Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive21

User:Truthisgreater reported by User:Antaeus Feldspar (result: 8hr block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 01:54, 29 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 03:03, 29 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 04:25, 29 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 04:32, 29 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 04:34, 29 June 2006

Time report made: 04:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This is probably not the only article he's violated 3RR on; he's also been editing R2-45 and Chiropractic very insistently. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

8h as a first offence William M. Connolley 07:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Giovanni33 reported by User:Str1977 (result: blocked 24 hrs)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 21:32, 28 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 02:52, 29 June 2006, supplemented by 03:09, 29 June 2006
 * Shown as diff with version he reverted to (identical)
 * 2nd revert: 15:00, 29 June 2006
 * Shown as diff with version he reverted to (identical)
 * 3rd revert: 15:13, 29 June 2006
 * Shown as diff with version he reverted to (almost identical)
 * 4th revert: 15:21, 29 June 2006
 * Shown as diff with version he reverted to (identical)

Time report made: 15:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: On-going revert warring in conjunction with User:Professor33.

Comments from AnnH ♫: I added the diffs with versions he reverted to, to make it easier to see that they were indeed reverts. Giovanni is a chronic edit warrior, who was given a huge amount of indulgence when he arrived, and was not reported for his first five or six violations (including one where he reverted eleven times in less than nineteen hours). When he met with opposition, he was supported by the sudden appearance of, who reverted constantly to his version, violated 3RR, massively, and followed him around to vote for what he wanted. They pretended not to know each other, until a usercheck showed they were editing from the same IP, after which he said she was his wife. He was then joined by, who appeared while Giovanni33 was blocked for puppetry, said he had read the discussion and agreed with Giovanni &mdash; and then reverted to his version. When Giovanni was asked if he was connected with any of the new users who were supporting him, he denied it, forgetting that he was logged on as Freethinker99. He then tried to get rid of the evidence but we had already seen it. He is supported by who has 40 reverts to Giovanni (across a wide range of articles) out of a total of 45 article edits, plus talk page support and votes. Also, who seems also to be here just for the purpose of giving extra reverts to Giovanni. There have been other cases, too. The latest to arrive is, who joined recently, reverts to Giovanni, has a similar linguistic style, and edits Mondays to Fridays, at times when Giovanni, according to his time zone, would be at work and would have a different IP. I am happy to e-mail the linguistic evidence to any administrator who requests it, but do not wish to make it public, as it would alert Giovanni. AnnH ♫ 16:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours. Wikibofh(talk) 16:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Wikibofh. Please note, however, that Professor33, as predicted, has just logged on and reverted to Giovanni's version. AnnH ♫ 16:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Increased block to a week. Blocked Professor as a sock.  Wikibofh(talk) 16:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Discussion is here. AnnH ♫ 08:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As reported here, Giovanni violated his block with this post. He acknowledges that IP as his, and replaced a signature that he had made while logged off as recently as 1 July. AnnH ♫ 03:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

User:AndriyK reported by User:Kuban Cossack [[Image:Flag of the Russian Empire (black-yellow-white).svg|25px|]] (result: no action)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 06:20, 28 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 21:08, 28 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 21:22, 28 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 09:51, 29 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 17:02, 29 June 2006

Time report made: 18:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Has managed to reinsert the tag into a settled dispute a total of 40 times over the past few months. Previously banned by arbcom for offenses such as these. Knows well of 3rr. Suggest minimum of a week.--Kuban Cossack 18:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) 4 only deletes a blank line William M. Connolley 18:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, #4 neither alters content or tag.Homey 17:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Aksarben reported by User:ccwaters (Result: blocked 24 hrs)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert: 13:06, 29 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:17, 29 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:37, 29 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:45, 29 June 2006
 * 5th revert: 16:09, 29 June 2006
 * 6th revert: 30 June 2006
 * 7th revert: 05:31, 30 June 2006

Also User:68.147.225.8 looks like him not logged in. Recommend block there too.


 * Can we get something done about this? It is continuing today with the mentioned IP addy. ccwaters 13:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Time report made: 19:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The times reported for each revert do not correspond with the actual links, for instance the first revert was actually at 17:06. Nevertheless, there have been four reverts including one made following a warning. Homey 17:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's just a time zone issue. ccwaters 12:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Nokilli reported by User:Jayjg (talk)(result: blocked 24 hrs)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 20:08, 24 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 01:24, 29 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 01:46, 29 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 02:10, 29 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:11, 29 June 2006

Time report made: 20:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * The reverts are quite straightforward; the editor even labels them as reverts. Editor continues to revert since the 4th revert, and has been warned about the 3RR and asked to revert himself, but apparently refuses to do so. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hrs. FeloniousMonk 20:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

User:159.49.254.2 reported by User:Extraordinary Machine (result: blocked 8hrs)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 19:15, 28 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 23:19, 28 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:56, 29 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 20:51, 29 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:08, 29 June 2006

Time report made: 23:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User insists on reinserting a pro-Houston POV into the article, and has ignored requests on his/her talk page to discuss the issue at Talk:Whitney Houston. Recently (s)he has also been making uncited and POV contributions (and reinserting them without explanation whenever they are removed) to the article Mariah Carey. Extraordinary Machine 23:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, 8h first offence

User:Appleby reported by User:Sydneyphoenix (result: no action)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:


 * 1st revert: 14:34, 29 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 03:29, 30 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 03:52, 30 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 04:20, 30 June 2006

Time report made: 04:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

2006-06-30 06:00:59 Appleby (Talk | contribs | block) (oops, self-rv, for 3RR) William M. Connolley 07:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Tawkerbot2 on Leet (result: note on TB page)

 * 2006-06-30 15:42:12
 * 2006-06-30 16:01:11
 * 2006-06-30 16:05:16
 * 2006-06-30 16:21:08
 * 2006-06-30 16:22:05

Kotepho 16:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Technically you appear to be correct. I've left a note on the TB page to try to see if this can be fixed. However, I don't think this merits a shutdown of the bot, which is otherwise very useful William M. Connolley 19:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Justforasecond reported by Jpgordon (result: blocked 24 hrs)
Three revert rule violation on. :
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 16:14, June 29, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 03:17, June 30, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 04:21, June 30, 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:17, June 30, 2006

More bad-faith edits from JFAS. Note the very careful attempt to game the system (16:14 versus 16:17), presumably to avoid breaking the letter of the law while breaking the spirit of the law. Note from his block log he's been previously blocked for exactly the same thing on exactly the same article. I'd block, but I'm involved. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough: 24h William M. Connolley 19:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Ferick reported by TSO1D (result: blocked 12 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. : (


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 15:53 Jun 29


 * 1st revert: 23:12, 29 June 2006
 * 2nd revert: 02:06, 30 June 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:04, 30 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:03, 30 June 2006

Time report made: 19:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user has continuously removed the Serbian topics template from the article, in my view not because it is not relevant there but because of ideological reasons. TSO1D 19:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well yes he has, but so (obviously) have you. 12h each William M. Connolley 21:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

User:67.160.229.147 reported by User:WilliamThweatt (result: blocked 8 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:

Time report made: 23:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Comments: The anonymous user continues to revert to his version which includes obvious Original Research and POV. After being warned of 3RR violation on his talk page, he disrupts by reverting exactly 3 times in 24 hours every day. At least 3 people have offered to discuss and/or help with making his edits NPOV but he won't even discuss or leave an edit summary.--WilliamThweatt 23:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Slight correction, four editors (William, Nareek, Gamaliel, and myself) have spoken to the anon. There has been no response.  I agree with William that the anon is being disruptive.  Kasreyn 00:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

8h William M. Connolley 10:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

User:62.77.181.11 reported by User:feline1 (result: blocked 3 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lough_Neagh&action=edit&oldid=61375828


 * 1st revert: DiffTime http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lough_Neagh&oldid=61401824
 * 2nd revert: DiffTime http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lough_Neagh&oldid=61388093
 * 3rd revert: DiffTime http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lough_Neagh&oldid=61367894
 * 4th revert: DiffTime http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lough_Neagh&oldid=61039227

Time report made: 02:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Continual politically-motivated reversions made by IP address (allegedy from IP address allocated to Irish government), in defiance of editorial consensus and wikipedia article about geographical term British Isles.

No obvious warning; 3h William M. Connolley 10:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Hyrule reported by User:TSA (result: blocked 24 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 06:22, 1 July 2006
 * 2nd revert: 00:52, 1 July 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:57, 30 June 2006
 * 4th revert: 07:58, 30 June 2006

Time report made: 08:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User's reverts are to re-insert a link to their personal fansite, which has a story which is unverifiable and has no citations or sources. Several users have had to revert the 3RR violator's edits, and the user has ignored the discussion to try to resolve the problem in a civil manner. This user has a history of self-advertising and replacing more appropriate, official and credible citations with their own fan site pages for the purpose of increasing their site traffic to bring in more revenue from their advertising. The user also sometimes reverts under an IP address to try to bypass the 3RR.

2006-07-01 06:27:23 Madchester blocked "Hyrule (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (violation of 3RR) William M. Connolley 10:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

User:130.94.134.166 reported by User:Yom (result: blocked 8 hours)
Three revert rule violation on.

(All times UTC)

07:09, 1 July 2006]
 * 1st revert (last of series that count as one): 06:39, 1 July 2006
 * 2nd revert (conflict with Deeceevoice): 06:49, 1 July 2006
 * 3rd revert (As #2): 06:56, 1 July 2006
 * 4th revert (last of series that count as one): [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Controversy_over_race_of_Ancient_Egyptians&diff=61513786&oldid=61513731
 * 5th revert (last of series that count as one): 07:15, 1 July 2006
 * 6th revert (last of series that count as one*): 07:29, 1 July 2006


 * Technically accidentally broken up by one of my edits and reverted in again as explained below.

Anonymous user keeps reverting back in images that are irrelevant to particular sections. I believe I'm at two reverts, but I did make two other edits that were meant to be completing my intended revert (i.e. the second one) that didn't exactly have the effect I meant. One ended up being after another user edited (which would technically count as 2 reverts instead of one, I think, but I didn't know an edit had occured since then), while the other edit that was supposed to be part of my revert was intended to redress what I thought was another oversight, but it turned out that the Anon reverted again (which, had I known, I would not have reverted). Excuse me for these. I have commented on his user talk and two comments have now been exchanged after a long time, but he simply accuses me of POV for the removal of the images instead of actually addressing my concerns. &mdash; ዮም   (Yom)  |  contribs  •  Talk  •  E  09:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems fair enough. can have 8h for persistence William M. Connolley 11:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

He has reinserted the images less than 24 hours since his last revert. I have again removed the inappropriate ones (those in areas not involving art) and left alone all images, regardless of appearance, in appropriate sections, putting me at my 3rd revert since around 1:00 UTC July 1st. The Anon is at his 7th or 8th now. Can someone please put a longer ban on him (i.e. one long enough so that he won't come back and break 3RR with his first revert) and/or semi-protect the page so that he will discuss the issue (he hasn't done so except for accusing me of POV earlier, but still hasn't addressed my response). &mdash; ዮም   (Yom)  |  contribs  •  Talk  •  E  20:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Sultanali reported by User:Nearly Headless Nick (result: blocked 24 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:


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

Time report made: 10:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: And there are many more reverts by this user. There is also the presence of another User:Kevin Breitenstein who has revert warred with the above-mentioned user. Please see the history of the article to confirm. Thanks. --Nearly Headless Nick 11:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to say: 24h William M. Connolley 12:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

User:AnwarA and User:Qiuip reported by User:Nearly Headless Nick (result: blocked 12 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. and :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime

Reverts by User:AnwarA&mdash;


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

Reverts by User:Qiuip&mdash;


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

Time report made: 11:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Both of the users have been editwarring on the same topic and have more than 5 reverts each. --Nearly Headless Nick 11:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

12h each William M. Connolley 12:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Rjensen reported by User:BusterD 17:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC) (result: blocked 24 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:


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

Time report made: 17:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User frequently wars on this and other pages. After a discussion about POV, one of the editors involved posted NPOV tags on section and article, which drew me to discussion on a page I normally watch and edit. Discussion in talk page didn't deter user from violation and drew personal attack. User reverted NPOV tags 4 times in 24 hours. Asking for some warning/punitive action. BusterD 17:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 21:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Zer0faults reported by User:213.225.83.85 (result: blocked 24 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:


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

Time report made: 19:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Apparently this user with several other users are edit warring over this article.
 * This users edit history should signal a red flag in this reporting: --  zero faults   ' '' 19:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

User Nescio is attempting to remove a fact from the Iraq War article, because he does not agree with it. He feels Bush had no right to say it and so feels its ok to remove it. I will layout the situation by dif
 * User Nescio adds its an incorrect assertion He does this because he thinks its reffering to when the inspectors left in March 2003. This is an honest mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.
 * I put it back stating in my edit summary that its not reffering to Hans Blix and March 2003
 * Nescio then contends that what happened in 1998 cannot be used as a justification in 2003. There are numerous things wrong with this, first his assertion is POV, its strictly his opinion. Second it does not take into account that the incident in question did not end in 98 it went on till October 2002, so at the time of the speech in question, Sept 12, 2002, it was in fact true that Iraq ceased allowing UNMOVIC to inspect.
 * I put it back explaining that the reasons for going to war, in the resolution are listed under what he is reading, and this is just what Bush said to the UN in a speech. I also pointed out that he doesnt have the authority to say what Bush can and cannot do. We are here to relay facts, not judge.
 * He puts it back stating "don't edit war, whatever his reasons, Bush can't refer to actions in 1998 as casus belli)" Another complete opinion. And contrary to the sources listed. Furthermore its not stated as casus belli since casus belli would be in the official document for war, which the Supreme Court states is resolution 114.
 * I removed it yet again because, well he doesnt have the authority to say what Bush can and cannot say, furthermore its already been said and sourced.

I contend that I was stopping the removal of sourced facts, and the manipulation of Nescio, which seemed to be derived from a mistake of what it was reffering to. -- zero faults   ' '' 19:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, well, "I am correct" has never been a defence in 3RR, and it isn't now: 24h I'm afraid William M. Connolley 21:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

User:DLH reported by User:FeloniousMonk (result: blocked 24 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 10:50, 1 July 2006


 * 1st revert: 11:43, 1 July 2006
 * 2nd revert: 12:04, 1 July 2006
 * 3rd revert: 12:21, 1 July 2006
 * 4th revert: 13:18, 1 July 2006

Time report made: 20:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Was warned:

24 hours Jaranda wat's sup 21:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

User:SYITS reported by User:Nunh-huh (result: blocked 24 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime

Comment: was warned; he was blocked for 3RR violation on the same article in April.
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Blocked for 24 hours Jaranda wat's sup 01:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Panairjdde reported by User:71.105.100.129
Three revert rule violation on.

This user can't even debate things, must just go and keep everything like he only wants. Looking at his talk page, I can see it is often the case he can't deal with things in a calm manner.


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


 * You just wanted to provoke me, with silly edits and even sillier comments. You just wanted to write my name here, right? As regards your comment on my way of dealing with things, my opponents praise me (see SirEdgar edit in my talk page), admins admit I behaved correctly (see Ian Manka edit). You are just a South-Korean provoker, who would like to turn Wikipedia into a pro-South Korea propaganda piece.--Panairjdde 01:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No one wants to provoke you, but it is obvious from your history that you like to provoke others. I desire consistent formatting, yet you make this personal.  You should just relax and act mature and not go and revert others.  Amazing behavior on your part.  I will let the Admins calm you down since you even erase my discussions on your chat page.  More amazing behavior.  The conspiracy theory is very out of control.  I am not even Asian! Keep yourself under control. 71.105.100.129 01:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I clearly showed you that your edits were wrong, and yet you kept adding them without a reason. I asked you to sign your posts, and you moked me. You are a provoker.--Panairjdde 01:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You did not clearly show me my edits were wrong, in fact you showed pages that were also inconsistent with your so-called correct edits. You either should keep everything expanded or everything compact, not half-and-half.  It is obvious that anyone who does not share your opinion is a "provoker".  Don't have more time for you. 71.105.100.129 01:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's only 3 reverts, not 4 in 24 hours. 3 reverts in 24 hours is the maximum allowed, not the point where it is just barely not allowed. I think this might qualify as being one of the lamest edit wars. &mdash; ዮም   (Yom)  |  contribs  •  Talk  •  E  01:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I quite liked the bit about the South Korean propaganda provoker. 71.105.100.129 02:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

User:71.34.108.155 reported by User:Jeff3000 (result: blocked 24 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 16:54, June 30, 2006


 * 1st revert: 11:16, July 1, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 12:32, July 1, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 23:03, July 1, 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:12, July 1, 2006

Time report made: 03:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User was warned on his talk page, and still made a fourth revert.
 * He's done a fifth revert 23:22, July 1, 2006. Furthermore he's deleting talk page discussion. -- Jeff3000 03:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked for twenty-four hours by me. Please show the reverts as diffs in reporting, thanks. Jkelly 03:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the diffs, I've updated the diffs now for future references. -- Jeff3000 03:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Nokilli reported by User:Jayjg (talk) (2nd time) (result: blocked 24 hrs)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 20:42, 29 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 03:16, 1 July 2006
 * 2nd revert: 08:16, 1 July 2006
 * 3rd revert: 20:36, 1 July 2006
 * 4th revert: 03:40, 2 July 2006

Time report made: 03:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Insists that any executive in a media corporation is a "journalist", and keeps restoring names of such executives to the list. Was just blocked for 3RR on this article a couple of days ago, and has now gotten "smarter", reverting 4 times in just over 24 hours. Jayjg (talk) 03:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

24 hours Jaranda wat's sup 03:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

User:El C reported by User:Zeq
Three revert rule violation on.


 * 1st revert: 07:24, 1 July 2006 Edit summary indicates that she "restored" what she call "my" text (because "it keeps being removed")


 * 2nd revert: 11:54, 1 July 2006


 * 3rd revert: 12:03, 1 July 2006. This edit was self reverted after it was pointed out to the editor that she has violated the 3RR based on her edits in previous 24 hours window. After the self revert - she has continued her reverts:

This a revert of this edit (see casualty figure) by a different editor. El C insist her number (7) is correct and not the other editor (8) - she restored her number
 * 4th revert: 02:54, 1 July 2006
 * 4th revert(part of same edit block): 02:58, 2 July 2006 (edit summary says: " re-adding info)"


 * 5th revert: 03:03, 2 July 2006


 * 6th revert: 04:03, 2 July 2006 (included a spelling error correction + a massive revert:

Time report made: 04:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The problem seems to be a sense of "ownership" user indicated "she made 1/2 of the edit on this article" and she keeps referying to some text as "my" Zeq 04:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Somehow you seem to have neglected the trivial fact that youre banned from the article. A quick look indicates that invalidates rv 7; rv 3 obviously doesn't count as self-rv'd; haven't looked through the rest William M. Connolley 08:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert 7 was done before i was banned. The ban was to justify the revert so this does not invalidates it. (i.e. the ban was done by El C when she was having a dispute with me) This is an admin abuse not a justification for revert. So there are 6 reverts (as I indicated 3 indeed does not count, although continued pattern of reverts after the self revert shows it was inteiotional) - even without #7 there are 5 reverts and even if one more is removed there are still (at least) 4 reverts (possibly 5, 6) - clear violation. 08:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A glance through the first 4 appear to be almost all completely unrelated to each other... The latter 3 are not 3rr as there are only 3 and they are not all the same either (the last one doesn't have a numerical change...) -Localzuk (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that Localzuk re-read the 3RR rules.... Zeq 14:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

From WP:3RR : "consecutive edits by the same editor are considered to be one; thus if an editor makes three separate successive edits, each of which reverts a different section, but with no intervening edits by other editors, this is counted as one revert." - Zeq was advised by this last week when he made a false complaint against me that was dismissed. This complaint is therefore in bad faith. It's also bad faith to count edits that were self-reverted. Homey 17:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey, good point that I missed so I have merged 4 and 5 together since you are correct are part of the same edit block. If more edits seem to you part of the same block please point it out. I indicated the self revert (as a revert that was self reverted) but since the reverts continued it should be mentioned (but not counted). There are still 5 reverts that should be counted as part of the same 24 hours window Zeq 17:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion to offer on this dispute, except to say that Localzuk's point that edits "appear to be almost all completely unrelated to each other" is irrelevant. I'm sure that Homey, who himself was blocked under this clause, would be the first to agree that, whatever the policy is, it should be consistently applied.  Please read WP:3RR and recent discussions on the policy talk page which addressed this issue.Timothy Usher 01:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I was only now informed of this notice. There have only been three (editorial) reverts in total, see supplumentary notes above. Zeq is/was under the mistaken belief that probation does not involve utmost care on his part. I maintain my actions to be in the best interests of the project. This is exactly the tendencious editing that caused Zeq to be placed under probation, and during which, banned from various articles, this being the latest one. El_C


 * Conclusion: Above EL_C admits to all 7 reverts and since 1 was self reverted this counts as 6.
 * Conclusion2: All the adimns he commennted above that those were not reverts are wrong.
 * EL_C justify her reverts that they "administrative reverts", based on policy and for the best interst of the project.


 * The 3RR is clear: No Editor (or admin) is allowed more than 3 reverts in 24 hours (other than handling vandalsim). Clearly what we have here is an edit dispute and not vandalism. I ask that remedy on El_C disruptive editing (violation of 3RR) will be imposed since she is still editing the article with string sense of ownership that lead to this behaviour. Blocks are preventetive and she indeed need to be prevented from continuing this type of editing. Zeq 04:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You're very confused. I reverted you three times. I rollbacked the anon as per WP:V. That's it. El_C 05:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "roll back", "adiministartive reverts" are all euphamisms.  no one  is allowed to reverts more than 3 times. You have admitted 7 reverts + 1 self revert which is 6 reverts in 24 hours. No confusion. You also prformed admin abuse by using admin power against an editor withwho you had a dispute with. Zeq 07:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Taking your own explanations for each revert at face value, El C, it sounds like a clear case of 3RR violation to me. You cannot say there are regular reverts, and then "administrative reverts" -  sysop-hood is no license to break 3RR.Timothy Usher 07:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Admins are afforded some discretion to enforce WP:V, so that rollback of the anon dosen't count, making a total of 3 reverts. El_C 08:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see where he admitted that, "You're very confused. I reverted you three times. I rollbacked the anon as per WP:V. That's it." Besides, this was two days ago, the threat is gone. Blocking for 3RR is not punitive. - FrancisTyers · 08:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd referred to El C's unorthodox small-text "rebuttals" of the listed reverts. We have a standard format for a reason.Timothy Usher 08:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What is meant by that? El_C 08:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I refractored it bellow for more comprehensible reading. El_C 08:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 07:24, 1 July 2006 Edit summary indicates that she "restored" what she call "my" text (because "it keeps being removed") &mdash; Compromise version that retained changes from both versions, not a revert. Added my AP ref (as in, ref originally added by myself) that kept being removed; kept & corrected the format of two refs by Israig; Kept & unified sentence by Israig into the narrative. He did not object to these changes. El_C 03:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So this is a partial revert since you have  re-added the refrence that you claimed was "kept being removed"


 * 2nd revert: 11:54, 1 July 2006 &mdash; Reverting careless edit by Zeq. El_C 03:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So this is your 2nd revert of content you did not agree with


 * 3rd revert: 12:03, 1 July 2006. This edit was self reverted after it was pointed out to the editor that she has violated the 3RR based on her edits in previous 24 hours window. After the self revert - she has continued her reverts: &mdash; Reverting Zeq a 2nd time, at which point he informs me I violated 3RR (see bellow). El_C 03:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This was your 3rd revert but you have self revrted it (after it was pointout to you that you reverts in  previous 24 hours window  (not mentioned here in full) you have violated 3RR.

This a revert of this edit (see casualty figure) by a different editor. El C insist her number (7) is correct and not the other editor (8) &mdash; Administrative revert (rollback). I placed an administrative hidden comment not to change casualty figures without a source, because it was becoming too unreliable, and the user changed the figures without a source immediately after. I rollback & then explained to the anon user this on his/her talk page, they then provided the source, which I subsequently added (aside: the anon ended up being wrong in the end by one casualty, which someone else corrected in the following edit). El_C 03:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4th revert: 02:54, 1 July 2006 &mdash; Self revert, not because I violated 3RR, but because I didn't want the discussion to spill into AN3. Self reverts do not count as reverts. El_C 03:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 4th revert(as part of same edit block): 02:58, 2 July 2006 (edit summary says: " re-adding info" &mdash; Self revert (accident). Edit summary reads: "re-adding changes to current version" by DLand. I accidentally added an older version with the addition, noticed it and rollbacked, then added the info to the latest version. El_C 03:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * At the end of this long story you have restored the number you prefered (7) (after it was changed by an anon editor to 8) -  This is a revert even if you have a long story to tell about it 


 * 5th revert: 03:03, 2 July 2006 &mdash; Administrative rollback of anon per WP:V/RS, see above. El_C 03:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You call it "an administarive rollback" but it is no more and no less than a revert to the content you prefer


 * 6th revert: 04:03, 2 July 2006 (included a spelling error correction + a massive revert: &mdash; Administrative revert. At this point I was convinced Zeq will disrupt & revert war this ITN-featured article, and decided to ban him from the article. The Arbitration Committee has been informed of this, see: RfAR/Zeq#Log of blocks and bans. El_C 03:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Clearly a content dispute that you choose to resolve usinga revert and appliying your admin power to the editor withwhom you have the dispute with . It is quite telling that you admit it and everyone just stand on the sideline and cheer... Zeq 09:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Erm, yes? Why are we still discussing this. Why should he be banned, the threat has been removed. He is no longer disrupting the article. - FrancisTyers · 09:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not disrupt it at any point; Zeq did which is why he is now banned from it. El_C 09:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Precisely :) - FrancisTyers · 09:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Three reverts cheers for clarity! El_C 09:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * All the "cheerleading" that goes on here does not change the fact that there were 7 reverts (in 6 blocks) and one self-revert. reverts of "careless edits" and other euphamisms are just excuses for the simple fact: There was a clear violations (5-6 reverts) during 24 hours. Zeq 09:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That is a falsehood which you are unable to demonstrate to anyone's satisfaction. There were three reverts and one legit WP:V rollback. El_C 09:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't accuse me of lying while above you have admitted to each of the reverts. Please Don't insult our collective intelegence. Zeq 10:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not accuse you of lying, I said it was a falsehood which you are unable to demonstrate to anyone's satisfaction. El_C 10:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

And the good book says: "Blocks are a preventative rather than punitive measure used to prevent damage to Wikipedia by dealing with vandalism and enforcing bans and other Wikipedia policies." - FrancisTyers · 09:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So this is the excuse now: Too much time have passed and there is no need in the Block ? Yes, there is El_C is still very active in the article and she feel such a strong ownership and sense of urgency about keeping it as she like (since it is about current event) A block would help her to cool down. Zeq 10:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Zeq, it's best to let this go. The diffs you supplied are not conclusive. The second one doesn't show the diff, the fourth one shows an edit from El C directly after another edit from El C, which means it's not a revert. One of them shows El C reverting an anon who inserted something with no source, and therefore was arguably vandalism. It's a feature of editing fast-moving news stories that it gets to be difficult to separate edits from reverts, because so many people are changing things, and then in addition there are anon edits that may be simple vandalism and therefore don't count. El C is not known as a revert warrior and should be given the benefit of the doubt where doubt exists, as it does in this case. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Slim, I hear you. One of the nice things about Wikipedia is that there is a complete record and it is clear to anyone who wants to look at it:
 * No. 2 (which you say I did not provided the diff) is a full revert (I provided the diff that shows it is a complete revert from two edits ago, between them (use previous/next edit) you will see my edit and El_C edit)
 * As for the 4th one it is exactly the type of behaviour that many "edit warriers" use insisting on their vesrion and not any one else.
 * So with all due respect (and there is a lot) I disagree with your conclusion that this is a marginal issue. This is aclear violation and I am amsed: Do I have the only type of galsses that allow to see it - after all the record is clear and ton of excuses provided here: That the edits are not realted, that this is "an administrative function" etc... But the record is clear: 6 reverts in 24 hours. (should be counted as 5 because of the self revert or 4 if you buy the "adiminstrative revert") still 4RR is a violation of 3RR. I think the record need to be clear even if a block at this time is not the right remedy. (in this sense I agree with you that I should let it go) Zeq 15:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Rather than block this or that editor for 3RR, it would be better to protect the article for a couple of days, and let the engaged editors come to an agreement on how to resolve the dispute before unprotecting. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry.... I see that this is an article of current events... Given this I change my proposal to the following: for the next 7 days, all editors that have been edit warring to agree to be assessed under the 1RR rule. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This makes sense. Zeq 15:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no edit war involving myself, and it is best not to protect an ITN-featured articles. Zeq is/was being disruptive as is clear by the account above and the inflamatory and distortive manner in which it was depicted. El_C 16:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What does one has to do with the other ? Here i am asking people to look at the facts :The record is clear, but only SlimVirgin bothered to actually review it . Slim made a small mistake which is human (or in case she is right I made a mistake which is also human) Zeq 16:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Greier reported by User:Tēlex (result: blocked 1 week)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 12:10, 1 July 2006


 * 1st revert: 20:27, 1 July 2006
 * 2nd revert: 16:23, 2 July 2006
 * 3rd revert: 16:37, 2 July 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:48, 2 July 2006

Time report made: 16:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User has violated the 3RR numerous times before. --Tēlex 16:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I reverted vandalism. Please see the content of my edits: if the link is called "Byzantine Greece", than it should redirect to the article Byzantine Greece, not to Byzantine Empire, not to Byzantine art, Byzantine emperors, etc... Isn`t that logical? 16:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Addendum: if you check his contribution history, you'll see he's been simultaneously revert warring against multiple users on at least five other articles. Your "article" (as you call it) is a purpose made one sentence stub, and the topic is covered more that thoroughly enough at Byzantine Empire. As I told you yesterday, please expand it for it to be in the template. --Tēlex 17:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've blocked User:Greier for one week. His block log suggests a long-term solution may be required. Tom Harrison Talk 17:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Owwmykneecap reported by User:Demiurge (result: blocked 24 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 13:17, 29 June 2006


 * 1st revert: 22:56, 1 July 2006
 * 2nd revert: 16:47, 2 July 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:25, 2 July 2006
 * 4th revert: 17:53, 2 July 2006

Time report made: 17:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Classic example of Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Warned at. Demiurge 17:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison Talk 17:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Matyldalondyn and User:87.227.28.6 reported by User:Batman2005 {result: blocked 12 hours)
Matyldalondyn as well as his (probable) IP address User:87.227.28.6 have violated the 3RR rule on the Lukas Podolski page.

Edits for Matyldalondyn
 * 1.
 * 2.
 * 3.
 * 4.
 * 5.

Edits for 87.227.28.6
 * 1.
 * 2.
 * 3.
 * 4.

Please do something about this as well as the sock puppetry being employed by this user to input trivia into an article that has been reverted by 3 or 4 users as dubious and unsourced. Time Report Made 22:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Batman2005 22:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

After toying with sprotect I've blocked both for 12h William M. Connolley 22:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Wiki-star reported by User:Daishokaioshin (result 1 week)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:


 * 1st revert: 02:45, 3 July 2006
 * 2nd revert: 03:00, 3 July 2006
 * 3rd revert: 03:13, 3 July 2006
 * 4th revert: 03:23, 3 July 2006
 * 5th revert: 03:31, 3 July 2006
 * 6th revert: 03:41, 3 July 2006
 * 7th revert: 03:55, 3 July 2006

Time report made: 03:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Wiki-star is at it again. We've tried discussing things with him, we've taken a vote on the edits he has proposed, and he refuses to accept the results. He has declared that he is going to keep re-adding things because talking was "a collosal" failure. Meaning that it didn't go his way. He is a problem user, and will NOT be reforming any time soon. Daishokaioshin 03:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wiki-star is hopeless. He is narrow minded and obviousley not willing to stop until he gets banned. Wiki-star should be banned indefinitly, because nothing else will get him to stop. No matter how much we prove him wrong, he just keeps saying he's right and keeps putting in false information. KojiDude 03:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wiki-star: Nope! You're both so very wrong. Daishokaioshin cutted me off, and ordered me to stop talking because the discussion has come to an end. It's not just a vote, it's a vote with logical, and evidential reasoning, until the other party agrees. Not because talking things over failed, doesn't mean it didn't went your way. It could be because the other person or party were too stubborn, it could be that they refused or cut you off. It could've been a trillion things. But here you both are, trying to make it sound like i'm a criminal. Trying to be perfect liars and hypocrits about my actions. Tsk Tsk Tsk, shame on you both! If i do get banned, it would most definitely be for the better! Thanks anyways! Wiki-star 04:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wiki-star, you have just perfectly described yourself. =)

It could be because the other person or party were too stubborn, it could be that they refused or cut you off. Sound familiar to anyone? KojiDude 04:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Diffs by User:Kevin Breitenstein since its an edit conflict on this report: These are actual diffs I was going to provide for this report. The user violating 3RR has several [ blocks] already, apparently. Kevin_b_er 04:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1nd revert: [ 01:52, July 3, 2006]
 * 2st revert: [ 02:04, July 3, 2006]
 * 3rd revert: [ 02:45, July 3, 2006]
 * 4th revert: [ 03:00, July 3, 2006]
 * 5th revert: [ 03:13, July 3, 2006]
 * 6th revert: [ 03:55, July 3, 2006]

I blocked Wiki-star for one week as a repeat offender, KojiDude also broke 3rr on the page but I gave only a 3 hour block as first offence. Please stop edit warning. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 04:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Exploding Boy reported by User:r b-j (Result: 12h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 03:27, 3 July 2006
 * 2nd revert: 03:53, 3 July 2006
 * 3rd revert: 04:28, 3 July 2006
 * 4th revert: 04:37, 3 July 2006

Time report made: 04:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:Exploding Boy apparently believes he owns the article. the talk page is full of people questioning his POV edits. he's been relying on the fact that none try to stand up to him. i tried to insert one word: "pejoratively" to describe the use of the word homophobia to apply to opponents of pro-gay political activism. just as opposition to the state of Israel does not make one an anti-semite, opposition to ACT-UP or similar does not make one a homophobe. r b-j 04:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, 12h William M. Connolley 07:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Ryulong and User:71.117.250.160 reported by User:SchmuckyTheCat (Result:Warnings to both )
Three revert rule violation on. and :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime


 * 1) (cur) (last) 00:31, 3 July 2006 71.117.250.160 (Talk) (show you sources on release vehicle ... that has never been discussed outside of MS campus (i work on campus))
 * 2) (cur) (last) 00:30, 3 July 2006 Ryulong (Talk | contribs) (rvv: if you can't give me the source, then it is vandalism)
 * 3) (cur) (last) 00:28, 3 July 2006 71.117.250.160 (Talk) (Your entry is also trite with speculation no? Here is a middle road which does not speculation release vehicle or feature details ... i do have source but none that i can give you.)
 * 4) (cur) (last) 00:26, 3 July 2006 Ryulong (Talk | contribs) (rvv: you do not have a source for this information, which you could provide as the link or in the references. It is pure speculation.)
 * 5) (cur) (last) 00:25, 3 July 2006 71.117.250.160 (Talk) (This is not vandalism it is correcting clear misrepresentation of the details on fiji. You guys need to stop trying to be wiki police and accept valid inputs here.)
 * 6) (cur) (last) 00:21, 3 July 2006 Ryulong (Talk | contribs) (rvv)
 * 7) (cur) (last) 00:20, 3 July 2006 71.117.250.160 (Talk)
 * 8) (cur) (last) 00:18, 3 July 2006 Ryulong (Talk | contribs) (rvv: where is your source for all of this?)
 * 9) (cur) (last) 00:17, 3 July 2006 71.117.250.160 (Talk) (→Windows "Fiji")
 * 10) (cur) (last) 00:14, 3 July 2006 Ryulong (Talk | contribs) (rvv)
 * 11) (cur) (last) 00:13, 3 July 2006 71.117.250.160 (Talk)

Time report made: 07:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: At first the IP editor, claiming to work at a MS campus, tried to correct mis-information, was reverted, then just removed all speculation entirely because this isn't crystal ball stuff and it isn't sourced to anything reliable. Both are long past 3RR.


 * Neither of them was warned, warned both with the 3RR4 abakharev 07:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Lord Loxley reported by User:Cberlet (Result: 3h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert: 13:43, 3 July 2006
 * 2nd revert: 13:46, 3 July 2006
 * 3rd revert: 13:47, 3 July 2006
 * 4th revert: 13:49, 3 July 2006

Time report made: 14:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Lord Loxley is well aware of 3RR, and has been warned before. See:.


 * User:Cberlet has a problem accepting complaints and criticism on his talk page; he thinks he owns his talk page and has the right to delete them. He is a notorious POV-pusher throughout all articles he is fixated with.  Common "hot buttons" are words like "Right" and "Conservative", but may entail a slew of tangential disputes.  See  and User_talk:Lord_Loxley for my attempt to warn him about having a "mission" on the Wikipedia, because I have noticed off and on, just how obsessed his article editing has been with being a vigilante for the Left and trying to portray the Right as wrong.  This person has an agenda and several people have voiced complaints, but he goes his own way and will not be stopped.  When will he review WP:POINT, once and for all?  Lord Loxley 14:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't edit war on peoples talk pages. See the rules. 3h William M. Connolley 15:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

User:193.254.155.48 reported by User:Zer0faults(Result: 8h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:


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

Time report made: 15:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has switched IP's to User:62.225.37.69 after being notified of 3rr report. [User keeps attempting to add statements in violation of WP:OR. When asked for source he provides ones that do not support the Vietnam claim, only the second half. -- [[User:Zer0faults| zero faults]  ' '' 15:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

8h; but leave the content-type stuff out of it William M. Connolley 18:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Crockspot reported by User:212.221.184.243 (Result: Both users warned )
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 15:07, 3 July 2006 Crockspot


 * 1st revert: 17:13, 3 July 2006
 * 2nd revert: 17:22, 3 July 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:44, 3 July 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:38, 3 July 2006

Time report made: 19:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * User warned. El_C 20:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reporting user also breahced 3RR; also warned. El_C 07:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Rbj reported by Exploding Boy 20:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC) (Result:Warning}
Three revert rule violation and possible sockpuppetry on.


 * [Edit 1]
 * [Edit 2 03:46, July 3, 2006]
 * [Edit 3 04:10, July 3, 2006]
 * [Edit 4 04:32, July 3, 2006]
 * [Edit 5 14:27, July 3, 2006]. Here, Rbj reverts a different user's change, restoring his own preferred version of the article again.  This is reverted by a different user.  Meanwhile, an anon account creates a version very similar to Rbj's.
 * [Edit 6 16:15, July 3, 2006] --possible sockpuppet edit by User:72.92.148.186, whose first and thus far only edit was to restore Rbj's preferred version.

At issue here is that Rbj's preferred version has not been created by consensus. Even adding a single word (in this case "pejorative") ruins the neutrality of the article. Exploding Boy 20:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Not clear that rv 5 is a revert - it doesn't add "pejorative" as all the others do William M. Connolley 21:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Or more precisely, it changes it to "pejoratively." it is clearly enough a restoration of Rbj's preferred version. Additionally, the sudden appearance of a new account whose one and only edit is a restoration of another user's preferred version of an article is usually a reliable indication of sockpuppetry. Exploding Boy 22:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree that, in this context, "pejoratively" should count as a restoration of "pejorative." El_C 00:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The User was not warned about the 3RR. I have given him a warning abakharev 07:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "the User" has not violated 3RR regarding homophobia. not at all. or any other WP rule except maybe WP:Civil(in the talk page).  abakharev, please check your facts: Exploding Boy did violate 3RR (he was trying to control the article as if he owned it for weeks and when that reign of his came to an end, he just couldn't let go), i reported it, he was blocked a very lenient 12 hours and now he's mad as hell and is trying to get back at me, frankly with some outright falsehoods and innuendo about me.  please check the facts.  i'm happy for review about this with a wider circle because i am confident (with the exception that i might have carried my criticims of EB's integrity a little far) that all of my actions regarding this were precisely legitimate.  check the facts. r b-j 15:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * one more fact checking note (since i only today saw this entry to the 3RR list). what E.B. calls "Edit 1" is an initial content change (not a revert) that E.B. immediately reverted without comment or justification.  Edits 2, 3, and 4, are my 3 reverts after which i stopped and at which E.B. did not, thus violating 3RR.  "Edit 5" is a content change and was not reverting any deletion of the contended word "pejorative" since it existed in the version that i was editing and existed in the result of my edit.  i was changing a different point.  that is not a revert by any stretch.  "Edit 6" is not mine despite what E.B. wants to believe.  there is no 3RR violation on my part.  r b-j 16:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Deucalionite reported by User:Fut.Perf. ☼ (Result: 48h)
Three revert rule violation on.


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 3 July, 08:27
 * 1st revert: 3 July, 15:32
 * 2nd revert: 3 July, 18:02
 * 3rd revert: 3 July, 21:12
 * 4th revert: 3 July: 21:30

Time report made: 21:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Several, complex reverts involving different material, but always re-instating the passage starting "This migration may have been caused...". 3rd offense within 2 months, has been fully aware of breaking 3RR, as shown by last edit summary. -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Can have 48 h for record, and William M. Connolley 21:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Came back to say: "Thanks for the vacation". Meh, better late than never. Deucalionite (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Mad Macs reported by User:Timothy Usher (Result: 24 hrs )
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 00:24, 3 July 2006


 * 1st revert: 04:30, 4 July 2006
 * 2nd revert: 05:15, 4 July 2006
 * 3rd revert: 05:23, 4 July 2006
 * 4th revert: 05:51, 4 July 2006

Time report made: 06:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Simple reverts to a wholesale removal of material, four in 1 hour 21 minutes. Appears to be a single-purpose account created to delete this section.Timothy Usher 06:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * User was not properly warn and alleged that he learned about the 3RR only from the message by User:Timothy Usher. I WP:AGF and unblocked him abakharev 07:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I caution Timothy Usher of WP:BITE, and hope in the future he will ensure users are familliar with the 3RR policy prior to filing 3RR reports. El_C 07:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Timothy Usher, did ensure 05:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC) that this apparently new user was aware of 3RR prior to making this report. Netscott 09:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In light of the incivility expressed by this user in combination with this 3RR report, a durable block to allow for "cooling off" would likely have been in order. Netscott 09:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Reblocked for 24 hours. El_C 10:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Freedom skies reported by User:User:Rama's Arrow (Result:24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 06:04, 4 July 2006
 * 2nd revert: 06:09 4 July 2006
 * 3rd revert: 06:16 4 July 2006
 * 4th revert: 06:24 4 July 2006

Time report made: 06:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * user:Freedom skies is also violating WP:NPOV, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL on this article - see Talk:Indian nationalism,,,. This Fire Burns   06:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have blocked User:Freedom skies for 24 hours. Since Rama's arrow is also very much close to breaking 3RR, I'm issuing him a warning too. --Ragib 06:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Looper5920 reported by Añoranza (Result: Warning)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 06:25, 3 July 2006

04:15, 4 July 2006
 * 2nd revert: 04:24, 4 July 2006
 * 3rd revert: 04:47, 4 July 2006* 4th revert: 06:26, 4 July 2006

Time report made: 07:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Even reverted POV-statement tag and did not reply at talk. Añoranza 07:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh the horror, cry a little louder. So you can go around making changes to articles despite those changes going against what the community has come to a consensus on and I get the 3RR warning.  Great. You have never discussed  in good faith and have ignored any attempt at reasoning.  I will continue to revert your POV pushing at every chance.--Looper5920 09:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please, discussion of articles to talk pages and discussion with users to user talk pages. There is no consensus regarding the conflict you got warned for. Only consensus is that the articles you linked to needed neutral titles instead of the ones you used. Añoranza 09:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please use propper diffs for the reverts, only the last one is correct. El_C 07:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC) Strike that, I see it. User warned. El_C 08:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, corrected. Añoranza 08:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Nokilli reported by User:←Humus sapiens ну? (Result:48h )
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 23:44, 2 July 2006
 * 2nd revert: 00:52, 3 July 2006
 * 3rd revert: 11:15, 3 July 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:49, 3 July 2006

Time report made: 08:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: See the article's talk page. In addition to edit warring, this user engages in OR and racist conspiracy theories. Despite being warned, this is his 3rd 3RR violation in less than a week. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * blocked for 48h abakharev 08:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

User:84.146.244.78 reported by User:Ultimus (Result: 24 hrs )
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 09:01, 4 July 2006


 * 1st revert: 09:12, 4 July 2006
 * 2nd revert: 09:28, 4 July 2006
 * 3rd revert: 09:33, 4 July 2006
 * 4th revert: 09:40, 4 July 2006
 * 5th revert: 09:57, 4 July 2006
 * 6th revert: 10:07, 4 July 2006
 * 7th revert: 10:15, 4 July 2006

Time report made: 10:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Revert war on Evolution, insertion of tons of random templates in nonsensical places. Given vandalism warnings, and persisted. --Ultimus 10:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny how citing wikipedia policy is branded as nonsensical! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.146.244.78 (talk • contribs)


 * Blocked for 24 hours. El_C 10:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * User has changed IP to 84.146.212.154, and is so circumventing the block. -- Ec5618 10:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and is continuing his vandalism/argumentiveness while blatently ignoring the 3RR rule, as well as wikipedia policy relating to sourcing - he doesn't seem to understand the rules nor how articles are written, or really the scientific method in general. We may need to temporarily protect the evolution page to stop him, though I really don't like that idea. Is there any way to link these IPs to his actual user account? Titanium Dragon 10:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've already semiprotected the article by the time you placed the above comment. Feel free to link the active anon accounts via redirect, and to request a user check. El_C 03:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Ed Addis reported by User:Jefffire (Result: 24 hr)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 13:02, 4 July 2006


 * 1st revert: 13:11, 4 July 2006
 * 2nd revert: 13:17, 4 July 2006
 * 3rd revert: 13:23, 4 July 2006
 * 4th revert: 13:27, 4 July 2006
 * 5th revert: 13:34, 4 July 2006
 * 6th revert: 13:41, 4 July 2006

Time report made: 14:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Usual global warming conflict. A newish user also violated the 3rr rule, but I have warned him an I don't think it will be repeated. Unfortunately Ed continued edit warring before the other user could have a chance to revert themselves. I've explained the situation on the users talk page but they appear to pay no head and show no signs of stopping. Jefffire 14:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked 24 hr. Vsmith 15:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

User:81.78.80.181, User:217.134.253.79 and User:217.134.250.166 reported by User:Anonymous44 (Result:24h)
Three revert rule violation on. ,  (apparently the same person, who has been vandalizing the article for several days using many different IP addresses). (undoing previous edit by JYolkowski) (undoing previous edits by User:Simpsonworthing and User:85.187.44.131) (undoing previous edit by User:85.187.44.131) (undoing previous edit by User:85.187.44.131.
 * 1st revert: 07:33, 4 July 2006
 * 2nd revert: 11:26, 4 July 2006
 * 3rd revert: 12:19, 4 July 2006
 * 4th revert: 217.134.250.166

Time report made: 14:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Revert war on Highgate Vampire. The IP is deleting information from a scholarly folkloristic source and instead inserting information from a self-proclaimed vampire hunter trying to prove that vampires exist. --Anonymous44 14:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 24 h to all vandals and semiprotection of the article abakharev 15:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

User:TsingTao reported by User:Rosicrucian (Result:Permablocked)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 07:43, 4 July 2006


 * 1st revert: 08:37, 3 July 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:54, 3 July 2006
 * 3rd revert: 07:39, 4 July 2006
 * 4th revert: 07:41, 4 July 2006

Time report made: 15:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Chronic vandalism from this user with identical edits under multiple anonymous IPs that we could not report for 3RR. After the second time we semiprotected the article, the user finally got a login and started vandalizing the article again.--Rosicrucian 15:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Vandalism-only account. Permablocked abakharev 15:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Añoranza reported by User:Zer0faults (Result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:


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

Time report made: 15:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This users reverts and changes are also against the concensus on the talk page. The new POV tags are to circumvent the discussion they started in hopes of having operation names removed. When it went against them, this became the new tactic. Its blatant disruption to add a POV tag at the end of every operation name mentioned. -- zero faults   ' '' 15:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably you should have reported Looper5920 too for technical 3RR. But in this case I think the POV-st amounts to disruption. For which A gets 24h William M. Connolley 17:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

User:192.117.103.90 reported by User:Cobaltbluetony (Result: 8h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 05:19, July 4, 2006


 * 1st revert: 08:00, July 4, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 11:08, July 4, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 11:42, July 4, 2006
 * 4th revert: 11:45, July 4, 2006

Time report made: 17:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

8h William M. Connolley 17:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Mywayyy reported by User:Fut.Perf. ☼ (Result: 1 week)
Three revert rule violation on and other Greek island articles. alias :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 27 June, 12:45
 * 1st revert: 3 July, 11:02
 * 2nd revert: 4 July, 11:21
 * 3rd revert: 4 July, 16:54
 * 4th revert: 4 July, 16:58
 * 5th revert: 4 July, 17:02

Time report made: 17:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Previous repeat offender, doing obstinate mass reverts over a single issue (Turkish placenames in Greek geographical articles) across multiple pages. Ran up to 96 hours worth of blocks for repeated block evasion last week. Identity with IP 88.218.*.* proven previously and self-confirmed (see edit summary ). Now again 5 reverts in less than 30 hours on Kalymnos and four within the same time on Samothrace, as well as a few more elsewhere, continuing edit war right where he left it off when he was blocked. Refuses to seek more constructive dispute resolution methods, has repeatedly announced he will "revert forever" if he doesn't get his way. Has done little else but revert-warring over this issue during the last several weeks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it had better go up to a week. Will block the IP for less; but can be extended if re-used William M. Connolley 17:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. He usually gets a fresh IP every day, and has previously used that for daily block evasions. Maybe you could give him a warning about what will happen if he tries that again? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

User:ParalelUni reported by User:Andypandy.UK (Result: both warned)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert: 02:04, 4 July 2006
 * 2nd revert: 03:06, 4 July 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:27, 4 July 2006
 * 4th revert: 17:37, 4 July 2006

Time report made: 17:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Appears to be newbie biting/edit warring. Has tried discussing to anon ip on talk page but doesn't believe anon ips are allowed to contribute or discuss without an account.-- Andeh 17:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Appears the anon IP has registered a new account - Leuko. The IP has broken 3RR too.-- Andeh 17:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Warned PU and L. Why didn't you? William M. Connolley 18:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * They were past 3, so a warning is required before reporting? I thought you only warned if they were at 3. :S Sorry I've never reported anyone before.-- Andeh 18:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Teknosoul02 reported by User:UCRGrad (Result: 3h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:


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

Time report made: 18:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Teknosoul02 has repeatedly made accusatory remarks in TALK, and has violated a recent arbitrator direction that all parties Assume Good Faith. In this instance, he has attempted to abuse the revert feature in order to remove a sentence he does not like, even though he has not provided adequate justification. I and another editor have tried to explain to him why his reasons are invalid, but he continue to ignore them and REVERT. Thanks.

Please provide diffs not versions. Thanks William M. Connolley 18:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've replaced the versions with diffs, as requested. Thank you! UCRGrad 18:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 2,3,4 fine; 1 is different. Why is it a revert? William M. Connolley 19:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1,2,3, and 4 are all reversions by Teknosoul02 that remove the sentence that begins "In a survey by..." 1 is a slightly earlier version that does not contain a single additional sentence from Insert-Belltower, though this is in a completely different paragraph.  Thanks. UCRGrad 19:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, 3h as a first offence William M. Connolley 19:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your consideration in this matter. UCRGrad 19:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Karl_Meier reported by User:24.211.192.250 (Result: no action)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 15:18, 25 June 2006
 * 1st revert: 05:41, 3 July 2006
 * 2nd revert: 21:23, 3 July 2006
 * 3rd revert: 06:07, 4 July 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:07, 4 July 2006

Time report made: 18:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

'''The user made the last revert despite my warning after the user's 3rd revert. Furthermore, the user removed my warning from talk page. This user also has a history of edit warring .'''

Perhaps, but edit 3 was more than 24 hours after edit 1, so it is not a 3RR violation -- Avi 18:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Bhouston reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: 24hr)
3RR violation on by


 * Version reverted to 12:43 July 4
 * 1st revert 16:25 July 4
 * 2nd revert 16:30 July 4
 * 3rd revert 19:17 July 4
 * 4th revert 19:26 July 4

Reported by SlimVirgin (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment

User was told he had violated 3RR and was offered the opportunity to revert himself,  but declined. To clarify the reverts:


 * His first edit (the version reverted to) added that the organization was American and deleted that the Israeli academic boycotts are regarded as examples of new anti-Semitism.
 * 1st revert: re-added that it's an American organization and deleted that the boycotts are examples of new anti-Semitism.
 * 2nd revert: re-added that it's an American organization and deleted that the boycotts are examples of new anti-Semitism.
 * 3rd revert: re-added that it's an American organization
 * 4th revert: deleted that the boycotts are examples of new anti-Semitism. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 24hrs. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment
 * It is important to note SlimVirgin's portrayal is simply inaccurate. The main problems with her portrayal are:
 * In the edits she points to above, I clearly added information that the founder was "Dr. Andrew Marks, a Columbia University professor" -- accurate and sourced information which SlimVirgin blindly reverted 3 times. Jayjg eventually added it back himself after her third removal of that information.
 * The organization did not mention in any way, in any literature, that the boycotts where examples of New Anti-Semitism, instead the group in question said they were anti-Semitic -- which is something different. SlimVirgin is pushing an OR linkage -- it is not a coincidence that SlimVirgin has dozens upon dozens of edits to the New Anti-Semitism article in the last few days -- it is her pet article.
 * I also added information that the organization is a "American non-profit" -- to SlimVirgin this is another of my sins as she mentions above. But the organization is clearly registered as under the IRS code 501(c)3 as a non-profit -- it says so on its website.  So my sin here is adding accurate information.
 * I stand behind my edits. To call me and my accurate edits disruptive while ignoring SlimVirgins blind reverts of true and sourced information is wrong.  SlimVirgin has framed my edits in a negative light, a light that the facts do not support, because that is more effective getting action.  Unfortunately, it seems that with Humus Sapiens, SlimVirgin found someone willing to unquestioning believe her.  --Ben Houston 21:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No matter how right you think are you, and how wrong you think I am, we are not allowed to revert more than three times in 24 hours. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Re: point #3, please see http://www.dwt.com/practc/teo_group/publications/Foreign_Charities.htm in that registration with the IRS under 503(c)3 does not ipso facto imply the organization is American. -- Avi 21:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point -- you, Avraham, are actually discussing my edits on a level that allowed for us to engage with each other and come to a good resolution. Being repeatly blindly reverted by SlimVirgin when trying to edit accurately an article using sources is quite frustrating, especially when she eventually reports me for not accepting her arbitrary dictates.  She reverted blindly me three times -- thus she was just revert waring with me -- and she seems to know how to play the rules to her favor:, , . --Ben Houston 21:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Stop spinning. You were asked for a citation that it was an American group. You refused to give one and kept reverting. When you violated 3RR, you were then offered the opportunity by two editors to revert yourself and again you refused. Thefore, please don't play the victim. You knew exactly what you were doing. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm spinning? You asked me to provide a source for anti-Semitism and to support Marks as the founder -- see this edit: .  In regards to both anti-Semitism and Marks I pointed you to the source I had included in my edits -- the article in Jewish Week covering the founding of the organization.  See my response to you:  and my original edit that included that source: .  It is clear that you didn't read what I wrote in the article nor noticed the sources I used -- you just blindly reverted.  You also have never provided a source that IAFI that even mentions the term New Anti-Semitism -- it is quote clear that they refer instead to anti-Semitism and quite frequently at that.  --Ben Houston 22:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Gbdill reported by User:JimWae (Result: 24hr)
3RR violation on by Repeated delettion of 2 paragraphs of sourced material


 * first edit (the version reverted to)15:57 2006-JUL-04
 * 2nd
 * 3rd edit
 * 4th edit
 * 5th
 * 6th
 * 7th
 * 8th
 * 9th
 * 10th
 * 11th 21:01 2006-JUL-04

At least 3 since being warned --JimWae 20:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

An impressive tally. 24h William M. Connolley 21:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Luka Jačov reported by User:Todor→Bozhinov (Result:12 hours each)
Three revert rule violation on Image:Kuzma.jpg. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 4 July 2006 16:17


 * 1st revert: 21:07
 * 2nd revert: 21:55
 * 3rd revert: 23:21
 * 4th revert: 00:23

Time report made: 22:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

12 hours each Jaranda wat's sup 00:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

User:TodorBozhinov reported by User:Luka Jačov (Result:12 hours each)
Three revert rule violation on Image:Kuzma.jpg. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 4 July 2006 16:17


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

Time report made: 22:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

12 hours each Jaranda wat's sup 00:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Hardouin reported by User:ThePromenader (Result: 24 hrs)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 2006-06-30 12:41:14


 * 1st revert: 2006-07-03 15:37:08
 * 2nd revert: 2006-07-04 02:19:34
 * 3rd revert: 2006-07-04 14:21:07
 * 4th revert: 2006-07-04 14:50:40

Time report made: 23:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments - minor offense this time, but user in question is extremely antisocial, refuses to dialogue or listen to fact or reason, instigates edit wars and is a repeat offender.


 * Blocked for 24 hours. El_C 01:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

User:TharkunColl reported by User:Damac (Result:Report only has 3 reverts)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:


 * 1st revert: 01:11, 5 July 2006
 * 2nd revert: 01:19, 5 July 2006
 * 3rd revert: 5 July 2006

Time report made: 23:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments: - User dismisses a days editing to the page as "nationalist" POV, and blanks/reverts back to his most recent version. This is not the first time.
 * A violation of WP:3RR is when a user has performed a 4th revert in a 24 hours time span. There's only three in your report here. Netscott 23:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Re Tharkuncoll's edits: his edit history on a number of topics shows that he has an issue with Irish people editing articles and with any mention of Ireland. He even takes offence when it is mentioned that Ireland's biggest lake, Lough Neagh, is. . . um. . . in Ireland!!! lol Apparently that can't be said. Irish topics can only be mentioned in so far as they are relevant to the British Isles so Lough Neagh's size is only important by British Isles standards!!! And any mention on the British Isles page that many Irish people do not use that term (and some are offended by it) is blanked with anti-Irish abuse in the edit summaries. Quite frankly, the term Hibernophobe comes to mind. His edit warring and blanking of the article above is just part of his standard behaviour. FearÉIREANN \<sup style="color:blue;">(caint) 02:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I find your comments extremely offensive - and it would have been nice had you felt able to say them to my face. To say that Lough Neagh is the largest lake in the British Isles is also to say that it's the largest in Ireland - why say both? When describing Mount Everest does one say that it's the highest mountain in Nepal, or the world? You accuse me of putting anti-Irish abuse in the edit summary - I challenge you to find any! The article on the British Isles already stated in the first paragraph that some Irish people don't use the term - I know this, because I put it there. But the version of the article that you and your fellow-travellers are now supporting has been turned into a grotesque political rant from beginning to end (yet strangely forgetting to mention that Irish government ministers use the term in speeches). It is you who are the POV pushers here. TharkunColl 07:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)