count. Anyway, we'll see what the admins think. --Telex 11:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

MatriX 11:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not a new user and I'm aware of the 3RR rule. I admit only 3 complete reverts of the disputed content. My reverts were done in accordance with the Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) - individual entries section, where specifically is said that there is no need to emphasize the link with bolding. After the third revert, in order to show how bad the page will look like if we bold every alternative name in the article, I bolded other relevant names (and introduced important names in the article too, for example, the short version of the name country – Macedonia wasn’t present in the article at all.). Here are my recent edits with explanation of edits made after the third revert:,,, (bolding another names, adding the names Macedonia and Aegean Macedonia), (bolding the name Aegean Macedonia: (removing duplicate sentence), (removed tautology), (removing a fact introduced later by the opposing editor and mistakenly deleting one of the names in the dab)


 * Removing that fact I just added was a (fourth) revert; I advise you to reintroduce it, as the statement is unsourced. There is no evidence that the name Macedonia is used more than FYROM. Au contraire, see NikoSilver's Google tests at Talk:Republic of Macedonia/FYROM name support position. --Telex 11:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't know that removing something added later can be considered as a fourth revert, I hope that some admin will clear this. About the usage of the provisional reference (FYROM) more than the constitutional name of the country (Macedonia) that is widely used in all English and non-English speaking countries as well I will not comment at all. MatriX 11:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure it can - I made an edit, you reverted (i.e. undid) it (and as 'reverts can be in whole or in part, I thought I'd make this report). We'll see what the admins think though. About the name, I don't want you to comment, I want you to cite a source instead of making unfounded claims without proof. --Telex 11:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This is 4 clear reverts - I don't understand the discussion - in each case M removes "Republic of Macedonia/former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". 24h

User:Olberon (result: no block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert: 01:20, 25 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 05:07, 25 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 07:37, 25 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 00:01, 26 May 2006

Reported by: - Gl e n   TC (Stollery)  13:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Times above are in my local time (New Zealand - UTC + 12)

Has self-reverted; no block William M. Connolley 13:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Pythagoras (result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on.


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:12, 24 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 08:44, 24 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 08:58, 24 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 09:15, 24 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:37, 24 May 2006
 * 5th revert: 05:25, 25 May 2006
 * 5th revert: 05:25, 25 May 2006

Reported by: Paul Cyr 15:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User keeps reinserting essay into article, dispite consensus. Paul Cyr 15:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

24h, since you could do with some peace William M. Connolley 16:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Netscott filed by User:Irishpunktom
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:45, May 25, 2006
 * 1st revert: 12:53, May 25, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:13, May 25, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:35, May 25, 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:44, May 25, 2006

Reported by: Irishpunktom\talk 16:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User had made reversion to an earlier version still, earlier, but those are four to the exact same edition. User was informed that they had breached the 3rr, and merely retorted "by all means report me". user wanted to srike out a Sokpuppets additions, which meant most of the page was struck out. It made the page ugly and illegable. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a bad faith posting from an editor who essentially was vandalizing my striking out comments left by abusive RFCU confirmed sockpuppets. I've since "reverted out" (through deletion) sections of sockpuppet talk that did not have talk from other editors on this page (and left struck out talk that did.) To those admins reading this report please see the bad faith nature of this report especially in light of the fact that the reporting user's first ever edit on this page was to revert out my good faith striking of the abusive sockpuppets' talk. Netscott 16:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * User has not self-reverted, merely blanked out the sections they didn't want.--Irishpunktom\talk 16:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Also please know that I repeatedly demonstrate good faith in terms of Irishpunktom and in fact just recently in very good faith prevented his block on a 3RR violation filed by User:Karl Meier. What a pity that my example of good faith wasn't followed. Netscott 16:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In good faith, i didn not report the user when they made their fourth revert, and allowed to be aware of what they had done, the user replied "by all means report me" - As such, this is no longer about who is or is not showing good faith. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My reverts were absolutely in accord with countering the vandalistic nature of Irishpunktom's reverts. Further evidence of the good faith I've expressed towards Irishpunktom as initiator of dispute resoltuion when involved with a disagreement on the article Islamophobia that we frequently edit on. Netscott 16:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * User, as seen above, claims to believe that reverting te striking out of half a page is vandalism. Has referred to me as a vandal at least twice now too. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a pity that through his editing User:Irishpunktom by proxy continues the highly disruptive nature of editing related to the Fethullah Gülen article of the now permanently blocked User:Rgulerdem and his RFCU confirmed sockpuppets User:Mokotok and User:Light&Truth. Netscott 17:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea if there is any policy or guideline that mandates stiking out of suckpuppet contributions on talk pages, and I'm too lazy to find out. I think the easiest course of action would be to simply archive the talk page, with or without strikes, and for the two of you to stop this ado about nothing. It's just a stupid talk page! Everybody with half a mind will come to the correct conclusions about the value of the contributions on that page, regardless of them being stroke (striked/struck?) out or not. I'd counsel User:Netscott to not file a 3RR against User:Irishpunktom as he probably could and would, and I'd counsel User:Irishpunktom to revoke this 3RR report. Azate 18:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Couldn't agree more with you Azate as I've said on your talk page. While User:Irishpunktom hasn't stricly violated 3RR in this regard (he's on RV3), I feel confident this has more to do with an individual (me) than it does with the struck comments. Despite my numerous gestures of good faith towards Irishpunktom he unfortunately doesn't demonstrate the same level towards myself nor towards other individuals he's inclined to edit war with. Netscott 18:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

So. I archived the talk page (without the strikeouts) because the legibility problem is real. I also added a last section that shortly summarizes the RFCU result. This will serve the same purpose as the strikeouts. Everybody happy now? Azate 18:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Szvest - All i have to say for the moment is that this case doesn't deserve all this fuss. The page is a talk page and what one side of this conflict did is to strike a comment by a sockpuppet of a user evading a block. Indeed, the page is already archived and both should forget about it. I believe it is a kindav of an unwanted compromise but well, it's done. Please try to forget about this case guys and focus on other stuff as to resolve your dispute(s). You are both considered as established users and you are due to cooperate instead. I already offered both users a mediation from my part see Tom talk page and Scott's one and both are willing to pursue it, i believe. Let's look forward for now. We don't want you to waste your time on abstract stuff. Cheers -- Szvest 19:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;


 * I think it qualifies almost as WP:LAME. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually it totally qualifies as Lamest edit wars ever as User:Azate so correctly demonstrated. This issue isn't even about editing in general but has more to do with Irishpunktom and myself and hopefully with the assistance of Szvest this ongoing nonsense between us can be drawn to a close. Netscott 19:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

User:SpinyNorman 3 (Result: 31h)
3RR violation on by


 * Versions reverted to 02:16 May 24 and 02:25 May 24 (deleted Guardian link)
 * 1st revert 03:25 May 25
 * 2nd revert 18:14 May 25
 * 3rd revert 18:50 May 25
 * 4th revert 20:00 May 25
 * 5th revert 20:25 May 25

Reported by SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments SpinyNorman is engaged in complex, partial reverts, apparently in an effort to get round 3RR, by repeatedly removing or rewriting material about criticism of Ahmad Thomson that appeared in several British newspapers. In the above diffs, he either removes the entire section of criticism, which is based on articles in the Daily Telegraph or Guardian (both respectable newspapers); or he removes links to the newspapers, leaving the material unsourced; or he rewrites the material to remove parts of the criticism. He was blocked for 3RR just a few days ago, and was today offered the opportunity to revert himself. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Retitled: this is his violation #3. Blocked for 31h. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Steinsky
Three revert rule violation on. : Reported by: Anwar 22:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Comments:The user is an admin! He claims the table is redundant, inappropriate and meaningless. He has posted a inuse tag.

User:205.189.150.1
AKA User:Canadia, User:70.27.46.241 Three revert rule violation on. : Vandalism, fake protection tags, edit warring, refusal to respond to reason on talk page, personal attacks, even stated outright a contempt for 3RR

Reported by: CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 00:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * Doesn't look like 4 in 24h. But you could try elsewhere for the fake tags, etc William M. Connolley 09:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

User:62.162.195.81
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 19:53, 12 May 2006
 * 1st revert: Revision as of 21:07, 25 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 21:19, 25 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 21:20, 25 May 2006
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 21:22, 25 May 2006

Reported by:  /FunkyFly.talk _   01:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

The anonymous user is removing the name "Bulgarian" and other sourced information such as the text of the statue, which is given in a document in the page.  /FunkyFly.talk _  01:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked. You should really warn the user in future as I have commented on your talk page. - FrancisTyers 01:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * He seems to have reincarnated as and    /FunkyFly.talk _   01:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

User:FunkyFly
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 20:08, 24 May 2006
 * 1st revert: Revision as of 21:11, 25 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 21:20, 25 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 21:21, 25 May 2006
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 10:06, 26 May 2006

Reported by:  /FunkyFly.talk _   15:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * I broke the rule, I apologize.  /FunkyFly.talk _   15:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think the anon trolling should be counted. That was POV vandalism, compromising the integrity of the encyclopedia, not to mention that the anon broke the 3RR anyway. --Telex 15:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The anon who is most likely a sockpuppet anyway. Miskin 16:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Gbambino reported by User:AshleyMorton
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
 * 1st revert: Revision as of 15:43, 25 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 23:37, 25 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 13:19, 26 May 2006
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 13:32, 26 May 2006

Gbambino believes that the article should contain the term "kingdom". This is under dispute, with at least two users on each side, at Talk:Canada. We have had an admin join the fray, mostly to say "settle this here, before you change the main article". SINCE then, Gbambino has edited the main article twice, both times without contributing to the discussion.

Reported by: AshleyMorton 16:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The debate appears to be taking a more productive turn - perhaps I reported too soon. AshleyMorton 16:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

User:172
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:15, 25 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 00:26, 26 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 03:31, 26 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 08:30, 26 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 09:57, 26 May 2006
 * 5th revert: 14:57, 26 May 2006

Reported by: -- Vision Thing -- 16:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Recently 172 made a complete rewrite of Socialism article and now he doesn't allow any significant changes to it. -- Vision Thing -- 17:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, this report is trollish. has been making baffling reversions to socialism for days, ignoring the input of every other editor who has reviewed the rewrite. Vision Thing has never considered the advice of Cberlet, who told him: "Simply reverting it back to previous versions, or plopping in huge POV sections from past versions, is not constructive editing." He has ignored Cberlet's second plea: "If folks want to change paragraphs and discuss them, that is one thing, but this childish revert war must stop. 172 did a major edit that much improved the article. Simply reverting it back to previous versions, or plopping in huge POV sections from past versions, is not constructive editing." My pleas have similarly fallen on deaf ears. A look at the article talk page will demonstrate that Vision Thing is uninterested in compromise, and merely making an attempt to game the system here. I will be disappointed if an administrator decides to reward his bad behavior.

On a related note, an anon IP seems with Vision Thing's editing pattern and interests is making the same reversions to socialism as Vision Thing. 72.139.119.165 I will appreciate it if an administrator looks into the matter. 172 | Talk 08:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't try to smear me by posting unsupported claim, if you suspect something there is a place for reporting violations. In my view, I'm only one who has been working towards compromise, since I moved a part of the old content to other article instead of "plopping" it into a new one. But that didn't stoped you in folowing me, and blanking new article three times even though it had Tottalydisputed tag. Also, you didn't reverted just me but TheTrueSora, MarxistJiggers and 72.139.119.165. -- Vision Thing -- 08:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Vision Thing's examples are misleading. His manic reversions back to the old article have absolutely no support on the talk page. This 3RR report is petty harassment, and his bad behavior should not be rewarded by administrators. First, strong circumstantial evidence suggests that is Vision Thing. [My mistake-- I see now that Vision Thing is not the anon IP. I did not notice that 72.139.119.165 was the same anon who had reverted Vision Thing.  Vision Thing cited 72.139.119.165 as an example of opposition to my edits. Ironically, I now see that 72.139.119.165 also supports the rewrite. 172 | Talk 12:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)] Second, Vision Thing is being disingenuous in suggesting that I have been reverting TheTrueSora. (TheTrueSora reverted anon  on 20:36, 25 May 2006 with no explanation other than "Revert to revision 55066182 using popups." Since TheTrueSora did not chime in on the talk page, I figured that TheTrueSora was doing RC patrol, saw that an anon editor made a major change, assumed it was vandalism, and then reverted. The 72.139.119.165 version, however, happened to restore the version of the article that was the consensus on the talk page. So I figured my subsequent edit was a correction of an honest mistake on the part of TheTrueSora.) Third,  was was new editor who inserted two obviously factually incorrect statements.  Any constructive, knowledgeable editor would have reverted that edit. Fourth, the feedback on the rewrite from just about every editor has been very positive. Below I am posting some examples:
 * (1)Great rewrite! Much better. Easier to read. More accurate. Hooray! Thanks 172.--Cberlet 12:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (2)Very nice 172. My only concern is that this rewrite seems to concern itself more with the history of socialism than with socialism as it exists in theory and practice. All the same, explaining socialism by tracing its history in this way is, I think, an excellent way of explaining in a simple, easily understandable way, the basic ideas behind socialism and its various schools of thought. So perhaps my concern is unfounded. Perhaps if you intend to expand a little on the non-historical sections it might help to round it out a bit. Other than that, my congratulations :) Gatoclass 18:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (3)Yes, great work. I especially like the history section and introduction because they accurately and concisely describe the heterogeneous nature of the ideology. In particular, you've done an excellent job explaining how socialism (both in theory and practice) has deviated from its roots over time. -- WGee 00:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (4)Nice work. Cadr 17:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (5)I liked this distinction, and also thanks for finding the Britannica quote. --Uncle Ed 17:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (6)I'm impressed by the response to 172's new version and intrigued by his comments on his "History of socialism" approach.
 * On a technical level, upon reviewing the page differences in Vision Thing's report, I see no evidence anything close to even a borderline 3RR vio. Vision Thing has no serious complaint. If I were acting as an admin here, I would consider sanctioning him for abuse of process on this page. 172 | Talk 11:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if we exclude reversion of MarxistJiggers's edit, you still reverted to your version 4 times in 24h period. For 72.139.119.165 edits, he did reverted my adding "Types of socialism" section but then he added shorter version of it and you reverted him. -- Vision Thing -- 13:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The page differences suggest otherwise. This is my last comment here. This attempt to game the system is just a diversion from the real issues at stake. 172 | Talk 13:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Tyutmf
Three revert rule violation on. :

Reported by: tasc talkdeeds 23:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Previous version reverted to: 11:14, 26 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 11:21, 26 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 11:25, 26 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 11:57, 26 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 12:02, 26 May 2006
 * 5th revert: 20:13, 26 May 2006

user:Tasc
Three revert rule violation on. As shown above, he attempted to delete material with citations from a printed dictionary. :


 * 1st reversion:
 * 2nd reversion:
 * 3rd reversion:
 * 4th reversion:
 * 5th reversion:
 * 6th reversion:

Reported by: Tyutmf 06:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

User:84.146.250.16 reported by User:Alienus
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: 2006-05-27 01:53:20
 * 2nd revert: 2006-05-27 01:56:25
 * 3rd revert: 2006-05-27 02:03:04
 * 4th revert: 2006-05-27 02:06:43

Comments: This user is quite likely the same person as User:84.146.204.38, based not only on the IP but their editing pattern. However, even as User:84.146.250.16, there were more than 4 reverts. I only listed the most recent ones. User:Alienus
 * Dynamic IP, I'm just going to semi-protect the page. Sasquatch t|c 17:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully, that'll get them to log in and join the other editors in discussion. Al 18:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Mostssa
Three revert rule violation on.


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:57, 25 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 15:11, 26 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 08:00, 27 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 11:11, 27 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 11:16, 27 May 2006

Reported by: EurowikiJ 12:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:The user has dismissed the call to self-revert as he purports to be fighting vandalism. EurowikiJ 12:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: EurowikiJ keeps removing warnings from his talk page even after being told by an admin not to do so. He removed well sourced material, blanking entire section, in this case. He never discussed them. He does not discuss his reverts (which are 90% of his edits) at all. I think someone should tell him that such behavior is not encouraged on wikipedia. Mostssa 12:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The user keeps reinserting the POV passage on the supposed conspiracy of Croatian tourism industry to silence the mine-awarness campaign in Croatia. He is opposed by a number of Croatian contributors as the whole issue has finally been dealt with the help of an administrator on Minefields in Croatia in a more encyclopeadic manner (though another like-minded User:Maayaa and he have been contesting the new version). Also, the user insists on inserting an "Attacks on tourists from former Yugoslavia" section whose inclusion and inflammatory wording has also been opposed by a number of Croatian contributors but to no avail, not least as it purports to include Slovenia where Croatia happens to be the most popular tourist destination. Please see the articles's discussion page. EurowikiJ 12:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is EurowikiJ who removes edits by Serbian contributors, regardles of their merits. I need only to check his history and find out that he does this to many articles. The article minefields in croatia was one of his targets, where a concensus was reached by other users. I have transfered the consensus section about tourism from minefields article to tourism article section about minefields, but he removes it. Other users, such as Zmaj, who is also croatian, and engaged in talk page, in fact edited the section about attacks which is not contested by more reasonable Croatian editors therefore - and of course, as it is well sourced. Attacks are sourced by UNHCR report, journalist reports (for instance, recently in Dubrovnik journalists were attacked, that is all fact, but he removes it with no discussion, as he does in other articles. Mostssa 12:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Alienus reported by User:CovenantD
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:15, 26 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 22:15, 26 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 22:48, 26 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 11:10, 27 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 12:20, 27 May 2006

Reported by: CovenantD 19:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments I hope I have the format of this correct. I'm not sure what is meant by "* Previous version reverted to: VersionTime . If I've done this incorrectly, hopefully an admin will explain to me exactly what I did wrong and how to do it right. CovenantD 19:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the history and I can only see one edit, three reverts. Can you supply a diff showing that the first revert is not just an edit, and also can you supply it in UTC, please, as it otherwise gets confusing. Cheers, SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, I didn't violate 3RR. In any case, it would have been civil of Cov to have given me a warning and allowed me to undo any revert that may have inadvertantly exceeded the limit.  Right now, I've moved away from that article to give other editors a chance to get involved, precisely to avoid this sort of edit-warring. Al 20:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

User:JMax555 reported by User:Avillia
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:29, May 25, 2006
 * 1st revert: 14:54, May 26, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:28, May 26, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 21:07, May 26, 2006
 * 4th revert: 08:13, May 27, 2006
 * 5th revert: 09:02, May 27, 2006

Reported by: <font color="#228B22">Avillia <font color="#228B22">(Avillia me!) 20:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This revert warring has been going on for a while on the article. Others aside from JMax555 may need to be blocked for 3RR as well. --<font color="#228B22">Avillia <font color="#228B22">(Avillia me!) 20:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Greier reported by User:Aldux (result: 3 days)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:28, 25 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 15:11, 26 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 16:00, 26 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 16:09, 26 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 12:20, 27 May 2006

Reported by: --Aldux 21:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Has been blocked six times, three times this month.--Aldux 21:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

At last an easy one. Another 3 days William M. Connolley 21:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is the tollerance of Telex here? --Vlachul 19:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Epf reported by User:Rex Germanus (result: 12h each)

 * Previous version reverted to: 20:42, 27 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 20:42, 27 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 21:17, 27 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 21:44, 27 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:05, 27 May 2006

reported by Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 22:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well thats all very well, but you haven't used the full template and (more importantly) you've broken 3RR yourself. So 12h apiece William M. Connolley 10:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Ahwaz reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result: 24hr)

 * Previous version reverted to: 04:30, 27 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 18:35, 27 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:51, 27 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:02, 27 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:34, 27 May 2006

reported by &mdash; Khoikhoi 01:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: He removes the sources and then asks for sources. Gave 24 hr. Please use the pattern next time. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The article itself is shaping to be another trainwreck. It was apparently started in response to a battle in the Iranian section of Anti-Arabism, where Ahwaz was arguing that some Iranians are anti-Arab and Zereshk was denying this. Zereshk then started an article to prove that no, it's the Arabs who are prejudiced against Persians and/or Iranians (the Iranian editors sometimes regard these terms as synonymous and sometimes not). The combatants are some of the same editors who were involved in the Aucaman arbitration case and they are lining up along ethnic and national lines in exactly the same fashion. The Iranian editors are tag-team reverting Inahet and Ahwaz, the Arabs.


 * Furthermore, so far as I can tell, Ahwaz isn't guilty of a 3RR violation. I checked the first three reverts against the base article and there was no difference, but the supposed 4th revert is actually not a revert, but a revision.


 * I think there's been a miscarriage of justice here. Other editors may choose to go look at the article and see what they think. It reads as paranoid political polemic to me. Zora 11:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for background info. I blocked Ahwaz solely based on the 3RR report above and a quick check I made. Zora, I have doublechecked the diffs (by Khoikhoi) and all four look like RVs. The diff you gave is yet another, and it was not considered here. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Khoikhoi's last diff was misleading. He did not compare Ahwaz's edit to the base version, but to another version. 3RR is violated when there are more than three reverts to the SAME version. You can't morph the policy to say that a user is allowed no more than three reverts (to anything) in the same article in 24 hours. Please be fair. Zora 02:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, 3RR is indeed about any four reverts on a page in 24 hours. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Then why does the report form ask you for the BASE version and then the reverts? That implies that reverts to another, non-base, version don't count. Zora 04:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's just a form, and it's not always useful. However, the policy is clear on this; quoting from it: "Note: There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count." Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not know that any revert on any part of the page constituted part of the 3RR rule; I had thought that it applied to the same section. Now I know better. However, on my talk page, Humus sapiens said the block was for vandalism. I would like to know the substance behind this accusation, since Khoikhoi  did not make this allegation in his report.--الأهواز 20:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Politician818 reported by User:Jpgordon
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:25, May 23, 2006
 * 1st revert: 23:13, May 26, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 04:20, May 27, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 20:32, May 27, 2006
 * 4th revert: 02:15, May 28, 2006

Reported by: jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I noticed that the user has been already blocked for 24hr. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Arniep reported by User:Zeq (result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:45 May 26


 * 1st revert: 10:12 May 27
 * 2nd revert: 11:16 May 27
 * 3rd revert: 13:33 May 27
 * 4th revert: 00:48 May 28

Comments: User insist adding links to sites which do not fit WP:RS. The links were added intially by an anon editor (?) and were removed by several editors. Zeq 03:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For some reason, the diffs show... no diffs. I commented on Talk and reverted, so I consider myself involved and cannot do anything here. Perhaps other admins can take a look. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The diff shows no diff because the result of the edit is a 100% reveret, hence no change. Zeq 18:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 10:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Fsk reported by User:Dr Zak (Result: 1hr)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:37, 27 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 01:17, 28 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 01:51, 28 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 03:16, 28 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 03:25, 28 May 2006
 * 5th revert: 04:30, 28 May 2006

Reported by: Dr Zak 03:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Adds links to partisan websites. Has been pointed out in several places that such links are not accepted per the external links policy yet continues inserting them. Dr Zak 03:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 1 hr. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

User:125.172.23.237 (Result:3hr)

 * Previous version reverted to: 01:05, 28 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 01:05, 28 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 02:20, 28 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 03:29, 28 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 05:41, 28 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 05:59, 28 May 2006

Reported by: Deiaemeth 06:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Acts against consensus and removes Korea and messes up the article out of one's own hatred against Korea, was blocked before because of exact same offense. Carelessly deletes information off the page and has, on the last edit, accidentally removed the United States off the list instead of South Korea.


 * Blocked for 3hrs. Let's see if it helps. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

User:RevolverOcelotX reported by User:yuje
Three revert rule violation on. :


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

Reported by: Yuje 11:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Revert war at article Hoisin sauce, where User:RevolverOcelotX insist on deleting material from the page. Despite trying to stop the deletion and talking on the discussion, he keeps on reverting and trying to push the deletions through. Even when I tried to edit the article differently based on his criteria of prominent names only, he only keeps reverting. --Yuje 11:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Since User:RevolverOcelotX has just contacted me on my talk page, I retract my nomination until further discussion, hopefully we can work the issue out without further reverting. --Yuje 12:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Similar vandalism on by the same person: 1st Revision as of 18:44, May 28, 2006, 2nd Revision as of 19:27, May 28, 2006, 3rd Revision as of 19:53, May 28, 2006, 4th Revision as of 20:36, May 28, 2006 --Saintjust 14:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Yuje reported by User:RevolverOcelotX
Three revert rule violation on. :


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

Reported by: RevolverOcelotX 12:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Revert war at article Hoisin sauce and Manchuria, where User:Yuje keeps on deleting material from the page. Despite trying to stop the deletion and talking on the discussion, he keeps on reverting and trying to push the deletions through. He only keeps reverting and resorted to deletion of content. RevolverOcelotX 12:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

User:172 #2 (result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:44, 24 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 13:36, 27 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 17:09, 27 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 05:13, 28 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 11:38, 28 May 2006

Reported by: -- Vision Thing -- 13:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Now this is just dishonest. The third difference was not a revert. In that edit I was working toward a compromise whereby Vision Thing's personal fork "types of socialism" can be hidden until he addresses the serious problems noted on Talk:Types of socialism. After Vision Thing ignored the offers of compromise on Talk:Types of socialism, never commenting on the problems concerning his fork, I made the edit reported in the fourth difference (which happens to be only the second, not the thrird or fourth, in a 24 hr window) out of frustration. This 3RR report is just an attempt to game the system by an editor who is unwilling to engage in a serious discussion of substantive feedback on article content. 172 | Talk 14:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hiding text is same as deleting it, result is the same.


 * It's funny how you are accusing me for dishonesty and you tried to smear me by accusing me of sockpuppetry based on your "strong evidence". As for the article Types of socialism, you erased its content 4 times in 24h+14m. Your "compromise" was not compromise at all. -- Vision Thing -- 14:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly 4R - hiding the text in the article is functionally the same as deleting it; arguing otherwise is sophistry. VT - you nearly got blocked too... you're edit warring too. Be careful William M. Connolley 19:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I just made a compromise offer to him. I hope that that will set things right between us. -- Vision Thing -- 19:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you, I have noted the postive tone in your post linked above. It is a clear step in the right direction. 172 | Talk 20:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: this was overturned by Tawker: see 172's talk page William M. Connolley 22:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Tyhopho reported by User:WegianWarrior (result: warning)
Three revert rule violation on. :

Reported by: WegianWarrior 14:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Comments
 * First change: 15:56, 28 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 16:17, 28 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 16:20 28 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 16:22 28 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:30 28 May 2006
 * 5th revert: 16:47, 28 May 2006
 * fair enough - i thought i had evidence on my side from policy but obviously not. ive ceased with the article. Tyhopho 15:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Gets off with a warning this time, since seems to be new and to have stopped William M. Connolley 19:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

: reported by User:Englishrose
Three revert rule violation on. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on 74.65.39.59. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. :
 * Previous version reverted to: 14:20, 28 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 14:25, 28 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 14:39, 28 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 14:39, 28 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:35, 28 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 17:27, 28 May 2006

Reported by: Englishrose 17:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Comments:
 * User will not listen to the consensus of the other three editors and is accusing them of being fans, thus ignoring our comments and reverting us. Englishrose 17:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Already blocked by me, independant of this report. For the record, it would be helpful if you provided difflinks instead of page versions. :-) --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 17:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did it in a rush. Thanks for acting quickly :-). Englishrose 17:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

User:82.69.96.41 and User:72.50.23.21 reported by User:Aquilina
Three revert rule violation on. :

Reported by: A  q  uilina  18:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: 18:12, 28 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:05, 28 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:16, 28 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:20, 28 May 2006
 * 5th revert: 19:23, 28 May 2006
 * 6th revert: 19:28, 28 May 2006

Comments: Two editors warring over the external links to the Rochdale page - both want theirs to be the only link. Not all the diffs are exactly the same, as in the rush to include their links they are also destroying the section title, interwiki links and categories; 3RR has certainly been broken however. First user was warned of 3RR earlier today here A  q  uilina  18:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Both editors now warned via Talk:Rochdale edit war increasing - now had 23 edits to this section in the last hour, mostly reverts of some kind.


 * Second editor has agreed to stop, but first is repeatedly adding spam into the external links section, and refusing to discuss edits. Spam3 template has been used.    A  q  uilina  19:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked 82.69.96.41 for 24h. Not sure if this will help, as may be on a new IP William M. Connolley 08:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

User:32.106.141.211 reported by User:Marskell (result: 3h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: 13:11, 28 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 21:02, 28 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 21:20, 28 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 21:40, 28 May 2006

Reported by: Marskell 22:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The first edit was by .212 and the last three by .211. The first was called a "vandalism revert", so I'm presuming this user has done this before. Another editor rv'ed the first and I've done three since (sorry). Do note what's being reverted is sourced and that the second edit of mine was an attempted compromise.

3h as a first offence William M. Connolley 08:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 5th revert: 22:10, 28 May 2006 as User:32.106.141.211
 * [6th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astrology&diff=55717215&oldid=55714553, 09:48, 29 May 2006] as User:32.106.141.5

This last one is still in the three hour period of the initial block. Marskell 10:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Bormalagurski reported by User:ilir_pz
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:26, 29 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 01:12, 29 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 01:15, 29 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 01:24, 29 May 2006

Reported by: ilir_pz 23:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user above has refused to check the Reliable_sources when editing and using his NPOV propaganda pushing, and kept reverting accordingly. The user is well-known for his NPOV revert war waging, has been blocked 4 times previously, for 3RR and personal attacks, having sockpuppets and impersonating wikipedia users. Furthermore he keeps calling people liars, if they do not agree with his POV. Some action against this user would be appreciated. Thank you in advance!


 * This is not 3RR, I have not reverted to the same version, but different versions vandalized by Ilir. He keeps removing cited sources, and actual quotes from politicians. Regardless, I did not brake the 3RR. --[[Image:GrbSrbije.PNG|26px]] <font color="#003399">serbiana - <font color="#A61022">talk  23:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The mistake I made by reporting a 3RR violation, brought an interesting development. Sorry for the mistake. ilir_pz 00:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Apology not accepted. I'd like to call anyone who sees this comment to ask for a checkuser, so Ilir's claims of "organized sockpuppetry" can finally be disproved. Thank you. --[[Image:GrbSrbije.PNG|26px]] <font color="#003399">serbiana - <font color="#A61022">talk  00:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Aplomado reported by User:Guettarda
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:02, 28 May 2006


 * 1st revert: 21:48, 28 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 22:49, 28 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 23:07, 28 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:14, 28 May 2006
 * 5th revert: 01:18, 29 May 2006
 * 6th revert: 20:34, 28 May 2006

Reported by: Guettarda 01:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User is obviously aware of the 3RR, since he has used the following edit summary:

(cur) (last) 23:14, 28 May 2006 Aplomado (rv - if you revert again, you will be listed at WP:3RR)

As he clearly knows about 3RR, I've blocked for 24 hours. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Nedko reported by User:Miskin (result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Reported by: Miskin 01:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user has been POV-pushing, abusing POV-tags, sockpuppeting and edit-warring for several days on the same article, each time for a different reason. The past two todays a large number of people spent their time to explain to him how wikipedia works and finally persuaded him to stop POV-pushing. Today he creates a completely different problem and finds another reason to start edit-warring (adding POV-tags over a category). The user was warned on his third revert. Miskin 01:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

All reverts were to re-add the POV tag, stating the easy proven fact that page neutrality is being disputed on the talk page. Nedkoself bias resist 03:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, all reverts in the past 3 hours or so. You've been edit-warring for several days (sometimes under different usernames) and it's obvious that you intend to continue doing so by inventing new problems every day. I'm sorry but I have wasted too much of my time and energy trying to explain to you how this encyclopaedia works. It appears that some people can only learn the hard way. Miskin 03:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 08:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Ericsaindon2 reported by User:Adambiswanger1
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Comments: I appreciate his earnesty and hard work, but despite the fact that the staw poll revealed that the article should not include an infobox, he has insisted upon it and ignored our removal of it. We have warned him a number of times, including on his userpage, but he remains determined. We need to protect this article so we do not have to waste our time babysitting him. Adambiswanger1 04:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Reported by: Adambiswanger1 04:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I blocked the user for 24 hours, his third block in a short time for 3RR. Subsequently he asked to be unblocked giving assurances that he will not insert the boxes again, and will follow the 3RR. As a result I have unblocked him, but will reblock if necessary. -Will Beback 08:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I recognize his sincere intentions, but it was just becoming a little too much.  Maybe he has learned his lesson.Adambiswanger1 16:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Jeremygbyrne reported by User:Zeq
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:45 May 27
 * 1st revert: 08:54 May 28
 * 2nd revert: 09:50 May 28
 * 3rd revert: 01:11 May 29
 * 4th revert: 09:42 May 29
 * 5th revert: 09:46 May 29

Reported by: Zeq 10:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: All edit summeries indicate a revert. The last 4 are in the last 24 hours but the violator shows a pattern of ownership over this (and other Iran related) articles pushing away edits and trying to push editors who don't fit his POV. He also made threats ("go away") such as the one in this edit summary: and to top it off he even reverted the talk page of that article....

Has any admin looked at this issue ?????????? Zeq 11:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone applied a remedy on this case ??????????????? Zeq 04:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

User:HOTR reported by User:PinchasC
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:16, 28 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 23:23, 28 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 00:19, 29 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 00:59, 29 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 01:06, 29 May 2006

Reported by: PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  12:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: He is adding in the paragraphs about Israeli apartheid and apartheid wall. He has been previously blocked twice for 3rr violations. 


 * See also another report below on the same user and on a related topic. Pecher Talk 14:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Two of those reverts were against Jayjg's attempt to redirect the article elsewhere whilst two dealt with edits to content. Homey 18:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:3RR limits the number of reverts per page per 24 hours. The reverts need not be about the same part of the article.

See Talk:Apartheid (disambiguation), there has been a repeated attempt to vandalise the article by removing links to articles that use the term "apartheid" in a way Pecher and a few others don't like. There removal of the sentences is simply vandalism and is in violation of our policy on Wikipdia:Disambiguation. Homey 19:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In any article that Homey has a dispute he describe it as "anti-vandalism" Zeq 20:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to draw the attention of admins to Homey's repeated and unjustified accusations of other users of vandlaism; for example, in comment above, as well as in the edit summary here] and on WP:AN/I. Pecher Talk 20:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is another baseless accusation of vandalism coupled with what looks like a misuse of admin power . Pecher Talk 20:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I am blocking him for 24 hours, it should be more since this is his third offence. For some reason on the 3rr report by Pecher below he got away with a warning however he should know better since he has been previously been blocked twice for this and he is an admin. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  21:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Armon reported by User:csloat (result: 8h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:20, 28 May 2006
 * 1st revert: 18:16, 28 May 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:27, 28 May 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:05, 28 May 2006
 * 4th revert: 03:32, 29 May 2006

Reported by: csloat 12:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Fourth revert is a partial revert as the other parts that he had been reverting had not been changed back. Armon was repeatedly warned in talk about this revert and asked to explain each of his changes, specifically the deletion he made in the fourth revert. He refused to respond in talk and only used cryptic and misleading edit summaries to justify what he was doing.--csloat 12:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, 8h as first offence William M. Connolley 21:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

User:HOTR reported by User:Pecher
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:50, May 29, 2006
 * 1st revert: 05:12, May 29, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 05:19, May 29, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 13:09, May 29, 2006
 * 4th revert: 13:14, May 29, 2006
 * 5th revert: 18:01 May 29, 2006

Reported by: Pecher Talk 13:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The first two reverts were removals of the unencyclopedic tag inserted by another editor; the last two reverts were re-insertions of material from sources the reliability of which is disputed. See also a report above on the 3RR violation by HOTR on Apartheid (disambiguation). Pecher Talk 13:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Two reverts of one thing and three reverts of another do not make up five reverts of the same thing. Homey 18:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * User:HOTR has just reverted the same article once again despite being warned not to. To attempt to get around this he stated he was removing vandalism, even though it was clear the edits wouldn't qualify as such by any criteria.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Same article, this time it was a revert of Zeq's vandalism which was aimed at a different part of the article. Nice try. Homey 18:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a different between good faith content dispute (see talk) to your aggresive revert pattern of this and similar articles which i did not even edit. Zeq 18:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:3RR limits the number of reverts per page per 24 hours. The reverts need not be about the same part of the article. Pecher Talk 18:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR does not apply when one is reverting vandalism. Zeq attempted to blank a large part of the article (the "pro" side if you will) leaving only the "anti" side. Homey 20:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is well established here: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents that no vandalism was involved.
 * Is there no 3RR action cause homey is an admin ? well he already got blocked before see his block log. Zeq 20:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not "well established" there. Please don't make things up. As for vandalism, this edit by you is clearly an act of vandalismHomey 20:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was well established to be a content dispute, so here is another baseless accusation of vandalism. Pecher Talk 20:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

And my first two reverts did not touch the content of the article at all. They were about an unsupported tag, one that the person who put it there has subsequently agreed to remove. Homey 20:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not desperately happy about this... but judging a genuine misunderstanding of the rules by Homey, and this reply, I'm giving him a warning and reminder of the rules William M. Connolley 20:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is an issue of happy or sad.
 * Homey is an admin. Admin should be held to even  higher  standards. Instead he behave in a childish way, edit-wared on 3 articles, blocked those who opposed him and used "vandalism" as an excuse.
 * Vandalism is if I would delete the whole article and replace it with porn link or something.
 * What I did was not close to Vandalism. In fact my proposal for the article is now seriously considered at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29/sandbox and it is indeed with much of the infalmatory, non sourced text gone.


 * Homey violated 3RR (4RR ) 5RR....but who's counting??? He needs to get a clear message (this is his 4th and 5th violation of 3RR)


 * don't let homey arguments fool you. Please:  check the facts  Zeq 21:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Zeq, I think he should be held to exactly the same standards as everyone else, no more, no less. Then again, if I were an admin and didn't understand such basic rules as WP:3RR, I'd immediately request to be stripped of my admin status.  But that's just me. Al 21:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * William's reasonableness is laudable. It would be more so if it extended to non-admins. Al 21:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)