Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive25

User:JR Pietri reported by User:Guinnog (Result: 24 hrs)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 18:16, 2 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:02, 2 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:44, 2 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 21:59, 2 August 2006
 * 5th revert 23:57, 2 August 2006
 * 6th revert 00:43, 3 August 2006
 * 7th revert 01:24, 3 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 01:06, 3 August 2006

Notes: This is a complex incident, and I already reported it to WP:AIV While these may not all be regarded as identical reverts, the effect of the edits has been to reinsert the user's unreferenced and undiscussed views, to the great detriment of the article.

Time report made: 10:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 24 hours. El_C 12:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Comanche cph reported by User:Inge (Result: No action)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:53, 22 July 2006


 * 1st revert: 23:32, 31 July 2006
 * 2nd revert: 11:30, 3 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 12:51, 3 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 12:58, 3 August 2006

This is a complex issue with a user refusing to axcept information given contrary to his opinion and with a history of using reverts to disrupt progress on the issue. Inge 12:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No 3RR (31 July?), no action. El_C 12:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I realise that, but this user has been using the revert tactic on this and other articles for too long. He has apparently finally learned to technically avoid the 3RR, but the problems he is causing remains. Inge 02:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Inge should get a punishment for this fake accuse on me. This is a part of Inge attacking tactic against me to camouflage Inge unsources and pro-Norwegian edits on history pages. Now on Normans. You should think the case here on wikipedia was very simple, that you just need citing sources before edit pages. But not for Inge. All i do is revert unsources rewrite back to old version. --Comanche cph 07:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

User:70.16.129.57 reported by User:Richmeister (Result: 24 hrs)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:03, August 3, 2006


 * 1st revert: 13:17, August 3, 2006 (AEST)
 * 2nd revert: 14:58, August 3, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 21:14, August 3, 2006
 * 4th revert: 21:37, August 3, 2006

and a


 * 5th revert: 21:57, August 3, 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 11:42 UTC

User has also abused reverting editors several times in edit summaries:
 * (cur) (last) 21:57, August 3, 2006 70.16.129.57 (Talk) (I WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED BY THE LIKES YOU YOU. THE TRUTH CAN NOT BE SNUFFED OUT; THIS ISN'T AN ORWELLIAN "1984" SITE, IS IT? ARE YOU THAT BIG A FAN OF THIS GUY THAT YOU MUST HIDE THE TRUTH?)
 * (cur) (last) 21:37, August 3, 2006 70.16.129.57 (Talk) (THE SOURCE IS CREDIBLE, SO STOP BEING AN A$$WIPE)
 * (cur) (last) 21:14, August 3, 2006 70.16.129.57 (Talk) (FACT WAS CITED AS PER YOUR REQUEST. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT? JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THE OUTCOME DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU CAN CHANGE THE FACTS.)
 * (cur) (last) 14:58, August 3, 2006 70.16.129.57 (Talk) (HERE WE GO AGAIN!)
 * (cur) (last) 13:17, August 3, 2006 70.16.129.57 (Talk) (Re-revert to original - THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH WHAT WAS WRITTEN, YOU JACKASS)

Time report made: 12:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:


 * 24 hours. El_C 13:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Block evasion at User:70.16.135.209 . 20:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User:JR_Pietri reported by User:Viridae Talk (Result:Already blocked. Sorry, didn't see it.)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: Cannot be filled. They are not straight reverts, rather edits that result in reverting to a version that is spam filled and suited to promote their product. This is the best I could come up with, but the following reverts are far worse.


 * 1st revert: 18:13, 2 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:02, 2 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 20:13, 2 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 21:59, 2 August 2006 (multiple edits with the effect of reverting)
 * 5th revert: 23:57, 2 August 2006 (same as above)
 * 6th revert: 00:43, 3 August 2006
 * 7th revert: 01:24, 3 August 2006
 * Note that these reverts occur as part of blatant spamming of the page by that user. He reverts versions that provide good background material on what Bubble hash is to those that promote his companies new extraction method (complete with patent number). He has been warned about spam several times, vandalism more than once and of course 3RR.

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 01:06, 3 August 2006

Time report made: 13:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments User has already been reported and blocked. Sorry about this, I didnt see it. Viridae Talk 13:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User: Laurence Boyce reported by User:Miller. Result: no block
Three revert rule violation on. :


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

(If my layout is incorrect please check the article history page instead)

Time report made: 15:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You forgot the times. Because they weren't in 24h. No block William M. Connolley 19:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User:68.44.16.135 reported by User:Extraordinary Machine (Result: 24h (soft))
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:20, 28 July 2006


 * 1st revert: 20:01, 2 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 16:08, 3 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:48, 3 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 17:53, 3 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 17:51, 3 August 2006

Time report made: 18:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User refuses to discuss his/her edits or explain them at all; (s)he just reverts to his/her preferred version wholesale, in the process undoing genuinely useful edits. Extraordinary Machine 18:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. Stifle (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Schlafly reported by User:FeloniousMonk (Result:24hrs)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:34, 29 July


 * 1st revert: 14:58, 2 August
 * 2nd revert: 17:41, 2 August
 * 3rd revert: 18:47, 2 August
 * 4th revert: 10:54, 3 August

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 11:00, 3 August

Time report made: 20:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * The first one isn't a revert, although the other three are. No violation. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken, the 1st one is a revert, it removed the word "creationist" 14:58, 2 August just as the version being reverted to did: 19:34, 29 July. That makes 4, and a violation. FeloniousMonk 21:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The hell it isn't a revert -- same section of the article, same overall purpose. Which part of the following does Schlafly's edits not violate? "Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word. Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting."  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Stifle, could you say why you feel the first edit isn't a revert? I was about to issue a block before I saw your comment, because it looks like a clear violation to me. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course it's a revert; he keeps removing any description of the witnesses. Jayjg (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * They didn't all go back to the same version, although I guess they all had the effect of undoing someone else's work. El C is right. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 24 hours. El_C 23:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Skinmeister reported by User:Jean-Philippe (Result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: ?


 * 1st revert: 22:17, 2 August 2006
 * 2st revert: 10:44, 3 August 2006
 * 3nd revert: 11:28, 3 August 2006
 * 4rd revert: 19:29, 3 August 2006
 * 5th revert: 19:58, 3 August 2006
 * 6th revert: 20:09, 3 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 11:35, 3 August 2006

Time report made: 20:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Many warnings and some blocks listed in his user page. Also, I don't know what "* Previous version reverted to:" is and examples here doesn't seem to help me. If someone could dumb it down a little for me on my talk page that would be nice ;)
 * "Previous version reverted to" is simply the old version of the page which, after the reverts were made, was reinstated. Adding a fifth revert instead means that it isn't strictly needed. Stifle (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The first one is not by this editor, but any four from the other five are enough to earn a 24 hour block. Stifle (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Tazmaniacs reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 24hrs)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:40, 1 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 01:18, 3 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 01:33, 3 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:43, 3 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:35, 3 August 2006
 * 5th revert: 21:09, 3 August 2006


 * Keeps inserting two sections into the intro, one which says Russia does not list Hamas as a terrorist group, and a second section about Reuven Paz, stating The same report also quoted Reuven Paz, former head of research for the Shin Bet (Israeli intelligence agency), who described Hamas as "an authentic product of Palestinian society under Israeli rule, more so than the PA." (Palestinian Authority). Was warned twice in edit summaries about 3RR, once after his third revert, 20:14, 3 August 2006, and once after his fourth revert. 20:57, 3 August 2006 Has been blocked for edit-warring before, and was asked to revert himself after violation 3RR. Jayjg (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 24 hours. El_C 23:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User:84.103.54.250 reported by Gamaliel (Result:24 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:55, 3 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 16:40, 3 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 17:15, 3 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:47, 3 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 17:59, 3 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 17:51, 3 August 2006
 * Blocked for 24 hours. Jayjg (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Lowg reported by User:Pal (Result:No violation)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 17:11


 * 1st revert: 02:31 August 3rd
 * 2nd revert: 16:19 August 3rd
 * 3rd revert: 17:00 August 3rd
 * 4th revert: 02:10 August 4th

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 13:14

Time report made: 02:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: After a compromise was earlier reached on this subject here, User:Lowg continues to insist on making a change that I (and others) contend is inaccurate. In addition to my warning, the user is clearly aware of the 3RR as he has been blocked before. - Pal 02:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This was not a violation of the 3RR as the reverts are different from one another. And the changes are not subtle. One change is a full paragraph. Also, if you wish to report him again, please use diffs. What you used here are not diffs but instead are what the page looked like at that particular time. For example, for 02:31, this is the diff. And one final thing. Please use the time as we use it, not a conversion to your local time. It makes it much easier for us to track. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

User:LionO reported by User:--Emufarmers(T/C) (Result: Page protected)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert: 03:54, 4 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 03:57, 4 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 04:01, 4 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 04:02, 4 August 2006

Time report made: 05:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Just from looking at the user's contribs, there are perhaps several dozen reverts here. --Emufarmers(T/C) 05:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Stephenzhu reported by User:--Emufarmers(T/C) (Result: Page protected)
Three revert rule violation on. :

Time report made: 05:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Warring with User:LionO above; see those diffs for details. --Emufarmers(T/C) 05:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Chtirrell reported by User:59.14.200.242 15:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC) (Result: Semi-protected)

 * 1st revert: 13:48, 4 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 13:55, 4 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 14:14, 4 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 14:33, 4 August 2006
 * 5th revert: 15:05, 4 August 2006

Comments:Makes rapid reverts ignoring discussion while making personal attacks in edit descriptions. User has been 3rr and found guilty of violating Wikipedia guidelines regarding personal attacks on previous occasions. Request user be permanently banned from editing this page any further.59.14.200.242 15:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that this IP address is one of several all making the same reversions on that article, characteristics of User: Lightbringer and the various sock puppets used to work around the ArbCom ruling banning him from Freemasonry and related articles.ALR 15:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note the above editor engaged in the same pattern of repeat revisions on this page engaging in the same type of personal attack and innuendo. There appears to be a group of editors with the same p.o.v. working together here.59.14.200.242 15:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the open proxy edits to the anti-masonry page for a fourth and fifth time today and am calling attention to 3rr, expecially "Reverting banned or blocked users." There is no doubt in my mind and other frequent editors have shared this opinion that the open proxy assualt is from  Lightbringer.  He has used open proxies in the past.  He frequently uses misleading edit summaries.  This edits are carbon copies of ones he's attempted before.  He has also accused that this "page is about anti-masonry not conspiracy theory" on several occasions.  There is currently a request to lock the page being processed at Requests_for_page_protection.  Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Lightbringer has further proof of  Lightbringer using open proxies.


 * Furthermore, I have never been "3rr and found guilty of violating Wikipedia guidelines regarding personal attacks on previous occasions" Check my block log at [], this is a flat out lie in an attempt to discredit me.  Another common tactic of  Lightbringer.  Chtirrell 15:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This user has a lengthy pattern of multiple 3rr and personal attack violations under multiple user names. It is STRONGLY suspected that this individual is the sock of a banned user as he exhibits exactly the same edit patterns including making false allegations, personal attacks, flaunting Wikipedia guidelines, and trying to bully and even impersonate administrators.59.14.200.242 15:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page to deal with the anon reverting William M. Connolley 17:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Which "banned user" am I? When have I attempted to impersonate an admin?  Which wikipedia guideline have I flaunted?  What lengthy pattern of 3rr do I have?  These are all complete fabrications.  This is complete nonsense by a banned user ( Lightbringer) attempting to discredit the consistant editors of the Freemasonry and related articles, which he is banned from.  Here is my information, anyone can see that his alligations are without merit. Chtirrell 18:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg reported by User:Oiboy77 (Result: no block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: n/a


 * 1st revert: 03:52 August 1, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 04:00 August 1, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 04:03 August 1, 2006
 * 4th revert: 04:21 August 1, 2006
 * 5th revert: 22:43 August 2, 2006
 * 6th revert: 22:47 August 2, 2006
 * 7th revert: 22:48 August 2, 2006

Time report made: 06:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

The 1st aug ones have been considered already. The 2nd of aug aren't 4R William M. Connolley 07:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Adam Carr reported by User:Porfyrios (Result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert: 15:17, 4 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:37, 4 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:49, 4 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:12, 4 August 2006
 * 5th revert: 17:44, 4 August 2006
 * 6th revert: 19:04, 4 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) : User warned on his talk page, here Moreover, the offending user had earlier threatened an opposing editor of reporting him for violating the 3RR, which constitutes proof that Adam Carr was well aware of the rule and has violated it knowingly.

Time report made: 16:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User Adam Carr has been confrontational over his reverts, even to the point of challenging an opposing editor to a revert war, and declaring that he "usually wins them" (see bottom of the page).

24h, and for the anon William M. Connolley 17:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Aiden reported by User:Nowimnthing (Result: No apparent violation.)
Three revert rule violation on Evolution. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:55


 * 1st revert: 12:34
 * 2nd revert: 12:40
 * 3rd revert: 12:43
 * 4th revert: 12:48

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 12:49

Time report made: 17:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Not obviously 4 reverts William M. Connolley 20:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In specific, the "previous version reverted to" is a later version, and is a diff, when it should be an oldid. Feel free to correct this report to provide the necessary information. Stifle (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Lowg reported by User:Pal (Result: 24h both)
Three revert rule violation on and. :

Violations on UEFA Champions League 2006-07:
 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:


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

Violations on UEFA Cup 2006-07:
 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:


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

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 

Time report made: 19:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user continues to engage in edit warring, ignoring compromises and making accusations of bad faith in order to get his way. Additionally, he is well aware of the 3RR given his block log. - Pal 19:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You've *both* broken 3RR... sigh... 24h William M. Connolley 20:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

User:FeloniousMonk reported by User:User:Ed Poor (Result: Only three reverts)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 00:28, 3 August 2006


 * 1) Revision as of 15:47, 3 August 2006
 * 2) Revision as of 16:31, 3 August 2006
 * 3) Revision as of 14:56, 4 August 2006

Time report made: 21:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * FeloniousMonk knows the 3RR very well and uses it against editors who try to counter his POV pushing.


 * This doesn't look like a valid report. The link given as the version reverted to isn't a Wikipedia page, and then only three edits are cited. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the links, and the three edits are part of a pattern of edit warring in which FM refuses to let permit edits by anyone outside a small group of like-minded contributors. --Uncle Ed 16:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless of his other behavior, he only made three reverts and thus did not violate the 3RR.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Ed_g2s reported by User:BCV (Result: No block)
Three revert rule violation on Big Eight Conference. :


 * Previous version reverted to: Reversion as of  02:15, 3 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 02:38, 4 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 14:09, 4 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 20:24, 4 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 01:16, 5 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * Warned by User:Sceptre on 15:43, 1 August 2006

Time report made: 03:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This is more removal of unfree images. Editors reverting unfree image cleanup attempts need to stop. Jkelly 03:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is the reversions need to stop. Because it seems like this is fitting the definition of an edit war. Discussion is on going and without consensus on the policy interpretations these pages are being reverted. BCV 04:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The options here are to lock the page, block the editors in violation of unlicensed image policy, or to continuously apply cleanup efforts. What do you recommend?  Jkelly 04:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to be combative but I do not subscribe to the interpretation that use of the logos violates the policy although this may not be the forum for that discussion. BCV 04:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We need to not be further republishing these images until the policy matter is settled. No block.  Jkelly 04:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Curious how quick that decision was made. Given the involvement in [Mediation Case: Fair Use Images on Sports Page - College Football Specific] BCV 04:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you read the page, you'll notice that I was listed there to provide an opposing view, not because I've ever edited one these college football articles that the cleanup attempt is being applied to. Jkelly 04:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I was thinking someone not involved in the case would provide an object view on whether a violation had occurred but since that is not possible obviously a violation did not occur. BCV 04:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Dicklyon reported by User:r b-j (Result: Apologized, no block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 17:29, 4 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 05:00, 5 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 05:13, 5 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 05:23, 5 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 05:19, 5 August 2006

Time report made: 05:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: i'm just trying to put a lid on this guy who insists on rewriting the whole article (which should be allowed to stableize lest "edit creep" move it from a reasonably good article to something much different. he's been at it for weeks.  he's making wholesale changes without listening to the reservations of others.  it's about time he play by the rules and i warned him about 3RR just before his last revert.


 * If you read the talk, you'll see that I am seeking incremental improvements to a long wordy section that Rbj wrote, and rather than discuss it with me he reverts, goes a different direction, and calls me a dumptruck. Dicklyon 05:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't look like 4R to me... as is traditional, you haven't filled in the "prev version" William M. Connolley 08:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * i itemized them. i never understood exactly what "prev version" is.  you would think that this would be a stable article, being a fairly dry technical article, but the version changes so often, dozens of changes per day, that i actually would not be able to tell you what the "base version" is. r b-j 16:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's unlikely that the article will reach a stable version when it is still full of both not-quite-right and not-quite-logical attempts to be semi-rigorous. That's why we're working on it.  If you continue to vigorously defend your big bloated section against improvements, that doesn't make it stable.  And if you continue to ignore my pleas to engage in discussion, on the article talk page and your own talk page, we're not likely to find an easy way forward. Dicklyon 17:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * the issue here is whether or not you reverted my changes to the article more often than 3 times in a 24 hour period. content discussion is on the talk page. r b-j 20:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I do hereby confess to that crime, and I apologize and won't let it happen again. I've since added lots more discussion on the talk page, and still see no responses from you there or elsewhere. Dicklyon 22:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Swiss Aviation Supporter reported by User:Elektrik Blue 82 (Result: 12h each)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:52 5 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 3:04 5 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 7:11 5 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 8:54 5 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 10:52 5 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * DiffTime

Time report made: 16:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Oh good grief you've both broken 3rr... 12h each William M. Connolley 18:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Ed Poor reported by self (Result: recommended 24h by self)
I'm just checking to make sure I didn't violate 3RR at Politicization of science.

I was making one continuous series of edits to the Examples sections about eugenics, based on Crichton's published views. Two or 3 times while making these consecutive edits I was reverted by Duncharris (2x) and Kenosis (1x).

I went ahead and finished the edit series (which I consider to be "one"), noting in the Edit Summary that I would self-revert afterwards so as not to run afoul of 3RR and offering to discuss the matter in talk.

I figured that in order to have anything to discuss, it would be good to finish the edit (which included source for a POV about Crichton). Indeed, Kenosis copied the removed text to talk, with a comment (which I answered).

So I don't think this was an edit war. --Uncle Ed 17:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL, how do get to the point of possibly violating 3RR if you're not edit warring. I encourage everyone to take a look at Ed Poor's edit history to see any number of examples of edit warring and POV pushing at a number of articles. 128.64.146.21

Relevant policy:
 * "For instance, consecutive edits by the same editor are considered to be one."

Was this a violation on my part? If so, would you please guide me so I can make sure I don't repeat it? I don't want to edit war about this. I'd prefer to talk it out on the discussion page and come to consensus. --Uncle Ed 17:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ed, you were an admin and bureaucrat, how can you possibly not know the answer to this question? I must admit that this is one of the more interesting tactics I've seen..."Your Honor, you mean going through a stop sign is illegal?  I thought you could go through the ones with white around the edges."  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ed is being extremely upfront about all of this, the least that could be done is give him a good faith answer. Arkon 04:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

User:HResearcher reported by User:Vivaldi (talk) (Result: 12h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:

13:36 13:47
 * 1st revert: 11:55
 * 2nd revert: 11:57
 * 3rd revert: 12:06
 * 4th revert: 12:51
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 13:49

Time report made: 19:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

12h. I don't think the BLP get-out-of-jail-free card applies William M. Connolley 19:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I never was in jail, and never needed such a card. Here is the policy William M. Connolley refused to abide by:


 * WP:BLP states:


 * Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia. Administrators may enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Libel.


 * Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see WP:CSD criterion A6).


 * Jimmy Wales has said:


 * "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." 1


 * He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:


 * "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." 2


 * Have a good night. --HResearcher 08:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Johan Elisson reported by User:Suede (Result:)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 13:15, 5 August 2006
 * 1st revert: 18:27, 5 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:41, 5 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 20:51, 5 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:57, 5 August 2006

Time report made: 19:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * My first reporting of any vandalism/3RR/whatever, so please be gentle if I've messed up... If User 213.112.123.28 and User Lion666 are the same, that might also qualify for a partial revert. Suede 19:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Johan Elisson for my opinion on this report. – Elisson • Talk 19:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Crockspot reported by User:Gamaliel (Result:)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 03:44, 3 August 2006


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 09:44, 4 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 10:57, 4 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 14:37, 4 August 2006
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 15:03, 4 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * Warned by User:El_C on 20:07, 3 July 2006

Time report made: 00:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:MoonFlute reported by User:Ghewgill (Result:)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:50, 5 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 19:29, 5 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:43, 5 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:48, 5 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:51, 5 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 19:50, 5 August 2006

Time report made: 08:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This is my first 3RR violation report. I realised later that in my zeal yesterday, I broke 3RR myself, but I see that MoonFlute continues to persist today. I will hold back and let others sort this one out. --Ghewgill 19:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The user has continued to persist: --Bovineone 14:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5th revert: 2006-08-05T12:31:53
 * 6th revert: 2006-08-07T18:59:29

User talk:Flayer reported by User:Freepsbane (Result:72 Hour block)
Three revert rule violation on Battle of Bint Jbeil. User Flayer:


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: Reversion of 20:16, 5 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: Reversion of 19:58, 5 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: Reversion of 18:04, 5 August 2006
 * 4th revert: Reversion of 09:10, 5 August 2006
 * 5th revert: Reversion of 20:11, 5 August 2006
 * 6th revert: Reversion of 09:10, 5 August 2006
 * 7th revert: Reversion of 09:10, 5 August 2006
 * 8th revert: Reversion 20:56, 5 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * Fair warning

Comments:
 * As a novice user and my first 3rr report I am certain I have made formatting mistakes, My apologies.--Freepsbane 20:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * the user in question may have done this on other occasions and may also be using sockpupets, he never acknowledges other users comments, and seems to be completely unwilling to compromise. Further more his relentless edit warring seems to have brought any constructive additions to a halt.--Freepsbane 20:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also as a junior member I am quite inept at this matter so I need an admin to take this out of my hands.--Freepsbane 20:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * the user flayer seems to be an unregistered but named user.--Freepsbane 20:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Lengthy block issued on my part due to severity and persistence of reverts in this case. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 04:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that there must be 4 reverts listed - reports with only 3 will be removed. The "previous version reverted to" is there to show that the first revert really is a revert - it should be filled in to a previous version of the page which the first revert reverts to.

User talk:Osli73 reported by User:Ferick (Result:)
Three revert rule violation on Kosovo. User Osli73:


 * 1st revert: Reversion of 08:44, 5 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: Reversion of 12:30, 5 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: Reversion of 14:13, 5 August 2006
 * 4th revert: Reversion of 15:26, 5 August 2006

The user is very familiar with the 3RR rule.

User:Kmaguir1 reported by User: LotLE × talk (Result: 12h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * DiffTime

Time report made: 02:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User repeatedly inserts poorly worded, unencyclopedic, and disparaging "criticism" section out of apparent (as stated on talk page and numerous project pages) animosity towards biography subject. Also semi-vandalizes other section to contain rambling digressions, and plays shennanigans with NPOV and other spurious and unexplained tags. But the wild reverting to the "criticism" rejected by all other editors is the main thing.

12h William M. Connolley 08:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Myriam457 reported by User:Yom (Result: 8h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: oldid

Reverts (multiple edits per revert, so only first edit included):
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here:
 * 

Note that this same user made similar edits to Semitic languages.

ዮም |  (Yom)  |  Talk  • contribs • Ethiopia 05:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 8 hours by William Connolley. Stifle (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Nobleeagle reported by User:71.106.195.5 (result: 12 hrs)
Three revert rule violation on. :

Reverts (multiple edits per revert, so only first edit included):
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

This user reverts edit after edit back to his original, POV verson.

Time report made: 06:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Diffs please not versions William M. Connolley 08:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There you go. 71.105.97.133 08:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 12 hours. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Gerdbrendel reported by User:71.106.195.5 (result: 12 hrs)
Three revert rule violation on. :

Reverts (multiple edits per revert, so only first edit included):
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

This user reverts edit after edit back to his original, POV verson.

Time report made: 71.106.195.5 07:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This user has insluted me and User:Nobleeagle several times and is trying to "come back" at me after I reported him to the personal attacks notice board, or "running to the Destapo" as he calls it (I'm German). He has left vicious attacks on the Great Power talk page and wants to push his OR despite recent consensus among myself and other users (You will find that in the archives on that talk page). Also, I am not reverting to my version as I have never conducted any major revisions on the article. Thank you for understanding. Please see my report on the Personal attack notive board.  Signature brendel  07:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolute nonsense. You and your buddy have pushed your political views with a vengeance.  This is not what Wiki is for.  You accept no compromise, but go about degrading Nations which you are not from.  When others state Germany or India are not paradise, it is a "personal attack".  Well what you all have said about other Nations is the same, so report yourselves if you are honest.  You and Nobleeagle consistently revert any changes you do not agree with.  "Vicious attacks"?  Give me a frakin break.  You are hyper-sensitive and making such reports just wastes admin times. Wiki is not here for YOUR personal soapbox and when others disagree you run to the "police". That is flat out unethical.  You also have to play by the rules. 71.106.195.5 08:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Diffs please not versions William M. Connolley 08:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There you go. 71.105.97.133 08:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 12 hrs. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

User:71.106.195.5 reported by User:ju66l3r (Result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:34, August 6, 2006


 * 1st revert: 03:51, August 6, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 03:42, August 6, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 03:35, August 6, 2006
 * 4th revert: 03:31, August 6, 2006

Time report made: 07:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This pattern goes on for FOUR more reverts within an hour's time prior to the 4th revert back that I've included here. Multiple editors have reverted this same IP, and other subnet IPs prior to this one within the past 24 hours suggesting it is the same user. Instead of seeking consensus, this editor chooses to force a revert war upon the article over the issue. Their tit-for-tat above is only because at this point, this user's editors are being considered vandalism (as they are ignoring the consensus) and those reverts do not fall under 3RR. No 3RR warning was given, since the user knows about 3RR having tried to use the system against 2 other editors directly above.


 * Oh, they were certainly all me. Listen, you are taking sides here, this is clear -- and utterly unfair.  I have seeked consensus and others including me have tried to reason with these two.  Why their actions are golden, and others are evil, that is quite perplexing.  If you follow the discussions they simply hold their line.  Is this how Wiki is run now?  Who ever can push for their political beliefs hard enough wins?  I said multiple times, include all G7 nations.  These are the most wealthy seven industrialized nations on Earth.  But, no.  They slander Italy, but when the tables are turned, they run and say "personal attack".  Watch who you back up, you may eventually regret it. 71.106.195.5 08:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 08:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but this user is now editing as in order to ignore their 24h block.  ju66l3r 08:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You are the vandal. You are even changing edits which were agreed upon, because you are ignorant. 71.105.97.133 08:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

62.163.161.226 reported by User:Mike Christie (Result: 24 hrs)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:04 5 Aug 2006 This is a diff showing the first addition of the material


 * 1st revert: 22:27 5 Aug 2006
 * 2nd revert: 23:18 5 Aug 2006
 * 3rd revert: 23:29 5 Aug 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:45 5 Aug 2006
 * 5th revert: 12:34 6 Aug 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 09:03 6 Aug 2006 (a version, not a diff, as this was the first edit to the talk page)

Time report made: 13:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked by User:William M. Connolley for 24 hrs. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ha. We're alternating... William M. Connolley 18:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Skinmeister reported by User:Localzuk (talk) (Result: 24 hrs)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:01


 * 1st revert: 12:22
 * 2nd revert: 13:52
 * 3rd revert: 14:28
 * 4th revert: 14:52

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 14:13

Time report made: 15:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Second time in a few days. Last time received 24hours. Has reverted more times than those above too. (But different subject matter). Refuses to discuss it, just reverts calling the consensus led changes 'vandalism'.-Localzuk (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 12 hours. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Rather embarassing. I hit the the block log and block link on the wrong user. Per extensive block history, upping the block length to 24 hours. AmiDaniel (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

User:125.244.186.2 reported by User:FunkyFly (Result: 24hrs)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:47, 5 August 2006
 * 1st revert: 10:44, 6 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 11:19, 6 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 11:48, 6 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 11:59, 6 August 2006
 * 5th revert: 12:06, 6 August 2006
 * 6th revert: 12:23, 6 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 12:00, 6 August 2006

Time report made: 16:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user has been rearranging the links to other articles without discussing previously reached agreement on the talk page.  /FunkyFly.talk_  16:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Donahue reported by User:HumbleGod (Result: 24 hrs)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:15, 5 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 13:46, 6 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:15, 6 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:20, 6 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:28, 6 August 2006
 * 5th revert: 19:51, 6 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 19:32, 6 August 2006

Time report made: 20:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The "Previous version reverted to" field above includes the substantive text that was reverted to; minor formatting edits to a picture's placement in the article were made between that version and the first revert. However, the action was essentially a revert since it served to replace text that had been removed per discussion on the article's talk page. The warning I placed on the user's talk page was not the 3RR template (did not know about that template), but contains the same general text and warning. -- H·G (words/works) 20:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It appears both of you have violated the 3RR, but I'm not sure blocking either of you would be very useful. Because Donahue doesn't appear to have explained or discussed his edits after being requested to, I've reverted his latest edit and protected the page for the moment. Extraordinary Machine 22:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My mistake; you didn't violate the 3RR. Donahue has been blocked for twenty-four hours. Extraordinary Machine 22:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I kept an eye on it, didn't want to go over the limit myself....-- H·G (words/works) 23:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

LotLE reported by User: Kmaguir1 (Result: No block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: I do not understand what this means--all the evidence needed for the 3RR is in the history--one could not claim that it was not in fact reverted 4 times--the criticism section in all of these 4 reverts was substantially altered.


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

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) : N/A

Time report made: 21:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User claimed correctly that I violated 3RR rule, thus I was blocked. User him/herself, as evidence here shows, violated 3RR rule as well. He/she did not fix "obvious vandalism" as the requirements for exceptions to the 3RR in that section state, he/she participated in an edit war destroying my work for no solid Wikipedia reason, he/she did not supply a solid Wikipedia reason but instead a reason buffeted only by vague claims on the talk page. Therefore, in the absence of the satisfaction of the obvious vandalism exception, and this wasn't vandalism at all, just a more extensive explanation of a valid criticism, the 3RR was broken, and no other exceptions qualifies. -Kmaguir1 21:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the last three diffs look like attempts at a compromise compared to the first one (which removed the paragraph in question completely); secondly, you didn't inform Lulu of the 3RR, so she could have violated it unwittingly. That said, she shouldn't really be using popups to revert during content disputes. Extraordinary Machine 22:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * On the first matter: it wasn't a compromise, because in the history of the page, both versions had been offered and edited by me, and so both, the deletion as reversion, and the three abbreviated sections as reversion, qualify as four reverts from the longer version within a 24 hours period. Secondly, he/she informed ME of the 3RR, and I was blocked arbitrarily without another edit (except adding a NPOV tag)--so while I was warned and then blocked not given a chance to heed the warning, he/she can't use the "no-warning" as a defense, as he/she is the one who warned me about the matter--not that it made much difference to the administrator who blocked me that I had only been warned, and not edited (except the NPOV tag) after the warning. -Kmaguir1 22:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

User talk:89.0.229.237 reported by User:Freepsbane (Result:1 week block)
Three revert rule violation on Battle_of_Bint_Jbeil. User:89.0.229.237
 * 1st reversion:  on 19:49, 6 August 2006
 * 2nd reversion: on 20:10, 6 August 2006
 * 3rd reversion: on 20:51, 6 August 2006
 * 4th reversion: on 20:57, 6 August 2006
 * 5th reversion: on 21:06, 6 August 2006
 * 6st reversion: on 21:36, 6 August 2006

Time report made: 00:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This potential sock puppet of Flayer has gone about edit warring on the exact same article flayer recently reverted, if he is a indeed a sockpuppet then he certainly is familiar with 3rr.--Freepsbane 00:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Likely sockpuppet of Flayer, who I blocked for 72 hours yesterday for reverting this same article, to the same version as the above IP keeps reverting, eight times in less than one day. My patientce is running thin, and because of ongoing anon vandlaism, I have sprotected the page. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 04:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User:75.2.245.222 reported by User:User:Tejano (Result: Protection)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: Cannot be filled. They are not straight reverts, rather edits that result in reverting to a version that is the same NPOV over and over


 * 1st revert: 10:21, 5 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 09:18, 6 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 23:16, 6 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:28, 6 August 2006

Just look at the edit history

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) : Tejano 00:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 

2006-08-07T01:32:57 Bishonen (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Antiwar.com: IP edit warring William M. Connolley 07:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User:190.10.0.36 reported by User:tbeatty (Result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on Three revert rule violation on

And probably others. He just came off of a vandalism block. He's been warned numerous times.


 * 1st Revert 23:34, August 6, 2006
 * 2nd Revert 23:16, August 6, 2006
 * 3rd Revert 01:01, August 6, 2006
 * 4th Revert 00:15, August 6, 2006

Also, did this template today:
 * 1st 07:24, 6 August 2006
 * 2nd 08:04, 6 August 2006
 * 3rd 06:04, 7 August 2006
 * 4th 06:29, 7 August 2006

He's been warned. He's been blocked. He comes back and does the same thing every day. His talk page is sprotected because of warning vandalism. It's getting old. --Tbeatty 07:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 08:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Oiboy77 reported by User:Avi (Result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:04, 7 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 12:04, 7 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 12:23, 7 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 12:41, 7 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 13:14, 7 August 2006
 * 5th revert: 15:18, 7 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 12:18, 7 August 2006

Time report made: 17:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I have tried to engage this user in dialogue on multiple occasions, and I constantly feel stymied. His edit summary notwithstanding, he has reverted (full or partial) multiple times to a version which does not treat Israelis and Palestinians equally. He had been warned, and had been blocked for 3RR before, so he is cognizant of the policy. I am not blocking him myself as I believe that is improper as I have been involved in this spate of reverts, although his violation is rather clear. Thank you. -- Avi 17:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Another revert. Is anyone going to look at this, or must I take care of it myself? -- Avi 19:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The third is not a revert, but the other four are. 24 hours. Stifle (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Bertilvidet reported by User:CJK (Result: no block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:54, 6 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 01:39, 7 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 17:12, 7 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:47, 7 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 17:56, 7 August 2006

CJK 18:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

User refuses to discuss reverts on the talk page. CJK 18:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but yes in my eagerness I breached the 3RR rule. However, I realized it and reverted my self immediately, even before this complain was posted. See []. I plea for forgiveness. Bertilvidet 18:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Self-reverted; no block. Please be more careful in future William M. Connolley 19:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User:71.64.131.229 reported by User:Bertilvidet (Result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 01:05, 6 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 01:23, 6 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 16:21, 6 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 16:38, 6 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:51, 6 August 2006
 * 5th revert: 17:10, 6 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 16:52, 6 August 2006

Time report made: 17:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Also, maybe an administrator would run a check user test for this anon user and User:CJK, as the anon happened just to take over the reverts when CJK reached his three controversial reverts. Bertilvidet 17:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Are no administrators watching this page? However it seems that the anon user ceased editing, and User:CJK immediately after resumed editing. Bertilvidet 14:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Stupid me, I placed this post at the top of the page. Now moved to the bottom of the article Bertilvidet 18:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC).

24h William M. Connolley 19:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User:24.166.142.27 reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 0th edit: 2006-08-07T13:58:12
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: 2006-08-07T18:30:54

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 

Time report made: 18:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Anon doesn't talk; reverted by 3 of us.
 * Blocked for twenty-four hours. Jkelly 18:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User:BhaiSaab reported by User:Bakaman%% (Result: No block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:


 * Vandalism: 12:04:18
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: 14:06:04

He said that the material was copyrighted, but only one paragraph came from the supposed site. He deleted the whole section anyway even when confronted by a third editor User:Pecher who stated "no reason given to delete well-sourced and relevant material".

Time report made: 21:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * All edits were removing simple vandalism (inserting copyrighted material). The entire section is copyrighted from the website quoted above as well as . See the talk page of the article for details. Pecher did not realize the material was copied from other websites and reverted my removal of the copyrighted material because of that. BhaiSaab talk 21:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Bakasuprman has now been blocked for continuing to reinsert copyrighted material. BhaiSaab talk 21:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Some of the material is copyrighted, but not all. (Example: The paragraph beginning "The Ajlaf...") However, as BhaiSaab was making a good faith effort to remove copyrighted material, I will not block this time, but another revert would be considered negatively. Stifle (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually that sentence "The Ajlaf on the other hand are the Indian converts..." is in . The other parts of the same paragraph are from .Thank you for not blocking. BhaiSaab talk 21:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that all of the text was copyrighted; all of the text is a subset of the plagiarised text, (some sentences are omitted or truncated), and I think you two guys should stop accusing each other of vandalism, as it brings neither of you credit -quite clearly there is no vandalism by either parties. Blnguyen | rant-line 05:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:208.3.69.196 reported by User:Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) (Result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 15:12, 7 August 2006
 * 17:35, 7 August 2006
 * 19:57, 7 August 2006
 * 20:09, 7 August 2006
 * 21:37, 7 August 2006

Warning:

Comment: Has also been reverting, warring and making personal attacks on other pages.

Time report made: 21:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

24h - 3rr aggravated by incivility William M. Connolley 22:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Bretonbanquet reported by User:Mais oui! (Result: No apparent violation)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 02:29, 17 July 2006


 * 1st revert: 19:15, 7 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 22:38, 7 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 22:52, 7 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:26, 7 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 23:06, 7 August 2006

Time report made: 00:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Not clear why 1st rv is rv William M. Connolley 07:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Because he changed "English" to "British", and then did the same on 3 further occasions. This is a rather obtuse campaign being conducted by Cornish nationalists (see Constitutional status of Cornwall), who are, throughout the entire Wikipedia project, trying to remove all references to Cornwall being a county of England. (They want it to have the status of a constituent country.) Whatever the merits of their campaign (and I for one am sympathetic), Wikipedia must stick to facts, and however much they hate it, Cornwall is a part of England. Whatever the merits of the arguments on either side, breach of 3RR is not going to improve the situation. --Mais oui! 09:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That does not answer the question. To revert a page is to undo the actions of another editor. If nobody had ever changed "British" to "English" on the page before, then changing "English" to "British" was not a revert. To violate the three-revert rule requires four reverts. Ergo, if the first reported diff was not a revert, there has been no violation. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:64.172.142.95 reported by User:Chris Griswold (Result: Semiprotected)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:54, June 15, 2006


 * 1st revert: 11:15, August 7, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 14:39, August 7, 2006
 * 3rd revert: August 7, 2006
 * 4th revert: DiffTime

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * DiffTime

Time report made: 01:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on. :

Comments: User has repeatedly added Internet drama/gossip/uncited criticism to this article since June 15, reverting at least once a day. Today, he reverted three times. This was the only place I knew to report this. --Chris Griswold 01:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The user is appearently part of troll group that were kicked out of the Wizard message boards or some such, and now plan and gossip about internet trolling at issue9mm.com. They bragged about this particular vandalism here and here . User IPs 71.159.217.57, 24.151.251.178 and 64.172.142.154 have also joined in. They all appear to be IPs unique to the vandals, and it would be no great loss to ban all 4. Rgoldman 02:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * At the very least, the article should be protected against unregistered users.
 * user just did it again. This has been going on for a few months, a probation won't be effective. 67.63.17.27 17:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Article has been semiprotected, although not by me. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:OrangeGum reported by User:Danny Lilithborne (Result: 24h block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:


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

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 01:15, 8 August 2006

Time report made: 03:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User is also engaging in seriously bad behavior (check his edit summaries and the history on his talk page.)

Would have been blocked for 3RR but 2006-08-08T03:51:18 Crazycomputers (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "OrangeGum (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (warning removal) William M. Connolley 07:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Italiavivi reported by User:Isarig (Result: Invalid)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 07:26, 7 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 16:56, 7 August 2006 reverted confirmed killed # to 53
 * 2nd revert: 17:06, 7 August 2006 reverted IDF claim of killed to 300-400
 * 3rd revert: 05:40, 8 August 2006 reverted IDF claim of killed to 300-400
 * 4th revert: 06:02, 8 August 2006 reverted IDF claim of killed to 300-400


 * 5th revert: 06:45, 8 August 2006reverted IDF claim of killed to 300-400

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * User was warned about 3RR in edit summary at 06:35, and acknowledged being warned in his own edit summary of 06:45

Time report made: 07:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has been continuously edit warring in the battlebox of the article, repeatedly changing casualty numbers and removing well sourced numbers that differ from his own.


 * The user filing this report, Isarig, has provided misleading diffs to cover his own violation of 3RR. He has filed this report as a result of being challenged when attempting to provide only one Israeli minister's estimate of Hezbollah militant deaths in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, of which there are at least three.  Please note Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR for further discussion, and note the diffs Isarig has provided here with scrutiny. Thanks, Italiavivi 17:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Given the situation, I have carefully scrutinized the report. Now, if an edit is a revert to a previous version, the diff between the two versions will show nothing (or almost nothing), at least in the section concerned. Here are the diffs between the "previous version reverted to" and each of the reverts:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * As in this case there are many differences, I feel that there is insufficient evidence for a 3RR block. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:69.223.83.245 reported by User:Bertilvidet (Result: 24h block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:02, 7 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 21:39, 7 August 2006
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: 12:44, 8 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 11:39, 8 August 2006

Comment: These are the only contributions this anon user has made.

Time report made: 13:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. -- Szvest 13:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

User:Pm_shef reported by User:Mangerno (Result: Stale)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:02, 6 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 21:21, 6 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 21:37, 6 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 22:52, 6 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 00:10, 7 August 2006
 * 5th revert: 00:23, 7 August 2006


 * 23:47, 24 July 2006

Time report made: 15:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User was blocked 2 weeks ago with a 3RR violation, now has returned.
 * Reverts 1-3 and reverts 4-5 are regarding different parts of the article. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't make it not a 3RR vio, but it's three days ago now and 3RR is for prevention, not punishment, so looks like he gets away with it. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Crculver reported by User:Rayfield (Result: 24h block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 06:51 8.August


 * 1st revert: 07:09, 8. August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 07:16, 8. August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 07:22, 8. August 2006
 * 4th revert: 07:39, 8. Augutst 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 07:39, 8. August 2006

Time report made: 16:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: One of the parties involved  was blocked for the same offence for 24 hours by an administrator. The WP:3RR policy states: In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally. . . I found it very unfair that only one of the parties involved got blocked for violating WP:3RR. Comment: The same admin has now also blocked the other party and said he didn't see the other violation first. --Rayfield 16:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

2006-08-08T16:42:30 Bishonen (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Crculver (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on Sanskrit) William M. Connolley 18:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Joe_Carter reported by User:FeloniousMonk (Result:24 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:31, 3 August


 * 1st revert: 23:13, 7 August
 * 2nd revert: 09:50, 8 August
 * 3rd revert: 12:18, 8 August
 * 4th revert: 14:20, 8 August

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 13:42, 8 August

Time report made: 22:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * 24 hours, I'm tempt to block indef as an username block as an celeb name, see Joe Carter. Jaranda wat's sup 22:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Stephenzhu reported by User:Tewfik (Result:24 hrs)
Three revert rule violation on. : 14:40, 7 August 2006]
 * Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict&oldid=68237717


 * 1st revert: 12:30, 8 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 12:53, 8 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 14:42, 8 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 21:19, 8 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 14:47, 8 August 2006

Time report made: 01:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Comments:


 * Blocked 24 hours for 3RR. -- Avi 01:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:crumbsucker reported by User:PiousPratt (Result: No block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:22, 8 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 02:28, 9 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 02:20, 9 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 01:59, 9 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 01:55, 9 August 2006
 * 5th revert: 01:24, 9 August 2006

Time report made: 02:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments: I attempted to compromise and take crumbsucker's criticism as constructive. I cited sources when he asked for them, and still he edited the page without even recognizing that I was attempting to meet him halfway. From the look of his talk page, he frequently likes to start Edit Wars and does not want to get along with anyone who disagrees with him.''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by PiousPratt (talk • contribs)


 * Both parties have violated 3RR. User:PiousPratt however was introducing some personal and non-notable external links, which I believe were seen as spam by User:Crumbsucker.  At this time I have not blocked the users, but have warned both users.  --Chris (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Removing your personal spam links isn't 3RR. You've already been warned by an administrator to stop adding them. Crumbsucker 03:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:VAND does indeed state that spam is vandalism. User:Crumbsucker is not in danger of being blocked over this (in fact, User:PiousPratt is more likely to be blocked) but I am trying to settle this in a fashion where nobody needs to be blocked.  --Chris (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:AaronS reported by User:Aceliner (Result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 19:33, 8 August 2006 Edit summary: "rv boring sock; get some new material, please"
 * 2nd revert: 20:23, 8 August 2006 Edit summary: "rv: doink"
 * 3rd revert: 00:13, 9 August 2006 Edit summary: "Revert to revision 68494593 dated 2006-08-08 22:50:06 by VoluntarySlave using popups"
 * 4th revert: 03:34, 9 August 2006 Edit summary: "Revert to revision 68524012 dated 2006-08-09 02:00:39 by EbonyTotem using popups"

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * He knows about the 3RR. Examples of past warning: And past block:  Aceliner 04:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Time report made: 04:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Although the previous version reverted to was not completed, AaronS handily admitted to reverting in the edit summary each time, and is blocked for 24 hours. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at this again after an email request from AaronS, the fourth revert was definitely reverting a banned user (mentioning this in the edit summary may have caused me to look further). The others do not appear to have been, but reverting a banned user is exempt and as such Aaron should not have been blocked. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Adkagansu reported by User:TigranTheGreat (Result: 8h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous versions reverted to, if applicable: Prior versions are given individually in the description of each revert.


 * 1st revert: 17:02, 8 August 2006 (reversion to 17:03, 7 August 2006): removing the line (Greek: Σμύρνη, Armenian: Zmyurnia)


 * 2nd revert: 18:02, 8 August 2006 (reversion to 17:02, 8 August 2006): removing the line (Greek: Σμύρνη, Armenian: Zmyurnia)


 * 3rd revert: 04:25, 9 August 2006 (reversion to 03:11, 9 August 2006): adding the paragraph "and from the first day of their landing ..."


 * 4th revert: 05:57, 9 August 2006 (reversion to 05:32, 9 August 2006): removing the Greek-Armenian line, and adding the paragraph "and from the first day of their landing ..."

Please note that this user is fully aware of the 3RR rule, as evident from his user talk: User_talk:Adkagansu

Time report made: 09:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The user basically keeps removing the segment (Greek: Σμύρνη, Armenian: Zmyurnia). And he keeps adding POV paragraph (starting with "and from the first day of their landing ...").

--TigranTheGreat 09:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 8 hours by WMC. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC). I did. Sorry I forgot to report it here... William M. Connolley 10:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Tickle me reported by User:Tigeroo (Result: 8h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:54, 8 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 20:45, 8 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 21:10, 8 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 01:34, 9 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 03:10, 9 August 2006

Comment: this users keep reverting the entire article not even just disputed content, thereby removing even useful changes made in the intervening periods.
 * here are two further identical reverts not mentioned above (making the count six):
 * 14:55, 8 August 2006
 * 15:54, 8 August 2006

 ITAQALLAH  14:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Time report made: 10:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You have provided oldids, not diffs. Please provide diffs. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, a cursory look at the page history shows four clearly-marked reverts, so 8h. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Pecher reported by User:Tigeroo (Result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:51, 8 August 2006;


 * 1st revert: 12:22, 8 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 09:44, 9 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 11:38, 9 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 12:41, 9 August 2006

Comment: this user keeps deleting all formulations of reference to any NPOV formulation of the term Prophet even specifically describing Muhammad as a prophet of Islam. The user has pushed this across various other pages as well and refuses to discuss his problem anywhere.

Time report made: 13:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what these diffs are supposed to show and where there is a 3RR violation here. I've requested a page protectio, though, given that Tigeroo keeps edit warring and pushing a POV description of Muhammad as a "final prophet". Pecher Talk 14:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

My bad if the diffs are the wrong ones, I was just showing how he has consisently returned the page to the same language even after edits have been made in the pages, anway i think they and Pechers arrival here and on requesting page protection elsewhere after left him a message on the Aisha talk page demonstrate a tacit acceptance of a 3RR violation.--Tigeroo 14:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A comment on this noticeboard is a rather weird evidence in favor of acceptance of a non-existing violation. In the edit war(s) that you're waging, the most appropriate course of action is to request page protection, as I did, instead of trying to gain advantage by having another user blocked, as you did to Tickle me. Pecher Talk 14:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree the proper way to do this is to talk, and I have opened this debate on more than one page, you are absent addressing the issue except on RV description lines. There is no advantage in a temporary block, its not a ban, it's call to get people who wont sit down to do so instead of sticking fixedly to a position. This is a collaborative all inclusive effort not a solo exclusivist place, I have addressed your issues but you have ignored all of mine.--Tigeroo 15:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like 3RR. Pecher, you would gain some minor credit by marking your reverts as such William M. Connolley 16:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Jamesedwardsmith reported by User:HenryFlower (Result: 8h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:58, 8 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 15:05, 9 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:11, 9 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:18, 9 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:26, 9 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 15:20, 9 August 2006

Time report made: 15:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User warned on his talk page. HenryFlower 15:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

8h William M. Connolley 16:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Yas121 reported by User:User:Jayjg (Result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:42, 8 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 19:15, 8 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:51, 8 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:11, 9 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:26, 9 August 2006
 * 5th revert: 16:42, 9 August 2006

Time report made: 16:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yas121 keeps inserting a paragraph about a 2002 rally for Hamas in the lead section. The second revert was of a different section, but was still clearly a revert, and marked as such. This editor has been warned at length about 3RR before: see User_talk:Yas121 and User_talk:Yas121. He still continues to revert . Jayjg (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 17:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:SergeantBolt reported by User: Matthew Fenton  (Talk | Contribs) (Result:No action)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 21:36, August 8
 * 2nd revert: 22:47, August 8
 * 3rd revert: 10:09, August 9
 * 4th revert: 12:15, August 9
 * 5th revert: 18:55, August 9
 * 6th revert: Aug 9

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 15:37, August 9

Time report made: 18:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I gave this user the 3RR boilerplate on his 4th revert and warned him that i would report him if he was to make annother revert in under 24 hours.

However he did not heed to the warning and just called the changes made vandalism, and reverted again. Thus i am forced to report the users actions.  Matthew Fenton  (Talk | Contribs) 18:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a ridiculous Wikilawyering invocation of 3RR. As has been pointed out to this user (MatthewFenton), the reverts in question (SergeantBolt's, but also by others, including myself) were to enforce repeated insertion of uncited and unverifiable content by multiple anon editors, over a period of weeks. Note that the page in question has now (thank goodness) been protected by an admin, to prevent the constant reinsertion that SergeantBolt and I were combatting through our reverts.  This user's inclination towards slavish adherence to a policy, and failure to recognize what is truly going on in a given situation, has been discussed at length by numerous editors in an RfC (Requests for comment/MatthewFenton).  This 3RR report by MatthewFenton is but the latest example of this extreme and disruptive behavior. -- PKtm 19:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you look at the history you will ntice a user tried to cite the source however was reverted. Also what is wrong about adhearing to policy? Are you telling me i'm not supposed to adhear to policy?
 * Also i think you need to stop going on about "wikilawyering" i have not taken any exams to become a solictor or work in law nor am i old enough to enter into such a proffesion in law.  Matthew Fenton  (Talk | Contribs) 19:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, You call these edits vandalism yet the opening paragraphs of Vandalism make it blatently obvious that these edits are in fact not vandalism and the ones causing disruption are your selfs.
 * Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.

Now if it was classed as simple vandlism then 3RR would not apply, however this is not the case and 3RR does apply, i did warn the user and i did make my intentions pretty clear that i did not wish to have to report him! (See also: WP:3RR)  Matthew Fenton  (Talk | Contribs) 19:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, you show you have no concept of policy. Wikilawyering states that:

Wikilawyering refers to the frowned upon practices of: 1. Using formal legal terms inappropriately regarding Wikipedia policy. 2. Asserting that technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express. 3. Hiding behind misinterpretations of policy to justify inappropriate edits.

And according to the ADMINISTRATOR that PROTECTED the article due to VANDALISM, it is 'the case'. SergeantBolt 19:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you need to calm down and stop talking in caps, now i am not trying to justify any edits so i dont have a clue what you are talking about, furthermore i do not see a policy/guideline sticker on that page.
 * Also.. Please stop refering to me as a lawyer, as i have stated im not a lawyer!  Matthew Fenton  (Talk | Contribs) 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The "source" that was cited is a fan rumor site (spoilerfix.com), and therefore not acceptable by WP standards of verifiability. This was pointed out to Matthew. Again, please refer to the RfC for multiple editors' voiced concerns about Matthew's disruptive behavior in incidents like this. -- PKtm 19:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you've made your point.. i have an RfC.. and?  Matthew Fenton  (Talk | Contribs) 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And therefore, that is proof of your past and similar behaviour like this as well as you being biased in this argument because you made an edit for the opposing side. SergeantBolt 20:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I reverted as it was cited.  Matthew Fenton  (Talk | Contribs) 20:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But not by acceptable WP standards of verifiability, so it didn't count. SergeantBolt 20:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Result: No action as 3RR does not apply to vandalism. Adding unreliable content to Wikipedia is vandlaism, and SergeantBolt (along with another user) was reverting that in GF. The JPS talk to me  20:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Corn Man reported by User: Matthew Fenton  (Talk | Contribs) (Result:1month)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: Aug 9
 * 2nd revert: Aug 9
 * 3rd revert: Aug 9
 * 4th revert: Aug 9
 * 5th revert: Aug 9

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) : Yes (see user talk)

Time report made: 20:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Warned for 3RR, i will not revert again as i do not wish to violate 3RR.  Matthew Fenton  (Talk | Contribs) 20:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Result: User has already been blocked for one month for vandalism. The JPS talk to me  20:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:194.73.101.6 reported by User:Robdurbar (Result: Warning)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: n/a


 * 1st revert: 08:31 9 August
 * 2nd revert: 10:35 9 August
 * 3rd revert: 12:40 9 August
 * 4th revert: 16:53 9 August
 * 5th revert: 09:49 10 August
 * 6th revert: 13:48 10 August
 * 7th revert: 17:45 10 August

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 09:54 10 August

Time report made: 18:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:


 * OK, we should have reported this a bit earlier but User:Bobet had tried to take a more constructive approach ; however, this appears to have failed --Robdurbar 18:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The violation has been a bit far back, and they haven't been formally warned, so I gave them a warning using 3RR. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  21:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Paul_E_Ester reported by User:(→ Netscott ) (Result: 4h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:40, 9 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 17:06, 9 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 17:56, 9 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 20:54, 9 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:59, 9 August 2006
 * 5th revert: 21:36, 9 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 21:01, 9 August 200

Time report made: 22:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I think this individual is acting in good faith relative to citing WP:BLP but is a bit confused about the reliability of sources like Wired, CNET News.com.com, and Ars Technica relative to reports about concerns surrounding the health of Steve Jobs. Unless both myself and User:Banzai! are wrong this individual could do for a warning (a block should be the last step imho). (→ Netscott ) 22:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Netscott. See Talk:Steve Jobs for a summary of this dispute. (Scroll past Paul's original comment. He hasn't replied since then, so maybe he hasn't seen our replies yet.)


 * I think someone, a third party, just needs to step into his talk page and explain why his reversions are misguided, even if made with good intentions. —Banzai! (talk) @ 22:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Poorly sourced material that Netscott and Banzai would like to introduce into the article comes from an opinion column from a wired columnist, a CNET blog, and ARS article about the wired columnists column, Per WP:BLP I have removed these less than high quality sources and the speculation they bring to the bio. I outlined my concerns with the sources here. One should be able to distingush between news and opinion. The speculation these opinion pieces bring to the article is a clear violation of WP:BLP thanks, --Paul E. Ester 22:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If there was ever a problem with this material, the the San Francisco Chronicle wouldn't be citing Wired's report themselves. (→ Netscott ) 22:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Scott your citing here " A daily dose of postings from The Chronicle's technology blog (sfgate.com/blogs/tech)". We need to distinguish between blogs and news articles. Blogs like columnist columns are opinion pieces and as such are not reliable sources. --Paul E. Ester 22:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:RS does not permit "personal blogs" but for blogs and opinion pieces from well established and reliable sources (as has been mentioned above) that correspond to the subject matter mentioned in the article there is no problem. (→ Netscott ) 22:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Paul, it was in the print edition of the Chronicle too. Look on page C1. Regardless, opinion pieces (in addition to blogs, independent commentary, and the like) are perfectly acceptable to cite as sources for the statement that people are speculating about Steve Jobs. —Banzai! (talk) @ 05:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't consider the reverts to be exempted, Paul should have taken it to talk earlier and is blocked for 4 hours. Stifle (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:193.1.172.163 reported by User:Gsd2000 (Result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert: 14:44, 9 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:06, 9 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:18, 9 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:21, 9 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 21:15, 28 July 2006

Time report made: 23:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 07:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Francespeabody reported by User:Mmx1 (Result: 72h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:23, 8 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 21:11, 9 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 21:15, 9 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 21:30, 9 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 22:07, 9 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 22:13, 12 July 2006 User previously blocked for 6-revert 3rr violation.

Time report made: 03:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Blocked for 72 hours (repeat offense) + personal attacks. -- Aude ( talk   contribs ) 03:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Kenosis reported by User:User:Lucaas (Result: No violation)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert: (cur) (last) 17:14, 10 August 2006 Kenosis (Talk | contribs) (Back to last intelligible version by KillerChihuahua)
 * 2nd revert:(cur) (last) 15:25, 10 August 2006 Kenosis (Talk | contribs) (Revert vandalism)
 * 3rd revert: (cur) (last) 14:26, 10 August 2006 Kenosis (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 68802987 dated 2006-08-10 12:10:56 by Kenosis using popups)
 * 4th revert: (cur) (last) 02:49, 10 August 2006 Kenosis (Talk | contribs) (→Heidegger - Replace an edit by Tercross in first paragraph of section which simplified terms-of-art somewhat)

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) : Given notice on userpage and in talk page.

--Lucaas 18:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This is bogus retaliation by a tendentious editor (formerly User:Tercross who has now switched names to User:Lucaas, and who merely wishes to get his way on bogus ideas in a currently expanding philosophy article. I reluctantly used my righteous three reverts helping to keep this article stable as it develops, while making appropriate points on the talk page.  The fourth "instance" shown above is not a reversion but a synthesis of currently developing content implemented last night.  Two other editors also have reverted the same material trying to get it back in bounds. (We had a WP:NPOV problem, a WP:OR problem and an unintelligibility problem, along with some personal musings thrown in the article for good measure.) If you note the time of this "report", it was placed after my report of five reverts by User:Lucaas located farther below on this page.  Sorry to bother the administrators with this nonsense. ... Kenosis 19:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, the only "notice" involved was either ex-post-facto or a simple reproduction of my notice to Lucaas displaying his own reverts as of that time (here). ... Kenosis 19:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Apart from the report being malformed (look at all the others for what it should look like), #4 is clearly not a revert, no block. Stifle (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for advising me on how to file a report. I'm new to this, my first "war", though never expected such an onslaught, kenosis is very skilled at this. Glad to have created this article under my old name (I now use my common name), but will be more wary in future. By the way, how was the fourth edit not a revert, he simply undid what had been added by me? --Lucaas 19:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Kertenkelebek reported by User:TigranTheGreat (Result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous versions reverted to, if applicable: Prior versions are given individually in the description of each revert.


 * 1st revert: 07:21, 10 August 2006 (reversion to 09:16, 5 August 2006)


 * 2nd revert: 08:00, 10 August 2006 (reversion to 07:21, 10 August 2006)


 * 3rd revert: 09:05, 10 August 2006 (reversion to 08:53, 10 August 2006)


 * 4th revert: 09:14, 10 August 2006 (reversion to 09:05, 10 August 2006)

Please note that this user is fully aware of the 3RR rule, as he has been blocked before for 24 hours.

Time report made: 09:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The user reverts other editors, removing a consensus version and introducing POV edits.

--TigranTheGreat 09:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This user has now made a total of 7, that's right 7 reverts today on that page!--Eupator 17:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24h. -- Nataly a 22:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Kwame Nkrumah reported by User:Palffy (Result: No apparent violation)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: ?


 * 1st revert: 18:34, August 9, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:59, August 9, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 12:07, August 10, 2006
 * 4th revert: 12:14, August 10, 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 12:11, August 10, 2006

Time report made: 16:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user has made 7 reverts in the past 3 days on the article. He was warned prior to making his 4th revert today, but he simply decided to use another screenname to make his 4th revert and left the following for me. --Palffy 16:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The fourth edit was not mine. Thanks.--Kwame Nkrumah 16:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You are the only person on Wikipedia soccer pages arguing for uniforms to not show their exact designs. Your edits have been reverted countless times on other pages and you have gotten into very harsh uncompromising discussions such as, while posting retribution such as your post on my Talk page. Additionally, it is not a coincidence that you would stop posting from 12:09 till 12:42 under Kwame Nkrumah , while your second pseudonym posts from 12:14 to 12:38 while you're under watch, . --Palffy 16:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an acuse of sockpuppetry. I hope you have more solid proofs for such an act.--Kwame Nkrumah 18:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's 2 things--posting as a sock puppet and breaking the 3RR. Hopefully the admins have more advanced tools to confirm that this is indeed the case. --Palffy 19:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Missing two things here, firstly the previous version reverted to (which would prove that the first listed item is indeed a revert and not just a regular edit) and second, four reverts by the same person. The fourth was by a different account. Stifle (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:70.249.197.46 reported by User:DeLarge (Result: 2 weeks)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:38, August 8, 2006


 * 1st revert: 17:13, August 9, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:49, August 9, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 14:30, August 10, 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:27, August 10, 2006
 * 5th revert: 16:55, August 10, 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 17:10, August 10, 2006

Time report made: 17:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: As seen on User talk:User talk:70.249.197.46, repeatedly warned for spamming several article pages. Can be seen as only contributing "external links" on his User contributions log. Deserves a permanent block, but a 3RR block will suit me fine just now. DeLarge
 * We don't indef block IPs unless they are open proxies. Given this guy's contribution history, however, I think 2 weeks would be justified. Stifle (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Lucaas reported by User:Kenosis (Result:48h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:10, 10 August 2006

Notice given after four reverts, then
 * 1st revert: 13:51, 10 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:21, 10 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:35, 10 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:30, 10 August 2006
 * 5th revert: 17:17, 10 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) : Notice given twice:
 * 16:59, 10 August 2006
 * 17:10, 10 August 2006

Time report made: 17:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:Note also the fabricated retaliatory report filed by User:Lucaas (formerly User:Tercross) ... Kenosis 20:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Comment: I believe the user has continued to edit as 84.203.33.74. --Lambiam Talk 07:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigh, blocking 24h for 3RR and another 24h for incivility by filing a retaliatory report, removing warnings, etc. Stifle (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:UberCryxic reported by User:Marneus (Result: No violation)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime


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

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * DiffTime

Time report made: 17:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

He continues to impose his beliefs instead of citing sources and ignoring the previous consensus and not resorting to the talk page.

--Marneus 17:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User Marneus is being extremely deceptive here. I actually reverted the specific point we are haggling over only twice. You can see that my other changes to the article were either additions or deletions of other material that the user was not contesting. Only my first and third edits in the article were reverts. If you look at the article, you will find I edited it a total of five times, three of them not being reverts of anything. Thank you.UberCryxic 18:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you actually look at the history of the article, you will find that Marneus HAS violated 3RR, but I did not report him/her because I do not like this rule/system.UberCryxic 18:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There has been no violation of WP:3RR. However, it is advisable that you both settle the argument completely on the talk page. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  21:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:ParalelUni reported by User:JzG (Result: Blocked 24h)
Classic WP:SPA. Article now sprotected. Warned by uninvolved BucketsofG Please wield cluebat as I am now involved. Just zis Guy you know? 22:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Revert 1:
 * Revert 2:
 * Revert 3:
 * Revert 4:
 * Revert 5:
 * Blocked for 24 hours. JoshuaZ 22:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

===User:Kmaguir1 and sock-puppet User:Truthseekers reported by User: LotLE × talk (Result: User:Kmaguir1 blocked for 24hrs) ===

Three revert rule violation on. :


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

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * DiffTime

Time report made: 05:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User repeatedly inserts homophobic WP:OR material in bio. Latest edits are by brand-new sock-puppet that was created entirely to hide 3RR violation. "Truthseekers", FWIW, is a phrase repeatedly used by Kmaguir1 on my talk page and several article talk pages in the last few hours (hence making the sock-puppetry obvious). Similar recent 3RR block on Judith Butler (also homophobic rants). Sock-puppetry is also reported at: Suspected sock puppets/Kmaguir1

Clarification: There are actually two (related) changes going on above. One inserts a claim about Foucault "spreading AIDS"; the other inserts a claim about Foucault being subject to a "faculty investigation" (both are false and/or unverifiable, FWIW). Some of the above edits reinsert both parts, some just one of the two; but however you count it, four or more reversions have been made to either claim (both were first introduced to the article by Kmaguir1 a few days earlier).


 * I'm sorry--this is not Kmaguir1. Check the IP address. I am just a loyal supporter of the truth, and his attempt to get it out, and this is not sock-puppetry. Any block is invalid. I just recently created this account. -Truthseekers 05:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is all fabricated. He's a friend, he made these edits of his own volition. Lulu's allegations are false. The material is not homophobic--it states claims cited from a published article. -Kmaguir1 08:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The first two she claims are reverts are not that. They add citations only, which is what was requested by another user. I know the 3RR rule well, and did not break it. -Kmaguir1 09:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And the fifth revert she puts on there was not done by me. -Kmaguir1 09:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Truthseekers and Kmaguir1 dispute being in a sockpuppeteer/sockpuppet relationship, but by their own admission are in a meatpuppeteer/meatpuppet relationship, at least for the time being. This may stem from being new to wikipedia (we all were new once), but hte current effect of these two accounts is to be acting as one, and thus disrupting wikipedia.--Anthony Krupp 15:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Kmaguir1 blocked for 24 hours, 2nd violation. If the suspected meatpuppet reverts again he will be violating 3rr as well. -- Миборо в ский 18:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No meatpuppet acusation has surfaced aside from the name calling I've endured. I'd think it was fairly incorrect to call me a "suspected meatpuppet" if no acusation is present. -Truthseekers 22:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Ati3414 reported by User:Gregory9 (Result: 48hrs)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:57, 10 August 2006
 * 1st revert: 04:06, 10 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 13:46, 10 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:36, 10 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:00, 10 August 2006

Comments:

The user keeps removing the phrase "The relativistic mass of such a particle may be taken to be its energy divided by c2." Despite many requests to stop by User:MichaelCPrice, User:Pervect, User:Trovatore, and others, User:Ati3414 continues to incite an editting war.

Note (sockpuppets): sometimes User:Ati3414 forgets to sign in and shows up as User:67.170.224.36. It is apparrent in the editting, but if you have any doubt this edit proves it: changed signature after logging in. Also, edit logs show he is probably User:12.36.122.2 and again here is proof.

Also, note that User:Ati3414 has been involved in multiple editting wars, and has already been banned twice (up to 1 month) for behavior relating to such disputes (including a 3RR violation). Heck, here's documentation of another reverting war within the last week even: Photon 3RR violation that people decided to not report. User:Ati3414 knows the rules and continues to flagrantly violate them while showing absolutely no evidence that he can be "rehabilitated".

Time report made: 07:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. -- Миборо в ский 18:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:71.228.10.185 reported by User:Propol {Result: 24h)
User:71.228.10.185 has violated the 3RR on mutliple occaisons. See the Eric Hoplin article for an example. The user has been warned multiple times, see User talk:71.228.10.185, and has even been blocked before. Unfortunately, the behavior has continued. Would an administrator please block this user. I greatly appreciate your help. Propol 17:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 1st Revert 7/8/06
 * 2nd Revert 7/23/06
 * 3rd Revert 7/28/06
 * 4th Revert 8/11/2006

Comments I believe there have been additional deletions by this user using different IP addresses. Please see User talk:67.175.163.15. Thanks Propol 19:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 -- Миборо в ский 19:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Palffy reported by User:Kwame Nkrumah (Result:)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 01:59, 10 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 18:03, 10 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:09, 10 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:27, 11 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:30, 11 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 17:40, 11 August 2006

Time report made: 18:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Maybe he made only 3 reverts in 24h, but made 4 in 25.5h, and did thid just to force his POV before the page protection he asked for an edit war he was making.--Kwame Nkrumah 18:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No 3RR violation, as far as I can see. Kwame Nkrumah, you were pushing your POV more than anybody else. --KPbIC 00:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Osli73 reported by User:Live Forever (Result:warning)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 23:04, 10 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 08:07, 11 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 11:19, 11 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:31, 11 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:14, 11 August 2006

Time report made: 20:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Keeps insisting on including controversial statements by discredited figure opposed by every other user on the talk page. All his criticisms have been answered with clear sources, but he keeps shifting the focus of his arguments, even blatantly miscontruing the provided evidence. He has been on wikipedia for quite some time and participates on several controversial articles, so the 3RR is hardly foreign to him. Live Forever 20:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * May be "familiar" with wikipolicy, but hasn't yet been warned. So i'll do that now.  If it continues, come back.-- he  ah  03:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Khosrow_II reported by User: Tewfik Talk (Result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:12:41


 * 1st revert: 16:54:34
 * 2nd revert: 16:41:46
 * 3rd revert: 16:18:19
 * 4th revert: 15:32:23
 * 5th revert: 15:13:36

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 16:29:39

Time report made: 21:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:The user continuosly added nonconsensus qualifications to the introduction "casus belli" sequence, as well as general unsourced POV and rebuttals to passages he didn't like.

Comment The User who accuses me is trying to block information. If you check now, you will see that the information that this user tried to suppress now has the support of most editors, and is now in the article. This user is trying to suppress the other side of the story, mainly that of the Lebanese and Hezbollah. He is clearly biased and has a lot of POV, and I suggested to him to not edit the article until he can be more neutral, he refused. I merely reverted the article to keep it neutral and as unbiased as possible.Khosrow II 22:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As it was a content dispute, and Khosrow II has been previously been blocked for a 3rr violation, I am blocking him for 24 hours. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  22:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Trödel reported by User:Reswobslc (Result: Stale, no action)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: Original revision, 02:18, 11 August 2006


 * 1st revert: Revert 14:25, 11 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: Revert 18:47, 11 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: Revert 20:04, 11 August 2006
 * 4th revert: Revert 22:05, 11 August 2006
 * 5th revert: 04:49 13 August 2006 using a sockpuppet that's obviously him, given the edit history

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 20:16, 11 August 2006 (on user talk page using template)
 * 20:21, 11 August 2006, on article talk page, not using a template

Time report made: 22:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Violator disguising reverts by claiming that a link in the article refers to a copyvio elsewhere on the Net - whether or not he's right about the link, it's not part of or even related to the section he continues to delete. Repeat offender - violator was recently blocked for 3RR on a similar article. Reswobslc 22:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:UberCryxic reported by User:Marneus (Result:)
Three revert rule violation on. :

He does not cites sources and uses just his beliefs instead of consensus or sources.


 * 1) (cur) (last) 14:05, 10 August 2006 UberCryxic (Talk | contribs) m (added crucial corollary in definition that i'm a little dismayed has been left out up to this point)


 * 1) (cur) (last) 04:32, 10 August 2006 UberCryxic (Talk | contribs) m (removed unnecessary source for france having a blue-water navy)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 03:59, 10 August 2006 UberCryxic (Talk | contribs) m (see talk page; i did discuss it)
 * 3) (cur) (last) 18:50, 9 August 2006 UberCryxic (Talk | contribs) m
 * 4) (cur) (last) 18:50, 9 August 2006 UberCryxic (Talk | contribs) m (removed spanish navy; the only true blue-water navies in the world are the american, british, and the french)

Time report made: 21:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * can you please provide diffs, as outlined below? that will make it easier to examine.  thanks.  -- he  ah  03:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

User:69.181.54.126 reported by Wildnox:Wildnox (Result:8hr)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:


 * 1st revert: 02:13, 11 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 23:38, 11 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 23:41, 11 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:46, 11 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 

23:56, 11 August 2006: 23:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:Violation of 3RR
 * eight hours for first offense. -- he ah  03:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Jean-Philippe reported by User:200.88.223.98 (Result:)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:45 11 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 07:09, 11 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 07:18, 11 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 05:09 12 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 05:41 12 August 2006
 * 5th revert: 06:21 12 August 2006

Time report made: 06:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: According to Talk page has been warned about 3RR in the past. 200.88.223.98 06:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is under attack by a series of anon IPs, at least some of which (and I suspect all) belong to user:Gnetwerker, who is being disruptive because he was recently exposed for sockpuppetry. See Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Gnetwerker. Jean Philippe was helping to stem the disruption. I'm about to request semi-protection. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * VoiceofAll has already sprotected. The anon who posted this report is probably Gnetwerker too. Resolves to Dominican Republic. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Dispute is over creating a header for the "Holocaust on your Plate" campaign PETA ran. SlimVirgin and Jean Philippe are supporters of PETA and oppose giving this added prominence even though there is enough material in the article for a section. 200.88.223.98 06:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is vandalism, not a content dispute. The anon has been making random changes (removing headers, breaking ref tags, rewriting the intro) using different IPs. The intention is to disrupt editing. Jean-Philippe was right to revert it, and dealing with disruptive editing is not subject to 3RR. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin has now violated 3RR at PETA herself. Admins should examine the edit history of the article and see if what she and Jean-Philippe claim to be "vandalism" really is that. 200.88.223.98 06:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who nominated peta for semi-protection. While I think I might have inadvertently broke the 3rr rule earlier on, if not in actual edit counts then at least in spirit, I'd like to point out that I've reverted myself at least once for content when I was pointed out that the edits in question might simply be bad edits and not outright vandalism as I believed. . As for the rest, like revert 4 and 5, as SlimVirgin pointed out, it's downright disruption on the part of the anons. Still if I really violated 3rr, well, tough luck for me. I guess I'll have to learn from it :P Jean-Philippe 07:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a garden variety content dispute to me. SlimVirgin and Jean-Philippe are both guilty of edit warring and prolonging the disruption.

The three revert rule is not an allowance; it's a fence, it is strongly recommended that you revert only once, any reversions beyond this limit should be performed by somebody else, reverts should only be done to vandalism done in bad faith, the 3RR's only exceptions are for simple vandalism, etc., etc., etc. You both know better than this, and are only being disruptive to push your POV. — Omegatron 20:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're accusing me of causing the disruption o.O? I didn't hide behind sockpuppets to do my reverts, and I didn't do any of them out of sheer spite like he/she did. Also, please refrain from baseless accusations, I'm not "guilty" of anything. I might get a block, but I still had the best interest of the article in mind when I did those reverts. Jean-Philippe 22:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Omegatron, it's an abusive sockpuppet who's trolling, not a serious editor, not a content dispute. Jean-Philippe, reverting that kind of disruption is not subject to 3RR and you did the right thing by requesting page protection. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Rjensen reported by User:Str1977 (Result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:  12 August 2006 12:54


 * 1st revert: 12 August 2006 16:19
 * 2nd revert: 12 August 2006 17:57
 * 3rd revert: 12 August 2006 18:47
 * 4th revert: 12 August 2006 19:46

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * , informing him but announcing not to report him (as I thought him offline and a first offender, later changing my mind after his further edits and having seen his blocklog, giving him time to self-revert

Time report made: Str1977 (smile back) 21:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Blocked for 24 hours. Ashi b aka tock 05:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin reported by User:201.155.170.232 (Result: no violation)
Three revert rule violation on. : A user by the name of User:SlimVirgin is in violation of what I understand to be the rule against more than three reversions to a single page within a 24 hour period. This user is also rather discourteous to those around him and should have his comportment addressed in the proper forum, if this is not it.

(I hope I get this right ;))


 * Previous version reverted to:  11 August 2006 20:53


 * #1 11 August 2006 22:09
 * #2 12 August 2006 03:21
 * #3 12 August 2006 04:18
 * #4 12 August 2006 06:52

201.155.170.232 05:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC) If I've not done this correctly, please leave a note on my User:talk page (you'll be the first!!)201.155.170.232 05:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Comments:
 * This is almost certainly, who's been engaged in lots of abusive sockpuppetry recently. I've blocked some of his accounts and so he's been stalking me. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Gnetwerker and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Gnetwerker. His disruptive editing of PETA over the last day or so (using several anon IPs) as part of his stalking campaign, led to page protection. This is a repeat of the 3RR report he posted against Jean-Philippe and me on August 12, as , when we were reverting his disruption. SlimVirgin (talk)  06:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

No action is necessary here, these are reverts of several different things and some of them constitute undoing vandalism. Ashi b aka tock 16:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Rex Germanus reported by User:Ulritz (2nd time after inaction on first violation) 20:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC) (Result:Block 24)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert: 10:35, 14 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 10:53, 14 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 11:10, 14 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 11:26, 12 August 2006

Time report made: Ulritz 20:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Well, since the user's last revert spree reported below went unanswered, RG is testing how many reverts it takes to get blocked, as I have asked him repeatedly to calm down and stop the madness. I fear that further inaction now might give him the wrong message. Ulritz 11:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * He has been blocked for 24 hours for a 3RR violation. You have been blocked for 24 hours for being uncivil after multiple warnings.pschemp | talk 14:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

User:68.227.127.41 reported by User:Batman428 (Result:Warned)
Three revert rule violation on.

Comments:This user has made multiple edits that were vandalism. Recently he vandalized the article by deleting info that balanced the article simply because he disagreed, therefore biasing of the article. I reverted the deletion, and he has started an editing war. I myself have broken the three revert rule, but within the provisions listed to revert the ;clear and simple vandalism" that this IP address has done. He then left a message on my talk page telling me to "get a life".  I request this IP address be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  Previous malicious edits not pertaining to the three revert rule (rather they are plain and simple vandalism) of his may be seen on the history page of the article.


 * Comment Warned by Avi on August 14. Next time, please file the request using the proper template. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Chadbryant reported by User:24.215.152.197 (Result:No block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert: 21:31, 9 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 01:16, 10 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 01:58, 10 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:38, 10 August 2006

Comments: User Chadbryant has filed an erroneous 3RR report while violating the rule himself. He also mischaracterizes the information, which has been noted by other Wikipedia users besides myself. His behavior has been curt, unresponsive and somewhat harassing. Any help in this matter will be appreciated. Thank you.


 * Please remember that the 3RR applies to reverts after the third within a 24 hour period (not calendar day); it also does not include self reverts, and reverts to deal with simple vandalism
 * - Chadbryant 09:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This has been filled incorrectly; the diffs should show the affects of the addition of Chadbryant's edits, not the times when he has been reverted. --Robdurbar 07:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

User:24.215.152.197 reported by User:Chadbryant (Result:Warning)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert: 00:52, 10 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 01:52, 10 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 02:30, 10 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 01:02, 11 August 2006

Time report made: 07:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Anon user timed his fourth revert to narrowly avoid the 24-hour period. His reverts to WWE Undisputed Championship to insert similar inaccurate information resulted in a semi-protect for that article. This user has become increasingly confrontational on several talk pages, and has previously stated under another anonymous account that he refuses to register for an account so that he can avoid any blocks or other sanctions. - Chadbryant 07:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

24.215.152.197 08:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)The above user misrepresents my comments, which remain on the talk page. The above user is not only reverting correct information, but violated the same 3RR rule himself on August 10, which can be seen on the above page's edit history. He will not explain his actions. Any help that can be provided will be appreciated.


 * Due to the length of time that has now passed without a revert, the user should be given one last warning. --Robdurbar 07:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

User: Ldingley reported by user:Mikkalai (Result:)
Three revert rule violation on. It looks like this user claims authorship of the article, reverting any of my edits on sight (He was doing the same on August 10 as well):

All reverts below are within 6 hours:

Basic version
 * 1) partial revert of well-known relatively fresh historical events (rather than, say, someone's judgements) with ridiculous edit comment "removing Russian POV statement" (02:29, 12 August 2006 )
 * 2) "rv Russian POV, complete disregard for NPOV, last warning" (07:19, 12 August 2006)

Actually the one who reported doesn't know even to count them. There are only 2 edits at all. One was the orginial not reverting edit. The other was reverting the Russian POV pushing from this Anti-Georgian vandal. He was blocked before for being vandal.

... And still persists in this behavior, reverting other editors as well, see eg.,


 * "rv back to Kober, fixing POV" (18:36, 12 August 2006)`'mikka (t) 19:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What about your Anti-Georgian attitude? What about the fact that you used an IP to make threats? What about the fact that you used an anon IP to make slurs regarding Georgia?--140.203.12.4 07:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Rex Germanus reported by User:Ulritz 20:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC) (Result:)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert: 12:56, 12 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 13:01, 12 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:45, 12 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:53, 12 August 2006

Time report made: Ulritz 20:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Nasty edit war brewing, user doesnt take into consideration admin opinions, was warned already for trying to delete the article by forcing through a TfD. Vows to continue warring.


 * The 4th revert is in effect a regular edit. As can be seen by any moderator, there has been a pretty big deal of edit warring going on, sparked by user:Ulritz' wikip spirit.


 * I added the deltion template because the article was crap, the template can be removed without any further problems when the article is improved significatly, yet instead of doing this user:Ulritz chose to remove the template (he refused normal talkpage discussion or an explanatory edit summary, and instead chose to to offend and insult me). Which I reinstated 3 times (Not breaking the 3RR) after he created the article he also started to change redirects to this new page all over wikipedia, and I thought ... if he's not going to improve the article and make it more worth keeping it might as well do it ... This improvement, is the "4th revert" as listed by User:Ulritz.


 * A simple viewing of User:Ulritz' talk page will give any admin enough information to see that it is Ulritz refusing to participate in normal wikipedia behaviour and instead chooses to edit war.


 * Also, no 3RR warning (which as I understood it is standard procedure was given by Ulritz)
 * Rex 16:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I ask you again to consider the appropriateness of the template you used. WP:PROD is designed for situations where there is no dispute. Once it has been removed by another user, it must not be added again. This has been commented on at WP:ANI. You may find some of the templates at WP:TEMPLATE more useful, esp. WP:TC. Regards, User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The deletion template does not matter here, what matters is that I did not break the 3RR rule because I made only 3 reverts, like user Ulritz. What is listed here as a 4th revert is an edit. In which I made the article acceptable. Please focuss on the matter at hand. Rex 17:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

User:71.198.156.164 reported by User:Folken de Fanel 20:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC) (Result:No block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert: 23:56, 10 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 03:20, 11 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:16, 11 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:03, 11 August 2006
 * 5th revert: 20:26, 11 August 2006
 * 6th revert: 20:34, 11 August 2006

Time report made: Folken de Fanel 20:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Keeps adding original research and personnal point of view in contradiction to what has been officially established, despite being unable to cite sources or to show solid proofs to back up his edits. Refuses to acknowledge official statements and facts, and concider his opinion better than anything else. Tendency to make up false claims in order to discredit official sources when they don't say what he wants to hear.


 * As this was over 48h ago and there has been little editing since, and as this was reported without diffs, a block would be inappropriate. Robdurbar 16:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Folken de Fanel reported by User:71.198.156.164 20:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC) (Result: stale)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert: 11:47, 9 August
 * 2nd revert: 02:06, 11 August
 * 3rd revert: 11:17, 11 August
 * 4th revert: 19:04, 11 August
 * 5th revert: 20:12, 11 August

Comments: Every time I try to enfore Wikipedia's NPOV policy, Folken de Fanel erroneously accuses me of doing original research and refers to my corrections as "vandalism". I'm getting a bit sick of this.

Time report made: 71.198.156.164 20:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As this was over 48h ago and there has been little editing since, and as this was reported without diffs, a block would be inappropriate. Robdurbar 16:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Chifumbe reported by User:Mantanmoreland (Result: blocked 48h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:25, 11 August 2006

Two separate 3RR violations over the past two days, both in Louis Farrakhan and both involving identical edits:

First instance:
 * 1st revert: 13:22, 11 August 2006


 * 2nd revert: 21:14, 11 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 02:56, 12 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 12:41, 12 August 2006

Second instance


 * 1st revert: 02:08, 13 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 02:20, 13 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 02:30, 13 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 12:43 13 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) : N/A

Comments: One-man edit war in Louis Farrakhan involving identical edits. User previously blocked 24 hrs for similar reverts. User removed administrator's block notice and warning from his talk page. A longer block is clearly warranted.


 * Blocked for 48h since it is his second violation. Ashi b aka tock 16:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Time report made: 13:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Pawel z Niepolomic reported by User:City-17 (Result:warning)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 18:01, 26 July 2006
 * 1st revert: 02:08, 13 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 17:57, 13 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:16, 13 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:43, 13 August 2006
 * 5th revert: 19:07, 13 August 2006

Time report made: 19:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * He did exactly the same to (also violation!). He refuses to discuss the details and simply lets time pass to try again exactly the same and still completely without any evidence for his statements. In his Edit summaries he picks out one out of many points to address and pretends that that would be the reason for all the others; e.g. he says »dont put historical foreign names in front of cities if you dont want to be accused of revisionism, the no polish citizenship you added is not true« when there's this whole history of immigration and trivia things he's changing.City-17 19:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * has not been warned, so i'm going to go ahead and do that. no block unless he continues.  -- he  ah  00:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)