Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive26

User:68.225.78.240 reported by User:142.176.76.14 (Result:warning)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 17:33, 10 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 02:05, 13 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:27, 13 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:52, 13 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:09, 13 August 2006

Time report made: 20:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * This anon refuses to give up his quest to use BCE at Julius Caesar. He claims he made consensus at the Talk page but just made unconclusive statements.


 * hasn't been warned, so im going to go ahead and do that. no block unless it continues.  -- he  ah  00:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

User:82.156.33.151 reported by User:aLii 22:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC) (result:24 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:22, 12 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 13:54, 13 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:38, 13 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 22:43, 13 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 22:48, 13 August 2006

Time report made: 22:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user was warned about their behaviour for the first time on the 5th August. After over a week of this, I'm finally reporting them for the first time. aLii 22:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The user also persists in removing his username (added by me) from his posts on the related talk page (example diff) and on my personal talk page (example diff). It's driving me crazy! aLii 23:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 24 hours for the anon, and 24 for you as well, alii--you too have broken 3rr, and this edit war is entirely between the two of you from what i can tell. -- he  ah  00:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

User:68.43.120.176 reported by Rootology:Rootology (Result:Warning)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:


 * 1st revert: 09:34, 14 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 09:42, 14 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 09:48, 14 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 09:52, 14 August 2006

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

Comments:Violation of 3RR
 * User keeps reinserting info that has been removed by myself and another editor. rootology (T) 17:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User has been warned/RV'd again by another editor, but continues doing it. rootology (T) 17:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not feel that the user has been warned sufficiently (one comment in an edit summary is not enough for someone who may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia). I will give a final warning, noting that one revert within the next 24 hours would be sufficient for a blocking. Robdurbar 18:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. rootology (T) 18:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Subhash_bose reported by User:BhaiSaab talk (Result:24 hour block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:47, 14 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 02:08, 14 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 13:55, 14 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 14:10, 14 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:37, 14 August 2006

Three revert rule violation on Time report made: 19:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1st revert: 14:00, 14 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:37, 14 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:47, 14 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:06, 14 August 2006

Comments: User has been blocked for 3rr before and is aware of the rule. BhaiSaab talk 19:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Above user never warned Subhash_bose of violation. He made only three reverts, BhaiSaab only wishes to discredit Subhash_bose.Bakaman Bakatalk 20:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think a notification is required - there's nothing on this page that states that. BhaiSaab talk 20:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

CommentWikipedia policy states prior notification for 15 hrs so that the alleged 3RR violator has the opportunity to undo his revert. Plus, I've been counting my reverts and they're less than three. The first case was an edit, not a revert. It is not even equivalent to a revert.Netaji 20:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Where exactly does wikipedia policy state that? You're already aware of 3rr. BhaiSaab talk 20:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Issue with first revert - The first revert is not even a revert.Bakaman Bakatalk 20:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I inserted that material; he removed it, in effect partially undoing my edit, which according to WP:3rr is a revert. BhaiSaab talk 21:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The first revert is an 'edit made by netaji not a revert. Bakaman Bakatalk 21:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Having looked at the history, I can count at least 4 partial reverts from Subhash_bose on the Gurjat violence page, and at least 4 from BhaiSaab on the other page. 24hour block for Subhash_bose, who has been blocked before, and 8 hours for User BhaiSaab. Please work together to avoid edit wars. Robdurbar 22:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Note from User:Bcorr
I have protected the page User:Subhash bose (a.k.a. Netaji) due to an edit war over a sockpuppet notce.

User:BhaiSaab reported by User:Netaji (Result:8 hour block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Time report made: 21:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The 1st and 2nd diffs are reverts, but the 3rd and 4th are not. The 4th revert (which is somewhat misleading and should be showing this diff I presume) isn't a diff but a comparison of two versions which Bakaman made two edits  in between. BhaiSaab talk 21:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope this has nothing to do with making more noise. BhaiSaab talk 21:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * User blocked as a result of investigations into this from his/her report into a 3RR violation on this page. First offence, eight hours. Robdurbar 22:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Abe.Froman reported by User:Mutant Zero (Result:Each user blocked for 12 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :
 * Previous version reverted to: 19:23, 14 August 2006
 * 1st revert: 19:47, 14 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:30, 14 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 20:57, 14 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 21:06, 14 August 2006

Time report made: 21:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)	+ User has been explained the difference between serving in the military and having the legal classification of a Veteran. It is his assumption that she is a Veteran. While no one is disputing the fact that she served in the military, that alone is not proof that she is a Veteran. There are many legal qualifications that she must meet before she is given that status. Serving in the military is just one of those qualifications, and is not the only qualification. No one has found a source, reliable or otherwise, which gives her legal status of a Veteran. We must remove this blurb of information until we do have a reliable source. Wikipedia is for facts, not assumptions or opinions. User is well aware of the 3RR. It does not appear that he is interested in discussion, and will continue to revert edits.


 * Reverting vandalism does not fall under 3RR. See the talk page of the article Mutant Zero and his sockpuppets were defacing.  Have a look at Mutant Zero's love notes to me on my User Talk Page as well.    Abe Froman 22:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I admit, the kid got me upset, but what he's not mentioning is that I removed that comment myself just minutes later once I cooled down. As a Veteran I have a vested interest in educating people on what makes someone a Veteran.  Removing unverifiable claims that this woman is a Veteran is not vandalism.  It's keeping Wikipedia free from assumptions and unverified facts. Mutant Zero 22:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * An admin has since rewritten & reinserted the content users such as Mutant Zero . were repeatedly removing. This 3RR complaint does not fall under 3RR because reversion of vandalism is not covered under 3RR.  Abe Froman 22:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked both users for 12 hours for 3RR vios. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Setanta747 reported by Djegan (Result:Warning; then 12h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Time report made: 22:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Discussion was ongoing but user keeps reverting and not supplying a request for WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. Issues discussed on talk page and consensus was arrived at. The reported editor has contributed on wikipedia some time and should be aware of this policy.

Djegan 22:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Now on his fifth edit.

Djegan 22:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * First offence. As user has not been blocked before and has had a long history of contributions to Wikipedia, a warning is sufficient. Please, both disucss this on the talk page.Robdurbar 19:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This user has again reverted the Northern Ireland article within 24 hours. Now 8 times in 48 hours. Unfair. Please investigate. Djegan 22:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, he had his warning, and now has a block William M. Connolley 22:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

User:A Man In Black reported by (Result: warnings)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 15 Aug, 04:21
 * 2nd revert: 15 Aug, 8:28
 * 3rd revert: 15 Aug, 8:50
 * 4th revert: 15 Aug, 9:00

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * User is a sysop, sould know. Also had a prior 3RR report in July.

Time report made: 08:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User does not understand the fact that removing the tag causes disruption to hundreds of pages, user also a sysop and making block threats towards me!  Matthew Fenton  (Talk | Contribs) 08:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

MatthewFenton is staging a one-man revert war to force his color functionality into that article, including reverting four times 24 hours and 7 minutes and edit warring using popups. He's ignored all suggestions that he not insert this code into the template, to the point where he counted comments that said "No, please stop doing this" as "Support" votes, then cited that vote tally as a reason that he should be able to ignore all criticism of his lousy color idea.

Users, , myself, and have all removed this code from the template, whereas the only ones to insert it are Fenton and a relatively new user named.

I may have violated the 3RR, but who is carrying out a revert war here? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You dont seem to realise this var. is being used, you removing it causes disruption. If you plan on removing all instances go ahead. But it should be left there till THEN! The concensous seems to all be support at the moment.  Matthew Fenton  (Talk | Contribs) 08:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Both of you guys know better. Talk about things on the talk page and iron things out.  No need for blocks here -- Samir   धर्म 12:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Marky48 reported by User:JulesH (Result:8hour block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:15, 25 July

(and additionally, after I placed a warning on User talk:Marky48 and responded to his belief that he hadn't by providing the above 4 links )
 * 1st revert: 14:32, 13 Aug
 * 2nd revert: 18:46, 13 Aug
 * 3rd revert: 02:42, 14 Aug
 * 4th revert: 04:20, 14 Aug
 * 23:40, 14 Aug
 * 02:41, 15 Aug (admittedly this only counts as a 3RR violation by 1 minute, but still... two violations in less than a day)

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 07:28, 14 Aug

Additional notes:
 * An additional warning was given on an earlier occasion by User:Mavarin (diff), so he should have been aware of the rule.
 * Warnings placed on User talk:Marky48 were subsequently deleted, following the brief addition of a personal attack.
 * A warning about removing warnings was subsequently removed along with the 3RR warning.

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

Comments: This user is a stalker and has harassed me over the said article for months. I've asked for help removing his repeated attacks from Will Beback who knows about it. Three in one day is my understanding of this rule. I reverted on two separate days.Marky48 11:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You have had plenty of chances to read this policy and have been told that it is no more than three times in twenty four hours. As it is your first offence, but not your first warning, a block is appropriate. --Robdurbar 19:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Kingdom hearts lll reported by User:Pentasyllabic (Result:24 hour block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:07, 15 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 09:16, 15 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 09:21, 15 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 09:22, 15 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 09:22, 15 August 2006
 * and 3 more as of this writing. UPDATE: around 10 more of the same or similar edits as of 11:26 (GMT -5:00).

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 09:30, 15 August 2006

Time report made: 09:51, 15 August 2006

Comments:
 * User:Kingdom hearts lll (note use of lowercase L rather than I) has repeatedly added false info to article. Has been brought up atTalk:Naruto_Uzumaki and on his talk page; user has not stopped.


 * User warned and has reverted repeatedly. A block for a first offence is appropriate. As the user has repeatedly reverted and reverted and reverted, making this a 24hour block is justifiable. Robdurbar 19:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Lol, just checked block log and User:Kirill Lokshin beat me to it... Robdurbar 19:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Riddle9 reported by User:DeLarge (Result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:20, August 14, 2006


 * 1st revert: 16:20, August 14, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:37, August 14, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 22:47, August 14, 2006
 * 4th revert: 14:25, August 15, 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 23:06, August 14, 2006 (on my talk page, when he finally acknowledged my templates on his userpage, and
 * 15:18, August 15, 2006

Time report made: 15:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Previously spammed the same link to the same pages as an anonymous IP (see User contributions for this IP). Under this IP, violated WP:3RR and I reported him on (17:23, August 10, 2006. As a result he was blocked for two weeks.

Yeees... I've blocked, but: please steer clear of 3RR yourself. In this case I've made an exception since a whole pile of users seems to have reverted this addition in the past William M. Connolley 16:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Samstayton reported by User: Signature brendel (Result: 8h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:35, 15 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 16:35, 15 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 16:39, 15 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 16:57, 15 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 17:00, 15 August 2006
 * 5th revert: 17:04, 15 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 15:33, 11 August 2006

Time report made: 01:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This users has been in a mini-edit war before. He was warened and complied with the 3RR policy. Today however he decided that is despite a recent warning that four reverts in 24h can lead to a block, he would break the rule.

8h William M. Connolley 18:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

User:203.81.192.67 reported by User:Jeff3000 (Result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: Can't find it exactly, but the first edit is clearly a revert (as can be seen by the removal of content just changed.


 * 1st revert: 20:39, August 15, 2006 EST
 * 2nd revert: 21:20, August 15, 2006 EST
 * 3rd revert: 21:44, August 15, 2006 EST
 * 4th revert: 22:08, August 15, 2006 EST
 * 5th revert: 22:43, August 15, 2006 EST

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 22:29, August 15, 2006 EST

Time report made: 02:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user was warned after his 4th revert, but went ahead and did a 5th revert. I can't state if his reverts are removing bad or good content, but it has squashed other valuable work, and a revert is a revert regardless. -- Jeff3000 02:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 18:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

User:66.167.231.136 reported by User:FunkyFly (Result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:14, 3 August 2006
 * 1st revert: 20:45, 15 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 21:47, 15 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 23:04, 15 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:45, 15 August 2006
 * 5th revert:02:53, 16 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 23:18, 15 August 2006

Time report made: 03:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user has been consistently adding advertisement website about the Republic of Macedonia, containing some controversial statements. FunkyFly 03:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 18:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

User:69.181.54.126 reported by User:Wildnox (Result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to, if applicable:


 * 1st revert: 07:47, 15 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 22:39, 15 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 03:39, 16 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 03:41, 16 August 2006

Time report: 03:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Second offense, additionally IP refuses to to respond to any mention of compromise in the edit war, simply refuses to accept any possible outcome except for his exact goal.--Wildnox 03:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 18:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

User:FunkyFly reported by User:66.167.231.136 (Result:No block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert: 16:14, 3 August 2006 FunkyFly (Homeland of Alexader the Great, yeah right :))
 * 2nd revert: 02:19, 16 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 03:17, 16 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 03:50, 16 August 2006

Time report made: 09:33, 16 August 2006 (PST)

Comments: The user has been consistently removing perfectly valid links for the Macedonia article. Made stupid comment: "(Homeland of Alexader the Great, yeah right :))" User:66.167.231.136 09:33, 15 August 2006 (PST)


 * Sorry, but 3RR is more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. FF only made 3. &mdash; Khoikhoi 04:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:24, 15 August 2006
 * 1st revert: 19:55, 15 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:09, 15 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 04:19, 16 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 04:43, 16 August 2006

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

Time report made: 04:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

2006-08-16T05:01:01 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "AbdulQadir (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR Pashtun people) William M. Connolley 18:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Tomyumgoong reported by User:Jakew (Result:24 hrs)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:20, August 15, 2006


 * 1st revert: 21:37, August 15, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 21:34, August 15, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:00, August 15, 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:41, August 15, 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 21:50, August 15, 2006

Time report made: 09:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User deleted 3RR warning here, and also deleted much of the contested article's talk page, including objections to his edits here. Jakew 09:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it just me? I do not see any differences in the diffs provided. Also, warning was given after last revert, according to timestamps? -- Avi 15:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, there aren't any differences, thus proving that they are indeed pure reverts. My understanding is that this is the point of the diffs - am I mistaken? Jakew 16:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are supposed to show what has changed, meaning the actual reversion from what was, to what is, so we can see what was changed. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Kingdom_hearts_lll_reported_by_User:Pentasyllabic_.28Result:24_hour_block.29 Also, it should be in chronological order, but that isn't such a big deal. -- Avi 16:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Seems less useful for immediately verifying reverts, but to paraphrase, never meddle in the affairs of admins... :) Here are the 'changes' diffs:
 * 18:41, August 15, 2006
 * 19:00, August 15, 2006
 * 21:34, August 15, 2006
 * 21:37, August 15, 2006
 * Jakew 16:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

History shows 5 reverts in 24 hours, and removal of warnings from user page. 24 hrs. -- Avi 16:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

User:61.222.136.170 reported by User:Tokachu (Result:24hour block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:27, August 15, 2006


 * 1st revert: 08:43, August 15, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 10:28, August 15, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:26, August 15, 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:37, August 15, 2006
 * 5th revert: 15:45, August 15, 2006
 * 6th revert: 16:14, August 15, 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 16:17, August 15, 2006

Time report made: 20:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Repeat offender; requested page semi-protection as well.

2006-08-15T21:28:56 Secretlondon (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "61.222.136.170 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR on Sveasoft) William M. Connolley 18:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Codex_Sinaiticus reported by User: Aiden (Result:8 hour block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:12, August 15, 2006


 * 1st revert: 12:28, August 15, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 12:44, August 15, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 12:52, August 15, 2006
 * 4th revert: 09:23, August 16, 2006
 * 5th revert: 09:52, August 16, 2006
 * 6th revert: 11:46, August 16, 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 11:57, August 16, 2006

After warning, user made this comment on Talk:Christianity:


 * 11:58, August 16, 2006: "I will continue posting htese verses that you reject on the talk page for as long as the actual Gospel is unwelcome on the article page."

Time report made: 18:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Thank you. — Aiden 18:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * First full violation of the rule - short block. --Robdurbar 22:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Deucalionite reported by User:Fut.Perf. ☼ (Result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 12 August, 17:09 (see below)


 * 1st revert: 15 Aug, 19:44-20:12 (successive edits)
 * 2nd revert: 15 Aug, 23:45
 * 3rd revert: 16 Aug, 18:03
 * 4th revert: 16 Aug, 19:41

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * No warning given, user is aware of 3RR and has broken it purposefully on earlier occasions.

Time report made: 22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Complex reverts; constant reverted element across all four instances is the re-insertion of the phrase "Albanian-speaking Greek settlers" instead of "Albanian settlers" in the first sentence of the "History" section (a hotly contentious POV detail discussed on talk page). Otherwise various additions and re-insertions into a text that was substantially rewritten in the meantime by other users. Deucalionite had previously inserted the same phrase and some other changes 7 times within 10 days in a slow edit-war below the 3RR threshold (3 Aug, 5 Aug, 8 Aug, 9 Aug, 11 Aug, 12 Aug, 12 Aug). User has announced that he will continue to revert irrespective of other editors' opinions. Was earlier blocked for 48 hours as a repeat offender in a similar case, revert-warring over a similar topic, on Souliotes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * May I speak freely in my defense? Future Perfect does not realize (after explaining to him in the discussion page; see "False Judgments" section) that I engaged in the "slow edit-war" (without breaking 3RR of course) in order to help speed up the process in seeing corrections made to the Arvanites history section. Though such actions may be seen as questionable, I was only focused on trying to stimulate anyone capable of refining the article that was in dire need of revisions. Future Perfect, indeed, did a fine job making the corrections in the history section.


 * Yes, I am aware of 3RR. However, Future Perfect does not want to admit that I did not revert the article three times in one day. Also, I did not say exactly that I would disregard other editors' statements. In fact, I explicitly stated the following: "I will continue to make any necessary additions to the article irrespective if you (or Aldux or Telex) revert the article continuously." Aldux, Future Perfect, and Telex kept reverting my sourced edits and really did not provide much encouragement for me to discuss what I provided since they were "set in their ways." I felt that discussing about what I contributed would have been largely ignored and so I actively placed my sourced contributions on the article in the hopes that they would be noticed by other users who would take the evidence I provided into consideration.


 * Also, I do care about what other editors have to contribute. Case in point, I never reverted the major corrections Future Perfect made to the history section. I made some changes to the section after Future Perfect placed his significant edits. Moreover, Future Perfect's critiques (see "Deucalionite's proposals") of some of my edits did not go unnoticed by me. To an extent, I improved upon the mistakes I made so as to provide readers with sourced and comprehensible text. Though the improvements upon my mistakes might not seem like much, they are an indication that I do acknowlegde criticism (though I'd much prefer constructive criticism).


 * I do not think that I should be banned this time since I did not revert the article three times in one day. It would be unfair to anyone if users were banned because they were marginalized while struggling to make an article better. Though the phrases I had to re-insert were the same and were deemed as POV, I still did not violate 3RR and all of the statements I provided in the article were sourced.


 * I await honorably for my punishment anyway, but I'd much prefer not to be banned for the reasons stated above. Thank you and I hope you understand where I am coming from. Deucalionite 00:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I acknowledge that much in Deucalionite's changes at first constituted a good-faith attempt at improving an article which was in dire need of revision; that in his later re-statements of his edits he made some attempts at constructively taking certain criticism into account; and that he tried to deal constructively with my rewrite proposal. However, the continued insertion of the contentious "Albanian-speaking Greek" phrase still constitutes a controversial revert, which he knowingly upheld against strong talkpage objections, and technically it was done exactly four times within 24 hours as the diffs show. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems to be true. 24h William M. Connolley 10:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Netscott reported by User:Deuterium (Result: no block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:34, 15 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 03:11, 16 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 07:41, 16 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 07:47, 16 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 11:03, 16 August 2006


 * 5th revert: 11:59, 16 August 2006

Time report made: 11:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The reversions are slightly different to evade 3RR and game the system, but they all amount to inserting OR tags or commenting out a widely accepted section, which is absolutely against the consensus on the talk page and have all been reverted by many other people. This is a long-time user with many archives of his talk page, not a new user or anon, so I assumed a warning was unnecessary. Deuterium 11:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that Netscott was attempting to remove unverified claims from Wikipedia, which break WP:V in his opinion. This would not be a violation of 3RR. I just looked at the claims myself, and I am personally not convinced that this is a "widely accepted section". I think that the best solution is not to block Netscott, but to resolve this issue on the talk page (using protection of the page if the edit warring continues). jaco ♫ plane  15:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This individual has tried to cite 5 diffs by citing the 1st diff twice. [fixed - Deuterium] What we have here is two indepedent reverts. The last two diffs cover different parts of the section of content. These edits were done towards meeting neutral point of view and to avoid original research. For the article to blanket refer to the given content as exemplary of "islamophobia" without citing a source stating as much puts Wikipedia out of neutrality for Wikipedia becomes the entity describing the information as demonstrative of "islamophobia". (→ Netscott ) 16:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Jacoplane commented on the lack of citations (paraphase here: "it's wrong") regarding the addition of Gallup poll content to the article. (→ Netscott ) 16:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a page with many reverts from many users. It seems that none have broken the 3RR as of now, but that many have come close. --Robdurbar 22:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No I'm afraid you don't understand the concept of a "revert" - See WP:3RR. It says "undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part", which Netscott hsa clearly done at least 4 times within a 24 hour time frame. I'm changing this to open because you have failed to properly address this. Deuterium 00:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you of informing me of what policy I am aware of. However, can I sugest that if you have a complaint about my actions, taking it directly elsewhere on the administrator's noticeboard, rather than reverting (ironic under the circumstances) my edits. Or alternativedly, questioning me on my justifications, rather than presuming that I don't understand policy?


 * In my opinion, by commenting out the original research, Nescott had avoided reverting your edits - he had not undone your work or actions, merely sidelined it until he, or the community as a whole, could be convinced that it wasn't original research. By not removing the content, the editor was not 'undoing the actions' of anybody. I did not interpret these as reverts. --Robdurbar 20:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's ridiculous, many others had specifically removed the OR tag because it obviously wasn't OR and Netscott repeatedly put it back in. So, according to you people can revert as much as long as they are adding tags or commenting out material?


 * Secondly, by referring to the material as original research you are obviously taking a side in this debate, which places your actions and motivations under suspicion.


 * PS I'm relisting this on the 3RR noticeboard, because it was an obvious violation. Deuterium 23:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

User:64.107.1.31 reported by User:Isarig (Result:Warning)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:25, 16 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 22:25, 16 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 22:48, 16 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 22:51, 16 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:35, 16 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * User was warned about 3RR in edit summary by me at 23:03, 16 August 2006

Time report made: 23:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Repeatedly removes casualty numbers provided by official sources, and replaces them with other numbers from marginal and possibly non-WP:RS web sites.


 * First violation and a user summary warning using jargon is insufficient for an IP editor who may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Robdurbar 20:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

User:68.77.3.236 reported by User:Debuskjt (Result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:31, August 16, 2006


 * 1st revert: 21:08, August 16, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:31, August 16, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:38, August 16, 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:48, August 16, 2006
 * 5th revert: 11:34, August 16, 2006

Time report made: 00:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Asked user to discuss his edit on his Talk Page, but he reverted the article again in violation of 3RR to contain his original edit that wasn't cited and is speculative in nature. He was warned by another user about prohibitions against OR on Wiki. He's also reverted reverts of his uncited edits on The Suite Life of Zack and Cody (though not in violation of the 3RR) and I warned him about the 3RR on his Talk page. He then reverted the article a fifth time in 24 hours, and I warned him about the 3RR, which you can see in a diff here: 1:19, August 16, 2006.

NOTE: The above report does not appear to have been done correctly, as it uses oldIDs, reports times in an unspecified timezone, and is chronologically backward. Here is the diff-based version with UTC times and in forward order, including a sixth reversion from the same anonymous editor in 12 hours:


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:50, 15 August 2006 68.77.3.236 (UTC)
 * 1st revert: 15:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2nd revert: 20:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3rd revert: 23:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4th revert: 00:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5th revert: 01:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6th revert: 03:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) : I have not issued a third warning, as it seems counterproductive unless someone takes action on the first two.
 * 1st warning: 00:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2nd warning: 01:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Time report made: 04:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC) by Jeff Q (talk)

Comments:

24h William M. Connolley 08:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

User:64.231.199.31 and User:69.197.208.3 reported by User:TomTheHand (Result: sprotect)
Three revert rule violation on. and :

First of all, this diff shows where 69.197.208.3 admits to being the same user as 64.231.199.31. 69.197.208.3 says as I said before "We can only quote them about what they ACTUALLY DID to confirm that they accept the obvious truth...". 64.231.199.31 is the one who made that quote, here.


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:52, August 14, 2006


 * 1st revert: 21:43, August 15, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:37, August 16, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 16:07, August 16, 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:42, August 16, 2006
 * 5th revert: 17:12, August 16, 2006

At that point, I warned the user. This is an OLDID, not a diff, because it was the first post on his user page: 17:19, August 16, 2006

The user's IP then changed, but he admitted (as shown above) that they were the same user. Another anon, User:65.190.135.228, came by and completely removed the disputed paragraph, stating that "The source is not correctly summarized":
 * 19:57, August 16, 2006

69.197.208.3 then came in and inserted a revised paragraph: This may or may not be a revert. User:Jonearles then removed the revised paragraph, stating that "The paragraph still doesn't accurately summarize the source." 69.197.208.3 reverted: This is a definite revert, the 6th within 24 hours, after being warned about the 3RR. Note that these last edits come with summaries stating that the user is editing in accordance with the talk page. This implies consensus, when in fact he simply stated "this is what I'm going to do" and then posted it.
 * 21:06, August 16, 2006
 * 22:17, August 16, 2006

Time report made: 02:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

I've sprotected the article William M. Connolley 08:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Netscott reported by User:Deuterium (Result: 12h each)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 02:33, 17 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 02:43, 17 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 02:44, 17 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 02:46, 17 August 2006

Time report made: 02:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Trying to interfere with 3RR process. Deuterium 02:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For actual diffs I recommend this WP:ANI post. From looking at the diffs there one can see that there's only one individual who's been reverting here (I even warned against 3RR on this very page). As well the only editor interefering here is again Deuterium by altering User:Robdurbar's original edit commentary. (→ Netscott ) 03:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Both blocked for 12h. Please stop fighting William M. Connolley 07:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Ramdrake reported by User:Admissions (Result: 8h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:37, 16 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 12:20, 16 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 13:09, 16 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 13:40, 16 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 14:18, 16 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 21:27, 29 July 2006

Time report made: 05:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments The 4th reversion is a reversion of different text within the same dispute (which is being discussed under Talk:Race_and_intelligence). This is considered a violation of the 3RR policy of "Do not revert any single page in whole or in part." --Admissions 05:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 4 not obviously a rv... whats it a rv to? William M. Connolley 08:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a repeat of this reversion:23:49, 14 August 2006 --Admissions 19:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. And since the war is still goingits not stale... 8h William M. Connolley 20:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Codex Sinaiticus reported by User:— Aiden (Result:No block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:23, August 16, 2006


 * 1st revert: 09:52, August 16, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 11:46, August 16, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 12:19, August 16, 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:52, August 16, 2006
 * 5th revert: 00:13, August 17, 2006 (This latest revert occurred after his previous 3RR block expired)

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 11:57, August 16, 2006
 * 16:06, August 16, 2006 (block notice by User:Robdurbar)

Time report made: 06:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User was blocked for 8 hours today for 3RR violations on this same page. As soon as his block expired, he reverted the section, again violating WP:3RR, as he at that point had 7 reverts in a 24 hour period.


 * I'm gonna give the user the benefit of the doubt and allow him/her a clean card from her return from the break. No edits on the article for a few hours now, hopefully, he/she ahs heded the various warnings.

User:62.143.76.166 reported by User:Khosrow II (Result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 1:26, 16 August 2006 -Im not sure what "previous version reverted to" means, so I put the version of the article before it was vandalized by anon user. I hope its correct.Khosrow II 15:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 14:08, 17 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 14:21, 17 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 14:23, 17 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 14:53, 17 August 2006
 * 5th revert: 15:09, 17 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 15:04, 17 August 2006

Time report made: 15:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Insulting comments and bad langauge used by this anon user on the talk page: Khosrow II 15:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

3rr + incivility = 24h William M. Connolley 16:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Freedom skies reported by Steelhead
This is in regards to the article Indian martial arts. Freedom skies seems to be reverting the article back to prior versions which he feels represent his views, however false they may be. Various other users like kennethtennyson, me, and JFD have placed the title NPOV and the title (disputed) on the article which he has removed. It might be a good idea to block the article with a title stating NPOV or disputed as this might lead to an edit war. Steelhead 23:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Freedom skies has been warned twice already on three revert rule. he continues to remove the NPOV tags and disputed facts tags that other users have placed on the article.  Steelhead 00:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I trouble you to format your report properly? William M. Connolley 18:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

User:comanche cph reported by User:Lar (Result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:25, 16 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 16:38, 16 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 16:43, 16 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:05, 16 August 2006
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 18:03, 16 August 2006
 * 5th revert: Revision as of 21:10, 16 August 2006
 * 6th revert: Revision as of 21:12, 16 August 2006
 * 7th revert: Revision as of 21:43, 16 August 2006
 * 8th revert: Revision as of 03:54, 17 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * N/A but this user has been blocked for 3RR before

Time report made: 18:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

The reversions are not exactly the same thing over and over, but show a pattern of warring over this article and taken as a whole, it's clear to me 3RR was broken, this user has restored the article to the same version enough times to show warring. I ( Lar (talk • contribs • [ blocks ] • [ protects ] • [ deletions ] • [ moves ]) ) have blocked for 24h. This is a pro forma report in case another admin disagrees. The user has threatened that he will "report me" if I don't unblock. So here I am, reporting myself. ++Lar: t/c 18:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Technajunky reported by User:Tājik (Result:)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:06, 17 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 02:21, 15 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 22:17, 16 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 22:24, 16 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 09:06, 17 August 2006

Time report made: 21:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user is new and may not be familiar with Wikipedia's 3RR. However, this does not excuse his vandalism. In those 4 reverts, he has kept on deleting an authoritative source (from the Encyclopaedia of Islam) without any reason. He simply does not like the message. This is a clear act of vandalism. Tājik 21:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * not in 24h William M. Connolley 08:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Subhash_bose reported by User:BhaiSaab talk (Result:24hour block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:38, 17 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 17:17, 17 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 17:27, 17 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:41, 17 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 17:47, 17 August 2006

Time report made: 21:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has been blocked for 3rr violation before. BhaiSaab talk 21:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The truth of the matter - This is merely a farce to get Subash (whose viewpoint BhaiSaab opposes) banned. Three were to combat vandalism by BhaiSaab and one was a merging of two sections (hardlly classified as a revert).Bakaman Bakatalk 22:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - 1st revert was to revert vandalism by BhaiSaab. The text was sourced but it did not fit BhaiSaab's POV so it was deleted. Actually all the reverts were combatting vandalism. There is no need to delete well-sourced material. BhaiSaab has engaged in POV pushing. He wants to get Subhash out of his way.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 2nd revert - BhaiSaab tried to keep a section not fitting his POV off the page. Bakaman Bakatalk 22:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 3rd revert - Not even a revert - It was merely a merging of two separate sentences.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * On the 4th revert - It was well sourced material. Not original research, so the tag was unwarranted. The 3RR case is merely a farce to get Subhash out of his way.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - Add that the user BhaiSaab has committed 6RR (see complaint below) and I was correcting his unreasoned vandalism (IMHO) of a sourced edit by another user. If the admin feels that this is not vandalism but a content dispute, then I request that he let me know in my talk page so that I may reverse my last revert and negate the alleged 3RR violation.Netaji 23:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If showing that a source is so obviously misrepresented, then yes what I did was vandalism. The third revert shows Netaji deleting "failed verification" tags. BhaiSaab talk 01:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply - The source was not misrepresented. It gave clear proof of a mandir and irked Muslims, who still have not furnished proof to the contrary. It merely did not fit your POV on the issue, giving you 'moral justification' to vandalize it.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Then I find it strange that you haven't provided a quote from the source (as I've requested on the talk page) to substantiate your claims. BhaiSaab talk 01:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why am I needing to find proof? Why haven't the Muslims found anything to debunk Hindu claims to the site? The sentence was added because the Muslim parties have not found anybody to support their claims. Since there are no sources in the article to contradict this, my statement is true, meaning you deleted a true statement. This of course is vandalism.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Essentially, you're saying "I can't find a quote in the source to back up the claim." BhaiSaab talk 01:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No I'm saying "The Muslim side just got owned by the facts". Of course I may be misrepresenting my own statement.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The three revert rule requires that users do not 'undo the edits of others' four or more times. Subhash bose has done this on this article, and is banned for a second violation in a couple of days --Robdurbar 08:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

User:BhaiSaab reported by User:Netaji (Result:no block; edit war warning)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Time report made: 22:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has been blocked for 3rr violation before. Some of his edits above are effectively reverts. The reversions are slightly different to evade 3RR and game the system. My reverts, while being more than 3RR, were to revert his vandalism of a sourced article (placed in the article not by myself).Netaji 22:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Support - BhaiSaab has been vandalizing the article and removing sentences that don't fit his POV. He was trying to discredit the same (well-sourced and verifiable) section 6 times in an hour.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - BhaiSaab has been blocked twice before for 3RR.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Baka, how many comments do you need to make? I only have three reverts here - the rest are not reverts as is plainly obvious. BhaiSaab talk 01:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes but as a great admin stated: "You had the intention of undoing constructive edits".Bakaman Bakatalk 01:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Where? BhaiSaab talk 01:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * On your talk page "Deliberatly editing to technically avoid breaking the rule - by actions such as using different tags - is still breaking the rule. --Robdurbar 22:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)". and "After that you repeatedly added tags to the article. This appears to be a way to disrupt the article without technically reverting the 3RR and was enough, in my mind, to warrent a short block". Taken from User_talk:BhaiSaabBakaman Bakatalk 01:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So am I supposed to deliberately edit in a way that obviously breaks the 3rr rule? I had no other recourse because the source is obviously misrepresented. BhaiSaab talk 01:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Its not misrepresented. As you can see, this debunked every claim the Muslims made. It stated as fact, that the Eyesore was built on the temple. You deleted a true statement, then tried to find sneaky ways to make it look like you were not reverting. Your tactics were meant to "disrupt the article". Vandalism as we call it. You have broken 3RR.Bakaman <sub style="color:blue;">Bakatalk 01:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, you used bold. Now I'm convinced you're right. BhaiSaab talk 01:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "So am I supposed to deliberately edit in a way that obviously breaks the 3rr rule? I had no other recourse because the source is obviously misrepresented.". Accused has admitted to breaking 3RR.Bakaman <sub style="color:blue;">Bakatalk 01:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Right...BhaiSaab talk 01:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing a good faith effort by User:BhaiSaab to prevent original research from entering into this article. Also, I don't see more than 3 reverts. (→ Netscott ) 03:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This may seem to be none of my business, but hopefully an outside view will help. I think the problem is that the two of you are in the middle of an edit war. The three of you should go to Dispute_resolution for the best ways to resolve your issues. Ask for mediation or arbitration; just something other than trying to call 3RR on each other. I would be willing to believe that a smart admin would either not block either of you, or block both of you. Either way, I think Dispute Resolution is where you need to go. --Targetter <tt style="color:#900;">(Lock On)</tt> 01:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. It appears that user:BhaiSaab has also broken this rule for the second time in a few days. I have blocked SB for 24 hours again, and will block BS for the same period. The two need to realise that this is not how to conduct themselves on Wikipedia. --Robdurbar 08:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I see reverts here, here and here but on the other ones I see the adding of tags and content being commented out. One of the "reverts" above was a link to the history of the article. Did I miss something? (→ Netscott ) 09:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, apologies, I did miss count this one. I'll cancel the block Robdurbar 09:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking my talk into consideration Robdurbar and taking a second look at this report. Cheers. (→ Netscott ) 10:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Netscott reported by User:Deuterium (Result:No Block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:34, 15 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 03:11, 16 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 07:41, 16 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 07:47, 16 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 11:03, 16 August 2006


 * 5th revert: 11:59, 16 August 2006

Time report made: 23:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The reversions are slightly different to evade 3RR and game the system, but they all amount to inserting OR tags or commenting out a widely accepted section, which is absolutely against the consensus on the talk page and have all been reverted by many other people. This is a long-time user with many archives of his talk page, not a new user or anon, so I assumed a warning was unnecessary. Deuterium 11:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No Block as this is a duplicate of a report made above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  23:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suppor a block of Deuterium for a violation of WP:POINT for relisting this. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  00:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I bet you would. Unfortunately for you, that's not policy. Deuterium


 * Disruption is blockable, and admin-shopping to get the result you want is disruptive. I suggest you stop. JoshuaZ 00:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Reported by Stirling Newberry 03:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Repeatedly banned user Ray Lopez up to his usual nonsense

   

Could you fmt, please? William M. Connolley 08:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Sean Black reported by User:XVW DVW (Result: No violation)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Time report made: 08:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Vn reverted to is same as 1st rv, so its only 3R William M. Connolley 08:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

User:G.g. reported by User:Enzigel (Result:)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:47, 18 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 006:57, 18 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 07:18, 18 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 07:45, 18 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 08:19, 18 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 07:58, 18 August 2006

Time report made: 09:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User started blanking and reverting discussions page too. Can't revert original article myself because of the rule, but talk pages are example of vandalism, hope 3rr doesn't count there.Enzigel 09:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

User talk:193.154.194.38 reported by User:(Halbared 12:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)) (Result:)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

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

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

Comments:

Diffs please, like it sez William M. Connolley 21:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Latinitas reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result: 8h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:13, 17 August 2006
 * 1st revert: 08:24, 18 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 10:07, 18 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 10:16, 18 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 10:23, 18 August 2006
 * 5th revert: 11:07, 18 August 2006
 * 6th revert: 11:45, 18 August 2006
 * 7th revert: 14:54, 18 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * User was never warned, but obviously knows about it as he/she warned another user for the 3RR here.

Time report made: 20:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

8h. There are various allegations of socks floating around, which I didn't evaluate William M. Connolley 21:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

User:John Smith's reported by User:Vsion (Result:12 hour block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:25, 16 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 22:53, 17 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 23:57, 17 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 08:36, 18 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 21:26, 18 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 01:59, 17 August 2006

Time report made: 21:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * In total, User:John Smith's made at least 8 reverts of the same content in the article since 15 August 2006 --Vsion 21:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have raised the question of whether or not the article should have the genocide or massacres category. I asked on the talk page what people would prefer to use and the majority said the later. Vsion and another user refuse to accept that because they feels they are right. I apologise for the fourth revert as I didn't realise my mistake. Then again it was made 23 hours after the first, so I think that Vsion is using this as a somewhat sneaky means of taking control of the article. John Smith&#39;s 22:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Although there were only 4 edits within this 24 hour period, you have established a pattern of reverting changes to the article, as evidenced by the history of the page. I'm blocking you for 12 hours, with an urge to continue the discussion on the talk page (once the block expires). The WP:3RR is designed for content disputes, and this is one. Had others violated 3RR, they would have also been blocked. alpha Chimp  laudare 00:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 12 hours per WP:3RR. alpha Chimp  laudare 00:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Dionyseus reported by User:jgp TC (Result: no block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:58, 2006 August 18


 * 1st revert: 01:44, 2006 August 19
 * 2nd revert: 01:52, 2006 August 19
 * 3rd revert: 01:56, 2006 August 19
 * 4th revert: 02:04, 2006 August 19

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 01:57, 2006 August 19 (warning in edit summary)

Time report made: 07:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User is removing legitimate warnings from his talk page while making abusive edit summaries. jgp TC 07:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * After his fourth revert, a third party reverted the page to the version with warnings intact, and User:Dionyseus reverted that as well, making it his fifth revert: 02:17, 2006 August 19. jgp TC 07:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The warning is completely unwarranted, as I have tried to explain on his talkpage.  It is my talkpage, I do not want his unwarrarranted warning on it.  Dionyseus 07:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As for removing the warning that was placed back in by a third party, I did not even notice it was a different person, I honestly thought it was Jgp who put it back in. I apologize for that revert.  Dionyseus 07:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jgp's unwarranted warning on my talk page has been removed by administrator Alex_Bakharev. Dionyseus 08:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, before removing the warnings, Alex restored the warnings twice (after Dio's fourth and fifth reverts) and there was much discussion over the issue. jgp TC 08:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this report is spurious. Like it sez in the rules, you're very unlikely to get blocked for 3RR on your own talk page William M. Connolley 08:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It also says this: "The removal of warnings is also strongly discouraged and such removals can often be reverted without counting towards the 3RR.". jgp TC 08:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

User:80.81.159.20 reported by User:MSJapan (Result: 24h)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:20 19 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 13:26
 * 2nd revert: 13:32
 * 3rd revert: 13:43
 * 4th revert: 13:55

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) : This is a known LTA vandal who knows precisely what he is doing and doesn't particularly care about 3RR.

Time report made: 14:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Most likely vandalism by a Lightbringer sock.

24h William M. Connolley 14:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

User:ALR reported by User:193.207.68.10 22:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC) (Result:)
Three revert rule violation on. :

Previous version reverted to 15:35, 18 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 13:22, 19 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 13:28, 19 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 13:34, 19 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 21:58, 19 August 2006


 * Comment by MSJapan: Don't even bother with this unless you want to book the filer for a 3RR violation (or two - this is his second one today). The IP is a Lightbringer sock who should not be active on the Freemasonry article in the first place. As a further note, for the act of reverting Lightbringer's edits, User:Chtirrell was accused of slander by making a personal attack, which is certainly a novel approach. MSJapan 23:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Juro reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result:Warned)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:36, 19 August 2006
 * 1st revert: 11:07, 19 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:48, 19 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:57, 19 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:20, 19 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * No warning, but the user knows about the 3RR because he has been here since 2004 (or possibly earlier) and has been blocked for it on at least one occasion.

Time report made: 23:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * The user has now been warned per 3RR. alpha Chimp  laudare 23:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Philwelch reported by User:Dionyseus (Result: 24 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:04, 23 July 2006


 * 1st revert: 03:58, 19 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:03, 19 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:30, 19 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:23, 19 August 2006
 * 5th revert: 22:23, 19 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 17:13, 19 August 2006

Time report made: 01:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user is a sysop who should know better than to edit war. According to the AN/I report, he has engaged in edit warring tonight on several Battlestar Gallactica articles, and has apparently banned several users who are trying to protect the pages they worked hard on. Dionyseus 01:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * He just blocked me and reverted my edits. Thankfully another administrator has unblocked me, saying that the block was completely inappropiate.  Dionyseus 03:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for stepping over the line in this incident. The confrontation is hopefully over now (unless Dionyseus starts it again), and discussion is underway. — Philwelch t 03:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not over, I and several other editors believe this article and the other one reported below deserve their own article. Furthermore, Philwelch inappropiately banned me for my revert of his redirect. Dionyseus 03:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Phil, but this doesn't look the greatest. Way over the line.  24 hours -- Samir   धर्म 06:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Philwelch reported by User:Dionyseus (Result:24 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:21, 18 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 03:55, 19 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:03, 19 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:29, 19 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:31, 19 August 2006
 * 5th revert: 16:23, 19 August 2006
 * 6th revert: 22:23, 19 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 17:13, 19 August 2006

Time report made: 01:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This is the second 3RR violation tonight for this Sysop. According to the AN/I report, he has engaged in edit warring tonight on several Battlestar Gallactica articles, and has apparently banned several users who are trying to protect the pages they worked hard on. Dionyseus 01:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Philwelch blocked me and reverted my edit, his 6th revert in this article tonight so far. He gave me no warning, he treated me as if I were a vandal.  Dionyseus 03:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * as above, 24 hours in total -- Samir  धर्म 06:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

User:69.157.126.241 reported by User:WilliamThweatt (Result:24 hour block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

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

Time report made: 02:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:- the anon user keeps inserting POV and agenda-pushing edits against overwhelming consensus (evidenced on the talk page of the article concerned). Extreme patience has been shown over many days and user has been warned twice today by two different editors about 3RR, yet he still insists on reverting to his POV edits.-- WilliamThweatt 02:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agenda-pushing ? Why ? Just because it diasgrees with your agenda or POV ? And theres no way that one or two users versus me is considered "overwhelming consensus". Its funny because everything you say about my edits can be equally said about yours or calgacus' on the articles in question. Exactly. 69.157.109.170 03:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no agenda and my edits are not POV. "Migration" is a neutral, all-encompassing term, "diaspora" is not. It's plain and simple. As for consensus, the status quo was determined, and has existed so long, as the result of the consensus of many editors (indeed all who have contributed to the article since its inception and not seen the need to mention a "diaspora").  Yes, it was a vocal three or four who bothered to attempt discussion with you on the talk page, but, according to the edit history, many more have simply reverted your foolishness, obviously feeling that it deserved no comment. None have either defended your edits or simply been content to let them pass, but have almost instantly reverted them.  This is overwhelming consensus.--WilliamThweatt 03:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * He's revert-warring on many article. His IP recently changed to . Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So is user . Calgacus doesnt have some special pass which allows him to revert more times than me. So make sure you warn him as well since he is breaching the rule on Scottish people as well as other articles. 69.157.109.170 02:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I was merely responding to your POV reverts and I did not break 3RR in doing so. You are, aren't you? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

no and I don't know who that is, but you shouldn't go around labelling things on other users. Just because your own POV is responding to mine does not mean you did not break the rule or that your are not pushing your own agenda or POV onto me. Your own opinon hardly considered consenus. My name is James if you like to know and maybe I should make a user:page. Is it free to register? (that is, do I have to make a "donation"?) 69.157.109.170 03:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Based on the pattern of vandalism on Scottish people, I have semi-protected the article. alpha Chimp  laudare 02:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. If the other IP continues to revert, report him the same way. alpha Chimp  laudare 03:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * User continues to edit under other IP. He has now opened a user account, and in doing so has transgressed 3RR on Frisians. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * User continues to revert and has so trangressed 3rr. I created a user page because that is what was recommended to me. Eoganan 04:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Creating an account to circumvent a user block is against wikipedia policy. The suggestion to create an account is for other anonymous editors or new contributors who wish to edit semi-protected articles.--WilliamThweatt 04:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not create the account to circumvent a user block. I was editing lots and it was recomended to me to make one. I changed my IP address because of my internet connection. I assure you I will try to not go over the 3RR again. Have a good one, Eoganan 05:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

User:68.50.149.214 reported by User:badlydrawnjeff talk (Result: 24 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:06, 11 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 17:33, 19 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 21:05, 19 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 21:53, 19 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 22:37, 19 August 2006

Time report made: 03:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Article had Foundation issues in the past, requiring major rewrites on talk page that the IP did not approve of. Changes in tone need to be discussed on talk, and IP has not been receptive to the issues at hand. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. 24 hours -- Samir   धर्म 06:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Syiem reported by User:Zafarnamah 03:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC) (Result:Warned)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


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

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

Time report made: 03:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user reverted 12 times in 24 hours!

Comment: 3RR rule does not apply to overt vandalism.Netaji 06:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Except this was a content dispute, not vandalism. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  18:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Additional comments: I too have noticed this user blatantly violate 3RR on Khalistan. I'm not the initiator of the report, nor do I care enough to fix it. I think Zafarnamah did the original report. But Syiem is blatantly POV pushing and violating 3RR. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  06:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment:: Actually, I just noticed that this Syiem has NOT violated 3RR. There appears to be a campaign against him. Notice that all of his 12 edits were not reverts. This Zafarnamah bloke got the Khalistan article protected for vandalizing it with gibberish from some extremist orgs in the Khalsite diaspora that do not represent the mainstream view of the Khalsa Panth (or the facts, for that matter). I suggest to the investigating admin that he look into the matter with a grain of salt.Netaji 07:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The user has now been warned per 3RR. alpha Chimp  laudare 12:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Kwame Nkrumah reported by User:Palffy (Result:40 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 10:09, August 19, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 11:36, August 19, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:17, August 19, 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:39, August 19, 2006
 * 5th revert: 12:38, August 20, 2006
 * 6th revert: 12:40, August 20, 2006

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

Time report made: 16:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Please see additional 3RR violation below. User has previously been warned of 3RR,, which he skirted using a now-defunct sock-puppet,. User has been implicated by 4 admins and has been banned once,. -- Palffy 16:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 40 hours per WP:3RR. alpha Chimp  laudare 17:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I realize that this is a little longer (16 hours) than the typical 3RR block, but I feel it was justified given the 3RR violation on two articles. He was already warned 1 week ago. Even still, I'd welcome other admins to review or reduce the block if they see fit. alpha Chimp  laudare 17:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This user has also received warnings about civility, and his user page is an "enemies list" of sorts, which he was asked to remove on pain of a block, removed, and then restored. Given that he's also been using socks to skirt 3RR, I think 40 hours rather lenient but in any case I certainly support this block. ++Lar: t/c 17:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Kwame Nkrumah reported by User:Palffy (Result:40 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 15:58, August 19, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:41, August 19, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 07:52, August 20, 2006
 * 4th revert: 11:29, August 20, 2006
 * 5th revert: 12:27, August 20, 2006

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

Time report made: 16:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Please see additional 3RR violation above. User has previously been warned of 3RR,, which he skirted using a now-defunct sock-puppet,. User has been implicated by 4 admins and has been banned once,. -- Palffy 16:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 40 hours per WP:3RR. alpha Chimp  laudare 17:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I realize that this is a little longer (16 hours) than the typical 3RR block, but I feel it was justified given the 3RR violation on two articles. He was already warned 1 week ago. Even still, I'd welcome other admins to review or reduce the block if they see fit. alpha Chimp  laudare 17:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Philwelch reported by User:Dionyseus (Result: 24 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:06, 23 July 2006


 * 1st revert: 03:57, 19 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:03, 19 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:30, 19 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:32, 19 August 2006
 * 5th revert: 16:23, 19 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 17:13, 19 August 2006

Time report made: 06:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Philwelch blocked me for reverting his redirects once from his other two 3RR violations I've reported tonight. He gave me no warning, he treated me as if I were a vandal. Dionyseus 06:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As above, 24 hours -- Samir  धर्म 06:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

User:OrbitOne reported by User:Extreme Unction (Result:No violation)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:12, August 19, 2006


 * 1st revert: 22:27, August 19, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 09:26, August 20, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 12:57, August 20, 2006

Time report made: 13:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: In the interests of full disclosure, I point out that I am an admin and am involved in this dispute, and therefore recuse myself from taking any administrative action.

Also in the interests of full disclosure, I point out that I am also guilty of a 3RR violation on the same article, a fact I did not notice until I started compiling the information for this report. Mea culpa.

All the best. <b style="font-family:arial, helvetica; color:#ff0000;">Ξxtreme</b> <span style="color:#006688; font-family:arial, helvetica;">Unction |<span style="font-family:arial, helvetica; font-size:x-small;">yakkity yak 13:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Well, technically Speaking, neither of you have violated the 3RR - Yet. Both of you have made three reverts within a 24-hour period, and none of you have overstepped so far. /M.O (u) (t) 14:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Marking this one as no vio. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

User:NBGPWS reported by User:Neverborn (Result:8 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 20:57, 20 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 21:17, 20 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 23:10, 20 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 03:58, 21 August 2006

Time report made: 04:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user made this account to troll the Protest Warrior article. One of his first edits was to try and "hide" in the protest sign section the Nazi saying "ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer!" He figured out he'd get instantly banned for continuous blatant vandalism, so has tried to subtly destroy the article from behind the scenes. This is just one example. For the fourth revert he once again tried to slip it under the radar by marking his revert - a whole section added - as "minor." --Neverborn 04:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Both of you violated 3RR. Although Neverborn was not warned, he was obviously aware of 3RR in bringing this report. This is a content dispute and should be settled on the talk. As such, I am blocking you both for a period of 8 hours. You are welcome to appeal this to another admin, as will be explained on your talk pages. alpha Chimp  laudare 04:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

User:172.191.168.138 reported by User:- GI e n (Result:24 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 18:43, August 21, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:06, August 21, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:26, August 21, 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:29, August 21, 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 19:37, August 21, 2006

Time report made: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 07:37 UTC

Comments: Note this above are in UTC + 12 - GI e n 07:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. alpha Chimp  laudare 10:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Whatsupdoc reported by User:User:Davidpdx Davidpdx 09:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC) (Result: )
Three revert rule violation on User talk:Whatsupdoc. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:39, 21 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 13:10, 21 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 13:29, 21 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 14:02, 21 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:43, 21 August 2006
 * 5th revert: 15:58, 21 August 2006
 * 6th revert: 16:08, 21 August 2006

Time report made: 09:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This person has been banned as a sockpuppet of User:Johnski and has been banned under several diffrent accounts for violating Wikipedia rules. The user has now taken to blanking out their own user page and claiming they are someone else and trying to get unbanned. The comments on the talk page this person is blanking has not only to do with the arbitration case Johnski/Proposed Arbitration Decision and threats made against me.

I am asking that he be prevented from blanking the comments on his user page and talk page. Davidpdx 09:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We need diffs, not old versions. alpha Chimp  laudare 10:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot that, I have fixed it. It's been awhile since I've reported a 3RR. Note that some comments were left by someone else and I tried to readd those comments because I felt they should be left on his page. Davidpdx 12:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Please disregard the complaint. Enough time has passed that things have calmed down''' Davidpdx 10:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Zaparojdik reported by User:Clevelander (Result:Already Blocked)
Three revert rule violation on Turkic peoples. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:05, 21 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 09:49, 21 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 14:09, 21 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 14:16, 21 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 14:27, 21 August 2006

Time report made: 14:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

This user has been unwilling to discuss changes to the article on the talk page and continously reverts both this article as well as the one on Pan-Turkism. He also labels users who do not agree with his point of view as "vandals" and states that "Turks should always battle with Kurds and Armenians". He proclaimed on the talk page in reference to a map: "THIS MAP IS NOT RIGHT AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" -- Clevelander 14:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Jkress613 reported by User:Erik (Result: 24 hrs)
Three revert rule violation on Star Trek XI. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:38, August 21, 2006


 * 1st revert: 10:20, August 21, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 11:32, August 21, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 11:40, August 21, 2006
 * 4th revert: 11:45, August 21, 2006
 * 5th revert: 1351, August 21, 2006
 * 6th revert: 1417, August 21, 2006
 * 7th revert: 1422, August 21, 2006
 * 8th revert: 1430, August 21, 2006
 * 9th revert: 1434, August 21, 2006
 * 10th revert: 1439, August 21, 2006
 * 11th revert: 1446, August 21, 2006
 * 12th revert: 1453, August 21, 2006
 * 13th revert: 1504, August 21, 2006
 * 14th revert: 1511, August 21, 2006
 * 15th revert: 1521, August 21, 2006
 * 16th revert: 1524, August 21, 2006
 * 17th revert: 1529, August 21, 2006
 * 18th revert: 1531, August 21, 2006
 * 19th revert: 1537, August 21, 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 11:43, August 21, 2006

Time report made: 18:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user has reverted POV writing as well as misspellings into the film article more than three times, which is a 3RR violation.


 * Setting phasers to "block for 24 hours". Extraordinary Machine 01:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

68.210.28.135 reported by User:DickClarkMises (Result: No block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:58, 20 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 10:40, 21 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 11:51, 21 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 12:14, 21 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 11:53, 21 August 2006 (See edit summary)

Time report made: 19:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I believe this amounts to a violation of the 3RR. Basically, the editor made an uncommented deletion of a block of text that discussed criticism of the article subject. Multiple editors reverted this deletion, complaining in edit summaries that it was unexplained. The anon editor finally decided to make some case for his position, but still ended up deleting this text block for the fourth time today. Please advise if I should take this to AN/I instead of here. Cheers, DickClarkMises 19:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would direct interested admins to this diff, by which one can see that the editor about which I filed the report seems apologetic and even cooperative. I suspect that Wikipedia would probably be best served by letting this one ride. DickClarkMises 20:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing that diff. User seems genuinely apologetic, so I don't see what use a block would have. Extraordinary Machine 02:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Stanley011 reported by User:Aren&#39;t I Obscure? (Result: not blocked)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:45, 20 August 2006;


 * 1st revert: 01:06, 21 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 02:57, 21 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:08, 21 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:18, 21 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 10:49, 11 July 2006 This specific comment is from a previous violation, but he has been blocked twice before for 3RR violation.

Time report made: 20:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: He refuses to actually discuss the concerns on the talk page, instead posting single comments and considering the matter "addressed". Aren&#39;t I Obscure? 20:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly was not intending to violate the 3rr. Looking back on the times of the edits, I realize I made two of these edits about 13 hours apart, and so did not immediately recognize that they were within 24 hrs.  I certainly will not do this again, and I am currently in deliberation with Aren't I Obscure? on how we can work out our differences on this article. Stanley011 22:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

And of course, I have discussed all conerns, and continue to do so as an examination of the discussion page of the article will reveal. This user interprets disagreement as non-discussion. Stanley011 01:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The user does not seem to have done this intentionally. Next time though, you may get blocked anyway.  Voice -of- All  05:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Comiclover420 reported by User:Lil crazy thing (Result: user warned)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:51, 21 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 18:54, 21 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:08, 21 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:27, 21 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:32, 21 August 2006
 * 5th revert: 19:35, 21 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 19:14, 21 August 2006

Time report made: 20:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This is a clear violation of the rule, the user has been notified but has continued to revert, user has also been told where to go to see the discussion on why the list was removed but hasn't taken no notice of anything they have been told. User will continue to carry on unless action is taken. Lil crazy thing 20:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The user has now been warned per 3RR. I am not sure if he took your notice as a serious notice, also, its been over a day since the incident (when I noticed this). Voice -of- All  05:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Bdean1963 reported by User:Messhermit (Result: user warned)
Three revert rule violation on


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:47, 18 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 13:01, 21 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 14:09, 21 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 14:17, 21 August 2006

Time report made: 09:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User started and keeps promoting racial, political and POV bias.
 * This is not the first time, and I have already attempted to talk with him, leaving a comment in his talk page with no results.
 * I have keep on reverting the original article, but it seems that he is not willing to talk or discuss about this.
 * Hope 3rr doesn't count on my case, I have only tried to prevent him to state a disruptive POV. Messhermit 14:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The user has not yet violated WP:3RR because there are not yet four reverts over the same content in 24 hours. However, I have warned the user for nearly breaching WP:3RR. And please use diffs, not revision links. Thanks.  Voice -of- All  05:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Dposse reported by User:MrDarcy (Result: user warned)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:40, 21 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 17:40, 21 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 17:51, 21 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:03, 21 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:40, 21 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 20:18, 21 August 2006

Time report made: 20:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User:Dposse and User:Guerillafilm have been engaging in an edit war all day. Guerillafilm may also be guilty of a 3RR violation.
 * Dposse probably has five or six reverts to the page in the last 24 hours.
 * Dposse has been using foul language in edit summaries towards Guerillafilm, and has been exhibiting page ownership behavior.
 * I'm reporting this because an anon user just edited the section to make it more concise and more neutral and dposse reverted again.


 * And edit summaries like "For the love of snakes, please look at your own fucking talk page Guerillafilm!" aren't helping Dposse's case very much. Metros232 20:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * While all the comments about Dposse and Guerillafilm above are true, I'm not convinced that the "anonymous" user is really anonymous. Writing in exactly the same (distinctive) style as Guerillafilm and several other contributors to the page/article is compatible with an alternative interpretation. See Talk:Snakes on a Plane for more details. chocolateboy 21:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Chocolate boy is accusing me of posting as an anonymous user, a sockpuppet. This is patently untrue. You can check my IP address. And I can guarantee you that the anonymous user who attempted to post a neutral compromise edit (that was then was vandalized by dposse) is not me.Guerillafilm 22:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How interesting it is that you only posted one side to this story. How about you post all the edits that Guerillafilm did? I am not the bad guy here. I did everything by the book. It is not my fault that Guerillafilm ignored attempts to settle events peacefully. dposse 21:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The edit war is now over. The page was been fully protected. By the way, it says at the top of the page "Administrators are unlikely to block a user who has never been warned." dposse 21:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Dposse, there's a warning on your talk page, posted at 20:18, 21 August 2006. You reverted the page again after that, hence my reporting of you for a 3RR violation. I suggest that you review WP:3RR to better understand the policy in question. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, go ahead and post all the times that Guerillafilm reverted the page. I was the one who tried to edit the page peacefully. Guerillafilm reverted the page so fast that i couldn't fix the page to make all parties happy. dposse 21:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * dposse... other individuals' bad behavior doesn't justify your own bad behavior. Does the "Snakes on a Plane" Wikipedia page belong to you? Somebody please ban him. dposse will not let anyone, other than himself, edit on that page. Basically we have to ask for his permission to edit the page. If he doesn't like our contribution, then he will ruthlessly break the rules to protect his own agenda on that article.  I tried a couple of times to contribute meaningfully and then he vandalized my contribution and then he reverted the page anyways, more times than is allowed by wikipedia policy.24.9.70.47 12:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The user has now been warned per 3RR.  Voice -of- All  05:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Setanta747 reported by Djegan (Result: user blocked)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


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

Time report made: 21:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User Setanta747 has already broken 3RR on this article twice in the last week. Well aware of policy, can someone investigate? Djegan 21:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Warned first violation, and banned on second violation. Djegan 21:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Some anon ip (193.1.172.138) has just reverted the article, its not me. I am on my third count in 24 hours. I do not edit anonymously, only by this account. Djegan 21:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It says here "(Result: user blocked)" but this is not the case. They are not blocked. They have reverted the article three times today. Is their an admin in the house? Djegan 05:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It says the result is the user is blocked, but he is not! Have I missed somthing??? Djegan 21:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Voice of All added the "user blocked" result above but never blocked.  Give me a second to review the case. Prodego <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  21:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK the block would have expired by now anyway, so I am not going to block, but a block should have been made. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  21:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Just wanted to clarify where we stand on the issue rather than anything else. Djegan 21:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Djegan reported by User:Mal (Result: user warned)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 09:19, 21 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 10:29, 21 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 21:06, 21 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 22:41, 21 August 2006 (see comments)

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

Time report made: 22:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User Djegan has already broken 3RR on this article twice in the last week. Well aware of policy (as can be seen by the fact that he has also reported myself), can someone investigate? I notice he has claimed an anonymous IP is responsible for the last revert, though I obviously cannot be sure: this user has recruited help from other editors in an edit war against me, and is very obviously 'playing the game' with regard to the 3RR rule.

I remind that the 3RR Rule states: '''If you violate the three revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally.'''

I further note that I have tried to come to a compromise on several occasions - particularly on my last edit, which might be regarded as an expansion or clarification rather then merely a simple revert. It was certainly an effort to reach consensus.

Djegan has asked for citations for my edits. I supplied them, yet this still is apparently not good enough for him --Mal 22:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This nomination is in bad faith and based on incorrect information...


 * Comment As I have stated on talk:Northern Ireland and above that fourth edit that is cited here 22:41, 21 August 2006 is not mine. Nor have I asked for that anon editor to revert it for me. That anon editor has been harassing several editors, including myself, for some time. I only reverted this article three times today, that I contend. The anon editor is located in Ireland (do a trace), I live outside Ireland. Djegan 22:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Evidence that I am not editing anonymously as 193.1.172.138 (and did not break 3RR theirfore)
 * why would I revert myself?
 * why would I make personal attacks on myself?
 * ...and again
 * ...and again
 * ...and again

In summary I do not edit by anon and do not revert war with myself. I think that Mals nomination is in bad faith as I already stated on talk:Northern Ireland that I did not edit anonymously. He should of made it clear above that three reverts are under a user account and a fourth under an ip address. Additionally he states that I broke 3RR before, this is incorrect. Let him cite the occurences, its clear from his talk page that he does no understand 3RR. Djegan 22:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Response to evidence regarding 4th revert:

Fair enough. Though I have not investigated your evidence, I will take you on face value Djegan. I was going to remove the '4th revert', though I thought perhaps it should be kept so that Admins can see exactly what we have been talking about here. I have put a note after it instead.

You are, however, still apparently guilty of breaking the 3RR rule (my opinion). --Mal 22:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 3RR violation occures on the fourth revert, not the third. The "fourth revert" is not actually me. Djegan 23:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Three Revert Rule:

Just because someone has violated the three revert rule does not mean they will be blocked. It is up to the administrator's discretion whether to take action. Conversely, just because someone has not violated the 3RR does not mean that they will not be blocked. Revert warring is disruptive, and the 3RR is not an entitlement to three 'free' reverts per day.

Quoted from Three-revert rule:


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

--Mal 23:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I am not the only person who reverted the article. Indeed the consenus was with the version I reverted to. If we are going to use WP:3RR - even when its not technically been broken - as a stick to overide the policies WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR (official policies that must be meet); then its time for people to quit wikipedia, never mind temporary blocks. All I have insisted on is that WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR be adhered to on the disputed article. I have never broken WP:3RR, because I respect the policies; I do not "game" them either. Djegan 00:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The user has now been warned per 3RR. He should now no the consequences.  Voice -of- All  05:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

203.59.164.116 reported by User:Todd (Result: user warned)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 05:02, 21 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 05:18, 21 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 05:26, 21 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 05:30, 21 August 2006

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

Time report made: 22:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:


 * The user has now been warned for vandalism. Next time should be a block.  Voice -of- All  05:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User:132.241.246.111 reported by User:VoiceOfReason (Result: user blocked)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:18, 21 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 14:27, 21 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 14:29, 21 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:54, 21 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 17:11, 21 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 16:06, 21 August 2006

Time report made: 03:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

The edit the user made (and repeatedly reinserted after other editors removed it) was "Even [Jim] Talent's supporters think he's going to loose (sic)". A glance at the user's talk page indicates that a) he's a suspected sock puppet, and b) he has a serious problem adhering to NPOV on political topics. An article like United States Senate elections, 2006 is by nature in danger of being contaminated by POV material, and it's not good for an editor who cannot control his biases to be unable to resist infecting such articles. This editor has been repeatedly warned, and has not listened. VoiceOfReason 03:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR.  Voice -of- All  05:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User:DTC reported by User:Marinus (Result:)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 8h05 22/8


 * 1st revert: 17h26
 * 2nd revert: 17h46
 * 3rd revert: 18h10
 * 4th revert: 18h37

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * No, user was warned on article talk page, denied that 3RR was violated, warned again, again remained unrepentant.

Time report made: 06:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Anarchism is the problem area. Part of the long-standing edit-war between proponents of anarcho-capitalism versus everybody else. I proposed an agreement, to which the problem user seemed to agree but he keeps changing content in line with the proposal to content which denies that the view he edits in is that of a minority. This is a strange claim, against the grain of common knowledge and scholarship on the field, as well as pages upon pages of debate on the Talk page. Also, the problem user is suspected by some of being a sock puppet. --Marinus 06:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No 3RR violation from me. My edits were modifications and trying to conform to sources. On the other hand, "Good Intentions" has been edit warring and reverting. It make no sense that he's accusing me of 3RR when he's beeng doing reverts and I haven't done any. The sockpuppet tag is just a method of harrassment. DTC 07:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

User:DTC reported by User:Marinus (Result:)
Three revert rule violation on

DTC is whoever you want him to be. DTC 19:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC). :


 * Previous version reverted to: 8h21 17/8


 * 1st revert: 8h11 22/8
 * 2nd revert: 18h21
 * 3rd revert: 19h28
 * 4th revert: 20h09

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

Time report made: 07:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User removes sock-puppet suspicion tag from user page, though there are three editors who are willing to suspect him and independently tag him as such. --Marinus 07:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No 3RR violation from me. My edits were modifications and trying to conform to sources. On the other hand, "Good Intentions" has been edit warring and reverting. It make no sense that he's accusing me of 3RR when he's beeng doing reverts and I haven't done any. DTC 07:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Oh I see, he tried to trap me with the sockpuppet tag thing. That tag amounts to vandalism by now. It's been up for a long time and he hasn't been able to prove that I am this mysterious person I am supposed to be. DTC 07:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Comment I've come to regret this report - it is his user-space, after all. What I hoped to accomplish was highlight this user's aggressiveness in advancing his views contrary to (attempted) consensus. --Marinus 11:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Comanche cph reported by User:CharlotteWebb (Result:blocked for 1 month)
Three revert rule violation on Viking. Comanche_cph (talk • contribs • [ page moves ] • block user • [ block log ]) : Five times in less than an hour, Comanche inserted some unsourced nonsense about mushrooms.


 * 12:48, August 22, 2006
 * 13:04, August 22, 2006
 * 13:22, August 22, 2006
 * 13:33, August 22, 2006
 * 13:46, August 22, 2006

User has previously been blocked for edit warring on several occasions. I'm not sure any new warnings are requisite.

Time report made: 14:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * User has subsequently been blocked for other issues, notably civility. Sorry I missed this, I would have included it in my message to the user about the block. Note that his comments to CharlotteWebb here are cited as part of the block. ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Pfahlstrom reported by User:Wiki-Ed (Result:User warned)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

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

Time report made: 14:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User keeps reverting page to include citation-needed tags for verified information (as per talk page). This encourages another user to vandalise the article by blanking the relevant sections altogether.
 * Comments: First off, I am aware of 3RR. I reverted based on my belief that WP-Edit's reverts of my citationneeded tag amounts to obvious vandalism. As explained on the talk page, the claim was not cited even though WP-Edit believes it was covered in the next paragraph, and WP-Edit himself cautions another user for the same thing: "In the first paragraph you removed the [citation needed] tag for an unproven statement". Currently a citation has been added by Edgar181, but I am unconvinced that its specificity is of the necessary level, as explained on the Talk page. However, that is neither here nor there, as this is about my reverts: I believe I was reverting obvious vandalism, and it didn't even concern a change to the substance of the article, merely a citationneeded tag I believe necessary in order to encourage someone to find a good source per WP:CITE; I myself did look for sources but have not yet found sources to satisfy the entirety of the statement. —pfahlstrom 17:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I just want to say that as to whether I violated the letter or spirit of 3RR, I will not question the determination of whichever admin decides how to answer this complaint and will be less knee-jerk in the future. —pfahlstrom 02:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not inclined to press this, irritating though it was. It might have been an accidental (?) violation of the letter of the rule, but I think Pfalstrom was acting in good faith. Wiki-Ed 14:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is just barely a 3RR violation (another hour ont he 4th edit wouldn't have qualified it.) Let this be your only warning for next time. Next time, get friends who agree with you, as Wiki-Ed did. --<b style="color:#22AA00;">Zsinj</b><sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 02:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters reported by User:Ultramarine (Result:2rr, not three...no block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:33, 22 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 05:51, 22 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 06:08, 22 August 2006e
 * 3rd revert: 15:22, 22 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:17, 22 August 2006

Comments: Aware of the 3RR rule, see the block log.Ultramarine 16:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Notice that the "4th revert" is a completely unrelated edit to the first three (not even the same section of the article). After the first removal of material unrelated to the article, inserted by Ultramarine, I provided a detailed explanation on the talk page for why it was not relevant. She restored the non-relevant graph three times without providing any explanation of its alleged connection to the article in talk. However, rather than revert a fourth time, I sought the input from an administrator about Ultramarine's behavior in inserting irrelevant (and somewhat disruptive) material). LotLE × talk  18:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4 reverts. If we are going to have a content discussion here, then I will note that you are deleting well-sourced relevant material, as discussed on the talk page.Ultramarine 18:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Note also that no notification or discussion was made by Ultramarine (or anyone) prior to filing this false report. LotLE × talk  04:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are well aware of the 3RR rule as can be seen in your block log. DO NOT delete my comments here: .Ultramarine 04:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Results: I only see a total of three reverts, not four. While WP:3RR isn't an entitlement to make 3 reverts a day, it appears the content is a dispute about a graph which has not gained consensus for inclusion on the article talk page anyway.--MONGO 05:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are four reverts, the last was a revert of an added dispute template,, without discussion.Ultramarine 05:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The forth revert was a different unrelated edit abakharev 11:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User:JB196 reported by User:-- User:3bulletproof16 (Result: No block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:17, August 21, 2006


 * 1st revert: 21:02, August 21, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 21:25, August 21, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 21:54, August 21, 2006
 * 4th revert: 07:16, August 22, 2006
 * 5th revert: 09:43, August 22, 2006
 * 6th revert: 09:54, August 22, 2006

Time report made: 17:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User is re-adding non-notable links that can easily be found elsewhere in problem article. Has been told to discuss the addition of these unnecessary links on the article's talk page, though he has shown no intention of a discussion as proven by his constant reversions. -- 3 : 16  17:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * User doesn't appear to have been informed of the 3RR. No block. Extraordinary Machine 01:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Bertrand Meyer reported by User:Ideogram (Result: user blocked)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 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: 19:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

This user is Dr. Bertrand Meyer editing the page on the Eiffel programming language, which he invented. As a recognized expert in his field but new to Wikipedia he does not understand Wikipedia rules and believes he can impose his own. In this particular case he is trying to retroactively assert copyright over material he has already entered into Wikipedia so that he can remove it.


 * I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR.  Voice -of- All  07:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Petaholmes (Result:No violation)
On the page for Randall James Bayer, has three times in 24-hours removed the list of his journal articles. See history. This is a violation of 3RR. Wjhonson 04:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the list for reasons described on the talk page. I reverted the article twice there after.--Peta 04:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

A total of three. Deletion counts as a revert.
 * Revert 1
 * Revert 2
 * Revert 3


 * Nonsense, also you don't break the rule until you do more that 3 reverts.--Peta 04:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your "reasons" are irrelevant. Wjhonson 04:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I really don't know what you are trying to achive here, I altered the aritcle so it was more in line with what is typical on Wikipedia. I also did not break the 3RR.--Peta 04:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The articles were added by consensus. You removed them with no consensus. Wjhonson 04:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are only three reverts here. Jkelly 04:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The user has not yet violated WP:3RR because there are not yet four reverts within 24 hours nor is there any severely disruptive behavoir.  Voice -of- All  22:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User:AFRIDIA reported by User:Feebtlas (Result: 24 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * #1
 * #2

Time report made: 15:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:


 * I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR.  Voice -of- All  22:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters reported by User:Ultramarine (Result: NO BLOCK)
Three revert rule violation on. :

Note: This is a duplicate of the above false and rejected 3RR report by same user, using same diffs. The alleged 4th and 5th reverts listed are unrelated edits to different sections of the article. The first three are the same ones reported above, and I have made zero deletions of the inappropriate chart since 15:22, 22 August 2006 (though other editors have removed it since then). The diffs listed below Ultramarine's comment are all either identical to the diffs listed above, or diffs of non-consecutive edits (that also don't happen to have anything to do with the graph at question). LotLE × talk 20:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As stated below, you have continued reverting after that report.Ultramarine 20:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:33, 22 August 2006
 * 1st revert: 05:51, 22 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 06:08, 22 August 2006e
 * 3rd revert: 15:22, 22 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:17, 22 August 2006 - ''
 * 5th revert: 05:43, 23 August 2006

Comments: Aware of the 3RR rule, see the block log. I have reported the 4 first revert previously above but the 4th was considered dusbious. Howver, he has now made a 5th revert. This shows how he reverts to a prior version and deletes added text:


 * 
 * 
 * (here is a word added but he still reverts the added graph, as he states in the edit summary)
 * 
 * 

Ultramarine 21:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * DO NOT edit my comments Lulu.Ultramarine 20:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ultramarine...I see a content dispute and some edit warring but not a breach of 3RR...I'll warn Lulu to be careful.--MONGO 22:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Edipedia reported by User:HongQiGong (Result: 24 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:56, 23 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 11:58, 23 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 12:15, 23 August 2006e
 * 3rd revert: 12:38, 23 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 12:42, 23 August 2006

Comments: User had been warned on previous occasions before:,. And he has a habit of removing warnings on his Talk page. This is the most recent warning he received:.


 * I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR.  Voice -of- All  22:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Dy-no-miite (Result: user warned)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:32, 23 August 2006 by another user


 * 1st revert by Dy-no-miite: 02:46, 23 August 2006
 * 2nd revert by Dy-no-miite: 02:58, 23 August 2006
 * 3rd revert by Dy-no-miite: 12:38, 23 August 2006
 * 4th revert by Dy-no-miite: 13:04, 23 August 2006

Comments: 3RR violation on the introduction.


 * The user has now been warned per 3RR not to let this happen again.  Voice -of- All  22:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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

Time report made: 20:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Editor repeatedly adds irrelevant graph to article, despite 3RR warning and consensus of talk page against its inclusion. The latest reversion follows two false reports, above and using same diffs, of 3RR against me for removing the same original research material (Ultramarine reverts multiple editors for its inclusion, and refuses to present any argument for its relevance on talk; only that she believes it is "interesting"). LotLE × talk
 * None of this is close to 3 reverts in 24 hours. The report is deliberately misleading, stating that the first addition of the graph is both the previous version and a revert at the same time (and concealing this by not giving time stamps) and stating that minor corrections of my own the text, with no one else editing between my edits, is reverting!!! The rest is also false, I have discussed the issue numerous times on the talk page. On the other hand, you have reverted 5 times in 24 hours as noted above.Ultramarine 20:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's it...I'll protect the page and you two can hash it out on the talk page.--MONGO 22:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User:RevolverOcelotX reported by User:John Smith&#39;s (Result: user warned)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:15, 13 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 20:05, 23 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 22:00, 23 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 22:02, 23 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 22:06, 23 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 22:05, 23 August 2006

Time report made: 21:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Although the user didn't revert to the exact version listed above, the content he reverted was from that period. So he was effectively reverting. John Smith&#39;s 21:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The first edit was NOT revert. The contribution I added was clearly NOT present in "Previous version reverted" shown above. John Smith&#39;s reverted my contribution first and both of us at this time only made 3 reverts. --RevolverOcelotX 21:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your first edit was a revert because you were re-inserting material from that edit. There were only minor changes in the mean-time. John Smith&#39;s 21:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence that my first edit was "re-inserting material from that edit". Read the previous version above. It is clearly not a revert. John Smith&#39;s is using this as a rather sneaky way to attempt to gain leverage in a content dispute. --RevolverOcelotX 21:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course you were - the changes that had been made were minimal. You broke the rules so they get applied to you, just as they've been applied to me in the past. John Smith&#39;s 21:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read previous version here, 10:15, 13 August 2006. There is nothing in my first edit that indicate it as a revert to that previous version, therefore it is not a revert. --RevolverOcelotX 21:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about this. I got confused and thought I had removed that article link only recently. Please close this report. John Smith&#39;s 21:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The user has now been warned per 3RR not to let this happen again.  Voice -of- All  22:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User:FoxyProxy reported by User:Palffy (Result: 24 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 09:19, August 16, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 11:01, August 16, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:37, August 16, 2006
 * 4th revert: 03:55, August 17, 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) : - The 3RR warning was applied on User: Kwame Nkrumah's page (see explanation below).

Time report made: 21:45, August 23, 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Please see additional recent 3RR violations here. I have filed a checkuser request, to determine for certain whether the person who has been reverting Germany National Football Team is the same person. Palffy 21:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR.  Voice -of- All  22:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User:66.38.180.253 reported by User:ST47 (Result: 48 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


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

Time report made: 22:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:


 * I have blocked the user for 48 hours per WP:3RR.  Voice -of- All  01:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

User:1892 Fitch Dude reported by User:Tarentum (Result:No block)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:23, 17 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 20:46, 17 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 04:37, 18 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 04:06, 19 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:29, 19 August 2006
 * 5th revert: 20:27, 20 August 2006
 * 6th revert: 1892 Fitch Dude

Time report made: 23:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: No block. Not only was this report made 3 days after the reverts, but this is nowhere near four in 24 hours. If you want help in a low-intensity edit war, you may like to try Requests for comment instead. Robdurbar 06:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Kwame Nkrumah reported by User:Ryūlóng (Result: 5 days (by Blnguyen))
Three revert rule violation on Several templates, claiming that Ukrainian copyright law is superceded by American copyright laws because images are released as fair use per Ukrainian laws. Here is an example at Template:FC Chornomorets Odessa. He has been blocked for 3RR prior elsewhere. :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


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

Time report made: 00:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Also the same way around: Ryulong reverting 4 times the same article. (You could at least wait to end the discussion, before reverting)--Kwame Nkrumah 00:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I added a link to the 5th revert as well. User is also a suspected puppeteer of a person recently blocked by breaking a 3RR rule, if once he is officially determined to be so, Kwame will have broken the 3RR rule about 16 times. User has also been previously blocked for 3RR 3 times and has an outstanding checkuser request here. -- Palffy  00:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a simple misunderstanding of copyright law, so I don't think a block would be appropriate here, though I am looking for confirmation as to whether or not the Ukranian law applies to Wikipedia, as it's based in Florida. Cowman109 Talk 01:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Cowman, I know that you are a VERY conservative administrator, but you have to admit that this is not just a "simple misunderstanding". This has really gone on long enough---it is ridiculous just how much attention this one person is getting from a whole lot of people here on WP. And I know you have looked into this matter into great detail, so you should know just about everything that has happened by now. This is not a simple distraction, this is a part of someone running Wikipedia, while you and the rest of the administrators nanny this person by giving him warnings, reprieve after reprieve, blocks, more reprieves etc. I'm certain that I can formally petion a list of 15-20 unique WPs (if not more) who would agree that this user is not fit for editing the WP and..I cannot imagine that you and the other admins have not seen the same over the time you've known Kwame and his sockpuppets. -- Palffy 02:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd support a block of some significant duration, should one be handed out, or would consider one myself. This user has exhibited a rather cavalier attitude to the counsel given him, and his current user page could be viewed as giving the appearance of trolling. He's been warned of his behaviour in the past. I highly doubt, with all due respect to Cowman109, that this user is simply misinformed, he has a tendency to apparently wikilawyer about anything and everything at the slightest provocation. ++Lar: t/c 03:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Extended to 5 days, given previous stuff. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There's some new information with the user at hand, please read here. -- Palffy 07:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Hardouin reported by User:ThePromenader (Result:48 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 2006-08-23T21:06:50


 * 1st revert: 2006-08-24T00:29:08
 * 2nd revert: 2006-08-24T00:55:40
 * 3rd revert: 2006-08-24T01:31:21
 * 4th revert: 2006-08-24T02:06:37

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

Time report made: 00:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Repeat offender. Fully aware that he is beaking the WP:3RR rule. Simply reverts any edit not to his taste without the slightest attempt at discussion beforehand. Always the protagonist in any revert war, as a look at this article's (as well as others) page history will show.


 * I reverted factually wrong statements (namely, that there existed no municipality of Paris before the French Revolution, which is proven wrong by evidence). You can see the evidence at Talk:Paris. I note that another user on the talk page expressed doubt at Promenader's statement that the municipality of Paris didn't exist, yet Promenader reverted the article back to his version of history. Does 3RR applies when an editor adds factually wrongs information to an article? I'd like also to let admins know that Promenader himself reverted the article 4 times tonight. Four times in a row he deleted a sentence stating that the provost of the merchants was shot by the crowd on 14 July 1789, an historical event nobody is doubting. That sentence was added to the article on 15 August 2006 . Tonight the Promenader deleted this sentence 4 times, thus making 4 reverts to the state of the article as it existed before 15 August 2006. Here are the four reverts where you can see the sentence disappearing each time:, , , and . Personally I would have filed no complaint for that, but since Promenader filed a complaint against me, I think it's fair that his four reverts be examined too. Hardouin 01:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The 'fact' that Hardouin indicates is only his own interpretation thereof, and even this is only one of the passges he reverted to. As for the other, there was even a discussion open on this subject, but the above refused to follow it, and the corrections I intended were indicated well beforehand both on the Paris talk page and Hardouin's own talk page. Please note the dates on both. After over a week of no further discussion, yet only minutes after the cnanges in question were made, Hardouin pounced and reverted. And reverted. And reverted. And reverted. As always. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;"> the promenader   01:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: I can hardly call good faith the fact that my first edit, whose intent I mentioned well beforehand, was called a revert. What's more, one of the phrases I was trying to correct was my own contribution. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;"> the promenader  02:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hardouin, no matter how 'right' you think you are, or 'wrong' the other editor appears to you, there is no justification for breaking the three revert rule. As you have been blocked on this article for breaking the rule numerous times before, I think a 48 hour block is appropriate. Robdurbar 06:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hardouin, again, my edit was hardly a revert: First off, the edit you reverted is quite unlike its original form, and the rest was a correction outlined more than a week beforehand. You chose not to answer, so I corrected. The first revert was yours, as always. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;"> the promenader  12:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

anonymous block beginging with 87.113.81.* reported by User:i kan reed
They seem to be repeatedly adding "desirable leafy green" to the description of the article on Teddington dozens of examples can be seen here. The user may have a comercial interest in the change, but WP:AGF prevents that from being assumed. Despite changes by the rest of the regular editors of the page explaining the NPOV policy, it seems as though the IP block has not stopped making the same change for many days. This is not one of my main articles but reverting it has begun to become a problem for me as well. If someone could address the situation appropriatly, that'd help, thanks. i kan reed 02:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're going to need to report this in the appropriate format. alpha Chimp  laudare 23:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Ryulong reported by User:Kwame Nkrumah (Result: not blocked)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:24, 24 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 02:24, 24 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 02:28, 24 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 02:34, 24 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 02:49, 24 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * Not necessary. He is well aware of the existance and meaning of 3RR (see two paragraphs above)

Time report made: 00:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * I am doing Vandalism reverts, which are not covered by 3RR, you have been doing the other reverts first, and I did not do several of those Reverts prior to the ones you yourself made. Ryūlóng 00:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not vandalism, it is content dispute, as I clearly stated in your talkpage. I think that US law is applied in the US, so that Fair use should be applied to those logos, you maintain (see talkpage) that Ukraine law applies even to Wikipedia US servers, so that the images are in public domain. It is content, it seems to me.--Kwame Nkrumah 00:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a simple misunderstanding of copyright law, so I don't think a block would be appropriate here, though I am looking for confirmation as to whether or not the Ukranian law applies to Wikipedia, as it's based in Florida. Cowman109 Talk 01:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm torn. this feels like a retaliatory report to me, with a side order of wikilawyering, but if it's a straight revert war, both parties should get blocks, because the party trying to "defend" shouldn't be revert warring either... this is where tag teaming actually can be good, as it shows a consensus against the change. ++Lar: t/c 18:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As long as the user now understands the copyright issues now, and will not revert anymore, we should be fine not blocking. Copy violations are a serious reason enough to revert, though getting an admin in rather than passing 3RR would be more effective and would not violate any rules. Voice -of- All  05:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To be clear. I don't feel strongly either way about a block. But certainly, any such revert warring in the future should result in a block. Unless there is simple vandalism, you should abide 3RR and get an admin to deal with it, even if it involves serious possible copyright issues. I suppose blatant, vandal-like, copyvios can be considered vandalism when repeatedly added, but I don't think that was the case here. Voice -of- All  22:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

User:NBGPWS reported by User:TheKaplan (Result: 48 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: latest one is 23:14, 23 August 2006 Previous ones were reverts after several other edits had happened.


 * 1st revert: 03:42, 23 August 2006 original edit reverted:
 * 2nd revert: 06:59, 23 August 2006 original edit reverted:
 * 3rd revert: 02:37, 24 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 02:45, 24 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * Not neccesary. This user is well aware of 3RR. He has been blocked for it in the past and warned repeatedly, although not by using the official template.

Time report made: 08:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: These reverts are only the latest to violate the rule, and the ones in the last 24 hours. This editor actually has about 7 reverts, maybe more, in the last 30 hours or so, but it was chosen not to file a report because of a combination of disagreement over the intent of the policy and my not being able to figure out the complaint format (i hope i got it right this time). User:NBGPWS is well aware of the policy, having been blocked under it in the past and warned repeatedly. User is also being considered for a block for incivility and trolling. TheKaplan 08:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I believe he has the official template as he was blocked only 2 days ago for the same thing. Also, he created a sock puppet in order to appear not violate another 3RR (it was banned today). Here's the Sock Puppet Case.--Tbeatty 08:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. What I meant was that he didn't have the template warning for this particular violation, but I guess that's unimportant if he has it for another.  TheKaplan 08:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 48 hours per WP:3RR.  Voice -of- All  05:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Oiboy77 reported by User:Humus sapiens (Result:56 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 06:58, 23 August 2006 by Avraham


 * 1st revert: 00:01, 23 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 09:52, 23 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 10:14, 23 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:00, 23 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 00:38, 24 August 2006 (that's 8:38 UTC)

Time report made: 09:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The history of Oiboy77's "contributions" to WP is an uninterrupted stream of POV pushing, intimidations, 3RR violations, fake signatures and plain vandalism. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See his block log, I have therefore blocked him for 56 hours. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  11:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Netscott reported by User:Jayjg (Result:1 week)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:35, 24 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 14:47, 24 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:49, 24 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 14:56, 24 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:53, 24 August 2006
 * 5th revert: 16:01, 24 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 16:10, 24 August 2006

Time report made: 16:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: 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 (or punctuation mark). Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. "Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention.
 * Netscott doesn't like an image in an article, and is gaming the 3RR rule to deprecate it in various ways. His first two reverts are straightforward, adding text to the caption. The third makes it invisible, the fourth marks it as "original research", and the fifth adds slightly different wording to the caption, but meaning the same thing. Quoting from WP:3RR:
 * The editor is insistent that he will not revert himself. . Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As I already stated to User:Jayjg I'll not be editing further today on this article. Please reveiw these diffs carefully... and please inform me if they do constitue a breach of 3RR. I beg to differ. (→ Netscott ) 17:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a clear 3RR violation. The policy makes clear that repeated undoing of another editor's work counts toward a 3RR violation, as was explained in the warning you received. You're attempting to game the system, and you ignored the warnings and turned down the chance to revert yourself. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  17:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin, there's only two editors who've been undoing another editor's work more than three times here (and you falsely labeled one of your reverts a "rvv"). (→ Netscott ) 17:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I made numerous efforts to resolve this lack of observation of NPOV policy. How is citing what an image's source claims about the image "deprecating" it? (→ Netscott ) 17:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, well your continued claim that this violates NPOV, despite your refusal to cite the actual section of policy violated, in no way vitiates your violation of 3RR, and refusal to undo that violation. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I honestly do not believe that I've violated 3RR here. What's up with the out of order time stamps in your report here by the way? (→ Netscott ) 23:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm adding for the record that Netscott has been blocked six times in five months by several different admins. If I'd known, I wouldn't have wasted my time leaving warnings. This user is a clear system gamer. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked for a week - can't believe that he only got 12hrs for all these rpt tranzgressions.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

User:66.206.174.80 reported by User:JBKramer (Result:24 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:43, 24 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 12:05, 24 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:21, 24 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:45, 24 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:03, 24 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 17:53, 24 August 2006

Time report made: 18:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: reverting in "inflation is a rise in the aggregate money supply", which is a fringe POV, discussed numerous times on the talk page but tennaciously edited in by individuals who hold the fringe POV. JBKramer 18:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've blocked the IP for 24 hours. alpha Chimp  laudare 23:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Bov reported by User:Peephole (Result: not blocked)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:04, 21 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 00:38, 24 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 01:12, 24 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 01:58, 24 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:53, 24 August 2006
 * 5th revert: 00:50, 25 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 22:03, 24 August 2006

Time report made: 23:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * With some slight alterations, user has reverted the page five times today. I warned him but it didn't seem to help. --Peephole 23:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at the discussion pages on our user pages and on the Hoffman page - Peephole is reverting to versions of the Hoffman page with information that deletes key aspects of the article - such as the major websites designed by Hoffman, the internal links, and calls for citations which have already been addressed - and then tells everyone else not to make reverts, but to change things piecemeal . . . to which he himself then reverts over. Others are attempting dialog on the discussion page over these confusing changes Peephole. Jim Hoffman cannot have incorrect information on his webpage so I am reverting to keep the page correct before the Peephole changes.  We can debate about semantics of conspriacy theorist or 9/11 researcher, but my concern is in references to nanotechnology and deletions of several links on the page going to his websites with no explanation. bov 23:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to make some changes to a page, you don't just go reverting them two weeks back. You just make the changes. His main website is already linked and the other two sites can easily be accessed from there, wikipedia is not a web directory. The internal links I have removed according to the guide of layout. Other editors like User:Tom harrison have supported my edits. --Peephole 23:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The revert rule warning diff says "you have violated 3rr" so its post facto. I'll treat that as this user's first warning. Voice -of- All  05:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Cretanpride reported by User:--Akhilleus (talk) (Result: Blocked for 31 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * 1st revert: 21:11, 24 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 22:03, 24 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 22:14, 24 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 22:56, 24 August 2006

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

Time report made: 03:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Cretanpride has been making disruptive edits to Homosexuality in ancient Greece and its talk page for at least a week, often using sockpuppets. On Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece, a suspected sockpuppet of User:Cretanpride made the comment: "The article needs to be changed. I will NEVER stop arguing against this article until it is changed."


 * I've blocked him for 31 hours, and will block him again for longer if his disruption continues. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

User:RoddyYoung reported by User:Jeff3000 (Result: 24hrs)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 06:27, August 24, 2006 (EDT)


 * 1st revert: 09:30, August 25, 2006 (EDT)
 * 2nd revert: 10:39, August 25, 2006 (EDT)
 * 3rd revert: 10:59, August 25, 2006 (EDT)
 * 4th revert: 11:06, August 25, 2006 (EDT)
 * 5th revert: 11:24, August 25, 2006 (EDT)

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 11:01, August 25, 2006 (EDT)

Time report made: 15:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Has been adding the external link multiple times a day, when there is overwhelming conensus that the link does not pass muster (like linking a google search on a term). I think he would keep adding the link after a block as well, so I recommend a note on his talk page to the effect that it is not appropriate behaviour or something. -- Jeff3000 15:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In German Wikipedia we would call him a troll. --Mipago 15:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What he's doing is vandalism. He knows we don't want it there, he just can't accept that people have a different opinion than him Zazaban 15:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 24 hours. El_C 02:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Hanuman_Das reported by User:KV(Talk) (Result: no action)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:16, August 10, 2006


 * 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: 19:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

The issue is one of Hanuman not wanting a WikiProject tag on the page. Three revert rule warning is not of me warning him, but of him warning me after I reverted something else a mere 2 times, showing that he understood the rule enough to understand he was breaking it.KV(Talk) 19:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that 3RR applies to inappropriate talk page tagging. If it does, please simply let me know and I will observe it. User:King Vegita is trying to override a request for a survey as to whether it is appropriate to add the tag to an article which does not fit the project. I am happy for him to add it if he has support, but think he should have the patience to wait for the result of the survey. Thanks. &mdash;Hanuman Das 20:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want the survey, you can have the survey, but in the mean time there is no need for your version to have to be the one that is up. You are the one who wanted to push for the change, initially reverting anothers addition, because you did not find it factual for the premise.  In respect of the right to vanish (which you did not do and Right to Vanish does not guarantee) I will merely leave here the fact that Hanuman had another name in which he had a 3RR violation in the past.  Hanuman had deleted the original post.


 * KV(Talk) 21:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I also note that Hanuman had to be aware that it was in effect there, as he was bringing it up over the categorization of a category. WP:3RR clearly states, "Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part."


 * KV(Talk) 21:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 3RR does apply, but in light of the user page tagging incident, I'm inclined to take no action for the breach. Please consider mediation.El_C 01:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:TDC reported by User:User:Marmoulak (Result:Blocked for 1 week)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:57, 25 August 2006 edit


 * 1st revert: 17:24, 25 August 2006 edit


 * 2nd revert: 18:09, 25 August 2006 edit


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:55, 25 August 2006 edit


 * 3rd revert: 18:19, 25 August 2006 edit


 * 4th revert: 18:27, 25 August 2006 edit


 * 5th revert: 18:29, 25 August 2006 edit


 * 6th rever: 18:35, 25 August 2006 edit

Time report made: (Marmoulak 20:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC))

Comments:


 * User:TDC has been blocked for violation of 3RR two dozen times. He changes materials without explaination and removes sourced material to push his own POV. First, he accused me of quoting colonel lang out of context. I had included every single statement made by Colonel lang in the disputed paragraph, he removed some of the quotes and added a part of report that WAS NOT, a statement by colonel lang as a quote by colonel Lang. he reverted paragraph two times(Marmoulak 20:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC))
 * later he called Gary Sick a liar and a fraud and and added the sentence "gary sick is a liar and a fraud" to the article and removed parts of article. He reverted, this change 3 times.(Marmoulak 20:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC))


 * It appears he's on revert parole from ArbCom. As such, I've blocked him for one week. --InShaneee 23:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Myung1 reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 24 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 06:20, 25 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 18:22, 25 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:46, 25 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:54, 25 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:17, 25 August 2006

Time report made: 21:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Editor keep removing the direct quotation "... It is neo-Nazis donning checkered Palestinian kaffiyehs and Palestinians lining up to buy copies of Mein Kampf" from the article. Editor is obviously aware of the 3RR, since he actually warned other people not to violate it before doing so himself. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User attempts to avoid 3RR in the 4th revert by replacing the comment rather than removing it. Isopropyl 21:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, he attempted to game 3RR by replacing the quotation. He really hates that quotation, and will do anything to get it out, including violating 3RR. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, he even had the temerity to warn other editors about 3RR on their Talk: pages, quoting from the policy itself, before he violated 3RR. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours. JoshuaZ 22:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

User:TJ_Spyke reported by User:DivineShadow218 (Result: 24 hours for DivineShadow218)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:58, August 25, 2006


 * 1st revert: 19:01, August 25, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:13, August 25, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:07, August 25, 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:01, August 25, 2006

Time report made: 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Editor kept adding romourd launch games to this article arter I supplied an article in the talk page how the games he was adding were confermed NOT for launch but launch window, which is after the launch of the console. --DivineShadow218 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please provide diff links rather than oldids. Not only did you not inform TJ Spyke of the 3RR, but you too have broken it. As such, you've been blocked for 24 hours. Extraordinary Machine 01:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Qwasty reported by User:TeaDrinker (Result: 24 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 00:41, 26 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 02:01, 26 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 03:36, 26 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 03:48, 26 August 2006
 * 5th revert: 04:02, 26 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 16:09, 22 July 2006

Time report made: 04:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: General content dispute over a section. The other editor involved, User:DanB DanD did not recieve a warning until recently, and seems to have stopped reverting post-warning. User:Qwasty will give vandalism warnings for people who undo the reverts.


 * He's been warned before about 3RR, so 24 hours. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 05:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I see Zoe's done it already. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 05:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Al-Andalus reported by User: User:Psychohistorian
Three revert rule violation on White(people). :


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:48 26 August 2006
 * 1st revert: 02:22 26 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 03:02 26 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 03:11 26 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 03:37 26 August 2006

Time report made: 24:11, 26 August 2006 (EST)

Comments:

The user has a history of breaking the three revert rule most recently that I can find on January 2nd of this year. The countries in the list he keeps adding have no sources. This was identified as unsourced over a week ago and a week was given to provide a source. Now that the unsourced countries are being removed, he keeps adding them back without an accompanying source.


 * You'll need to supply the diffs: the links showing the difference between the versions. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 05:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


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

User:Day-Wo reported by User:Shamrox (Result:Warned)
Three revert rule violation on Kola Boof. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:31, 25 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 23:48, 25 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 02:13, 26 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 02:43, 26 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 06:03, 26 August 2006
 * 5th revert: 07:07, 26 August 2006
 * 6th revert: 07:18, 26 August 2006
 * 7th revert: 07:24, 26 August 2006

Time report made: 07:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User is attempting to revert the entire article (!) back to an previous version that was based entirely on press releases and unfounded statements. User has not responded to several attempts to get a dialogue going and seems to only wish for their (incredibly unfounded) contributions to make up the entire article. Has changed article headlines to things like "DON'T CALL HER A SEX SLAVE" (yes, all in caps). Does not seem to have any sort of grasp on what Wikipedia stives to accomplish.

Shamrox 07:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You've only warned / talked to the user in their user page. You should use their usertalk, which will give them a "you have new messages" alert. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Because no proper 3RR warning was given (even the user page edits didn't really mention it, though they don't count anyways), I've tagged this as "warned". Re-report the user (or possibly just add a new diff and a comment, though it might not be read) if the user does it again after a warning. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys, will do. Shamrox 09:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Ryulong reported by User:Nixer (Result:Not blocked)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 06:34, 26 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 08:00, 26 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 08:05, 26 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 08:09, 26 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 08:19, 26 August 2006 - The last edit was made after warning.--Nixer 09:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 08:13, 26 August 2006

Time report made: 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Comment I have beeen involved in this dispute after seeing a report on WP:AIV. After warnings where both editors were on exactly 3 reverts apiece, the edit war stopped. I do not consider Ryūlóng to have exceeded 3RR, but I caution both parties to avoid disruptive edit warring, and engage in constructive dilogue to move forward. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  10:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute that I did not repeat my edits again at, I had in fact only changed a few words around the first time, then realized that the sentence structure was funky, that you continued to revert back to. You are the one that has been blocked for these things in the past, more than once. I even explained myself in my last edit summary, and the contents of that last edit are different than the version that I had reverted back to in the first place, and the first revert doesn't even count, as it is different as well. Ryūlóng 08:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, only two of those diffs that you provided are identical, the other two are formatted differently and other changes were made to the text. Ryūlóng 08:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The 3RR works anyway. You have reverted the article four times and exceeded the limit, you cannot avoid 3RR violation by alternating some edits.--Nixer 09:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Ryulong has been already reported for revert warring (look at another report earlier in this page )--Nixer 08:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, no I haven't. That report clearly shows that I was not blocked in that situation. Ryūlóng 08:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Still, I was not blocked in that situation. Read what is there. Ryūlóng 08:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It says "(Result: not blocked)". What part of that confuses you? Ryūlóng 08:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you have been warned not to repeat the situation.--Nixer 09:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Now the user tries to avoid the block by making what he claims to be "partial self-revert" which is in fact hoax (he deletes some spaces, changed format of date etc).--Nixer 09:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Did I not reinclude the information you had editted in? Why are you so focussed on getting me blocked? Ryūlóng 09:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did not.--Nixer 09:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What? I included the information you editted in. Check the article. It contains both "celestial body" and "dwarf planet" in the first line. It contains both versions of the content between us that is disputed. Seriously, though, why do you want to get me blocked so badly? Ryūlóng 09:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You can see the four reverts listed above. If you have some thoughts why some of them should not be counted, please explain. The war stopped temporary because I wait an admin to revert the last edint by user Ryūlóng (I am on limit of 3RR and Ryūlóngalready violated it). Please do not support those who violates the rules.--Nixer 10:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nixer, I have explained on your talk page. I am not "supporting" anybody, just working to protect Wikipedia. Blocks are not punitive, they are preventative. Whether or not there are technically 3 or 4 reverts by Ryūlóng is now moot, because the revert warring has stopped. A block is not required to prevent anything, and it's not policy to block users as punishment. As I state on your talk page, if this revert war is resumed by either party, I will block whoever it is. Also, please do not remove my edit posting the outcome of this report, that is disruptive. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  10:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you protecting the version by Ryūlóng? He violated the rule and should be at least reverted by an admin. According the rules all parties violated the 3RR shoiuld be blocked.--Nixer 10:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is it that you want me to be blocked, or have your version restored? I have editted the page so that both forms are used; the only thing that is essentially the same is the wording in the second paragraph, as it was a bit redundant in the way you had written it. The first line has both "celestial body" and "dwarf planet", and the exact date of the change is also listed. What is your deal with all of this? What did I do to you? Ryūlóng 10:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The subject of the dispute is the second paragraph exactly. Both celestial body and dwarf planet would be fine for me (the former is slightly better) The current version is exactly yours with all my changes reverted.--Nixer 11:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Note that Nixer removed the original outcome of this case posted by Cactus.man. - Tangot a ngo 10:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Holywarrior reported by User:Hkelkar (Result: 25 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * I don't think that it is applicable because the user is aware that he violated 3RR (see edit summary in last revert)

Time report made: 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * This is my first complaint of a 3RR violation so please forgive me if I am not doing something correctly. This user has tried to push a POV in the article in question, despite consensus against him. Then, he accused me of being a "sockpuppet" of another user, a departmental colleague of mine with userid User:Subhash bose. He added an entry to the Check-User page for this. I engaged in an irc chat session (taking time off of my work schedule) with user bose, as well as wikipedia admins establishing that I am not a sockpuppet or anything, but Holywarrior still persists. In any case, I believe that this is a 3RR violation and I request that action be taken against this user. Thanks very much.Hkelkar 10:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I support this report. Holywarrior has been pushing anti-Hindu POV and called my souced and good-faith edits nonsense.Bakaman <sub style="color:blue;">Bakatalk 14:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I object the use of terms Anti-X or Anti-Y, both terms are heavily loaded and not objective.If a reliable source confirms the term then it is OK but when authors on Wikipedia themselves use the term without qualifying the sources it becomes difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.TerryJ-Ho 17:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, note that "support" is absolutely unecessarry. 3RRV violation has occured or not, another editor supporting the report is irrelevant. JoshuaZ 17:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've blocked him for 25 hours. The extra hour is for asserting that 3RRV didn't apply to him. JoshuaZ 17:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the 3RR does apply in this case, but the four reverts above (edit nr. 5 is does not revert to the same version, but to a compromise suggestion by Hkelkar) are spread over more than 24 hours. There were 3 reverts in 24 hours, which are not technically a 3RRvio. Please be more careful before blocking. (ᛎ) qɐp 14:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3RR is an electric fence dab. Holywarrior deserved every hour he got from Joshua.Bakaman <sub style="color:blue;">Bakatalk 14:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Huaiwei reported by User:Instantnood (Result:)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:58, August 13, 2006 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 18:50, August 19, 2006 (UTC)
 * 2nd revert: 19:03, August 19, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:32, August 19, 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:17, August 19, 2006

Time report made: 16:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * For record. Administrator action already taken. No further action is necessary. &mdash; Instantnood 16:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And for the record, it resulted in both parties getting banned, as it should be.--Huaiwei 23:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

User:69.15.59.130 reported by User:Wildnox (Result:)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 15:28, 26 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 17:27, 26 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:37, 26 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 17:57, 26 August 2006

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

Time report made: 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: It is hard to list his reverts, as he does them in groups instead of one big edit. Another editor is about to violate 3rr in this war also --Wildnox 18:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User continues to edit war, no decision either way apparently on this report, did it get missed? --Wildnox 17:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Ryulong reported by User:Nixer (Result: not blocked, see above)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 06:34, 26 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 08:00, 26 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 08:05, 26 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 08:09, 26 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 08:19, 26 August 2006 - This edit was made after the warning about 3RR rule.--Nixer 09:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5th revert: 18:43, 26 August 2006
 * 6th revert: 19:00, 26 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 08:13, 26 August 2006

Time report made: 19:09, 26 August 2006

Comments I already reported this user today but the admin decided not to block him. The user continues revert-warring reverting changes of other users to his own version.--Nixer 19:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Those last two edits are not revert wars, in fact, you have broken 3RR, Nixer, by reverting back to a version that is the exact same as yours. This content dispute has gone on long enough. You have an extensive history of 3RR violations, and now it just seems that you want to make a point to get me blocked. These new allegations are complete and utter nonsense. This is why I had rolled back this page, because you are basing your information on diffs that are now even more different. Ryūlóng 19:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact you reverted the article and edits of many users to your own old version continuing the revert war.--Nixer 19:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No I did not. I did not do a revert, I editted the version that was there. However, reverted back to your version after the page move, which is extremely suspiscious. I am not and will not be blocked for my edits at Pluto, as now it is in no way close to 3RR. Ryūlóng 19:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The user also tries to remove this report from this page:--Nixer 19:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The report is now closed, and I had been dealt with and spoken to. Stop now, or you may be blocked for disruption. Ryūlóng 19:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nixer, this has been investigated at length, and a decision made, you disagreed and took it to another administrator and WP:ANI as I advised you to do if you felt aggrieved. Opinion is against you. You are sailing VERY close to the wind with this repeated disruption. Do not repost this unless there is a genuine 3RR violation. PLEASE take this advice, this is your last warning on this particular issue. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  19:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You said you will not block him because the rewert-war is over. Now it is evident that it is not over.--Nixer 20:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:84.253.151.77 et al reported by User:Ben Standeven (Result:Sprotected)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:34, 26 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 10:43, 26 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 08:00, 26 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 21:56, 25 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:10, 25 August 2006

Time report made: 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Each revert is divided into four subedits; the user has a set of dynamic IPs, some of which appear to be used by (presumably unrelated) vandals.
 * As several IP ranges are involved, I've reverted to the pre-3RR violation version and sprotected the page. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The exact same thing is occurring on Global Positioning System. 3RR today and many more under various IPs on previous days. Dual Freq 21:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:82.83.96.244 reported by User:Rex (Result:Sprotected)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: [16:24, 26 August 2006]


 * 1nd revert: 18:46, 26 August 2006
 * 2rd revert: 19:21, 26 August 2006
 * 3th revert: 20:00, 26 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:20, 26 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 20:00, 26 August 2006

Time report made: 19:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User uses various IPs but are clearly related, his entire IP range will probably have to be blocked. IP's encountered so far, all with 1 edit; on the same article and the exact same action and reponds to edit summaries directed at other IPs. : Rex 19:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User: 82.83.66.175
 * User: 82.83.94.19
 * User: 82.83.96.244
 * User: 82.83.100.4
 * User: 82.83.119.120


 * Rather than range blocking, which might catch others out, I reverted to the pre-3RR violation version and sprotected the page. Hope that's all right. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent thank you very much. Rex 20:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Reza1 reported by User:EricR (Result: 24 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:51, 26 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 12:20, 26 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 12:29, 26 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 12:41, 26 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 12:41, 26 August 2006

and a few more.

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 12:50, 26 August 2006
 * 13:01, 26 August 2006

Time report made: 20:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: A WP:BLP. EricR 20:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I was just restoring sourced material from academic scholars of Islam such as Prof. Carl Ernst. I am helping the article reaching to an encyclopedic quality. Besides, other editor did also more than three reverts which were also vandalism since they were removing sourced material. --Reza1 20:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Reza1 reverted again even after responding to this report. 24 hours. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Day-Wo reported by User:Shamrox (Result:Indefinite, used only for disruption)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:25, 26 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 19:04, 26 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:14, 26 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:59, 26 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:27, 26 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 08:52, 26 August 2006

Time report made: 20:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

As stated before...user is attempting to revert the entire article (!) back to an previous version that was based entirely on press releases and unfounded statements. User has not responded to several attempts to get a dialogue going and seems to only wish for their (incredibly unfounded) contributions to make up the entire article. Has changed article headlines to things like "DON'T CALL HER A SEX SLAVE" (yes, all in caps). Does not seem to have any sort of grasp on what Wikipedia stives to accomplish.

User has been warned several times by myself, another user and a moderator and will still not respond or discontinue with their vandalism. Shamrox 20:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It appears the user has been blocked for vandalism --Wildnox 21:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't see a block. If there isn't one, I'll be blocking for 24 hours, because the user was warned to stop reverting, although not specifically about 3RR. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Another admin has blocked the account indefinitely. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:84.253.151.77 reported by User:Dual Freq (Result:)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:35, August 26, 2006


 * 1st revert: 20:48, August 26, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:50, August 26, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 21:22, August 26, 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:17, August 26, 2006

Time report made: 23:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Each revert is divided into three subedits and the user has a set of dynamic IPs. Has been occurring for several days, way more than 3RR by now. Dual Freq 23:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Dy-no-miite reported by User:75.30.189.33(Result:)
Three revert rule violation on Robert Spencer. :

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 1st revert: 20:17, 26 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:24, 26 August 2006
 * 3rd revert: 20:39, 26 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 00:08, 27 August 2006
 * 5th revert 01:16, 27 August 2006
 * The user has been previously warned for passing 3rr on this article by 'User:Voice of All' recently

Time report made: 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user has now made another revert to this article. He removed what we agreed upon on the talk page under the RfC section. --Reza1 21:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The user has again made a revert by removing the sourced material and against the RfC comment. . The edit summary reads: "nothing sacred about "sourced material" in and of itself" --Reza1 21:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

User:CltFn reported by User:75.30.189.33 (Result:)
Three revert rule violation on Bat Ye'or Robert Spencer. :
 * 1st revert: 12:09, 25 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 06:23, 26 August 2006
 * 3rt revert: 07:41, 26 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:05, 26 August 2006
 * 5th revert: 19:56, 26 August 2006
 * 6th revert: 20:00, 26 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * The user has been previously blocked for such violation for several times ,

Time report made: 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:AnneCr reported by User:75.30.189.33 (Result: 24 hours)
Three revert rule violation on Robert Spencer :
 * 1st revert: 18:43, 26 August 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:23, 26 August 2006
 * 3rt revert: 19:46, 26 August 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:49, 26 August 2006
 * 5th revert: 20:09, 26 August 2006

Time report made: 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user has few edits and may not be familiar with 3rr policy. BhaiSaab talk 01:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, she reverted for a sixth time after I let her know about 3rr on her talk page. BhaiSaab talk 02:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours. — FireFox  ( talk ) 18:34, 27 August 2006

User:BhaiSaab reported by AnneCr 02:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC) (Result: no block)
Three revert rule violation on Robert_Spencer. :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


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

This user is simply bullying three different editors complaining that they will not accept user's unilateral changes, and ironically warning them about 3RR rule. This is simply someone taking over for a user banned for the same reverts. (see user talk from Reza1 to BhaiSaab asking for help). They are not answering any objections on the discussion page as to the relevance of the changes.

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

Time report made: 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Actually I gave you a warning because you were reported for 3rr. See above. BhaiSaab talk 02:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The above user has been blocked twice for 3RR.Bakaman <sub style="color:blue;">Bakatalk 15:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Despite the malformed request, I looked into this and only three reverts were made, therefore the three revert rule was not broken and no action will be taken. — FireFox  ( talk ) 18:30, 27 August 2006

User:KingConvoy reported by User:Ryūlóng (Result: 24 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:25 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 06:08 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2nd revert: 06:15 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3rd revert: 06:19 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4th revert: 06:22 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5th revert: 06:26 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
 * 06:17 27 August 2006 (UTC) by SeanBlack

Time report made: 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Apparently, this user has a history of such removals of information in the past. Ryūlóng 06:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. alpha Chimp  laudare 17:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Pompertown reported by User:+Fin - (Result: 36 hours)
Three revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 16:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2nd revert: 20:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3rd revert: 01:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4th revert: 02:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Time report made: 10:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User was not warned explicitly aout 3RR, but several messages asking him to stop and explain himself were placed on his talk page, and on the article's talk page. User also made personal attacks when reverting. +Fin - 10:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours (3RR) plus 12 hours (incivility) = 36 hours. — FireFox  ( talk ) 17:37, 27 August 2006