Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive29

User:Violent-Ken-Masters reported by User:Oherman (Result:)
Three-revert rule violation on M.U.G.E.N.


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


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

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. Warning on user page: \ Warning on discussion page:
 * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Time report made: 00:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments:  User keep inserting unencyclopedic content. This includes the report that the creators of "Pokemon" will sue people who shows YouTube videos of MUGEN, without proof. He also added personal attacks against MUGEN Guild in some of the reverts, and refuses to stop despite discussion.

User:Mardavich reported by User:RuthieK 18:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)(Result:No block)
Three-revert rule violation on List of Arab scientists and scholars. :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 13:41, 5 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 14:03, 5 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 14:10, 5 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:23, 8 October 2006
 * 5th revert: 23:48, 8 October 2006
 * 6th revert: 11:28, 10 October 2006

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. -->
 * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Time report made: RuthieK 18:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: 

Errrmmmm.... OK, have another go; this time list 4 reverts not 3 and actually add in the diff links William M. Connolley 19:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Errrm excessively complicated....disgracefully so RuthieK 21:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No violation by Mardavic,
 * Revision as of 14:40, 5 October 2006 - R adds section
 * Revision as of 14:41, 5 October 2006 - M rvt 1
 * Revision as of 14:52, 5 October 2006 - R rvt 1
 * Revision as of 15:03, 5 October 2006 - M rvt 2
 * Revision as of 15:05, 5 October 2006 - R rvt 2
 * Revision as of 15:10, 5 October 2006 - M rvt 3
 * Revision as of 15:15, 5 October 2006 - R rvt 3
 * Revision as of 17:42, 5 October 2006 - User:Ali doostzadeh rvt (4)

Only took 9 days! Mark83 21:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Smeelgova reported by User:Mark1800 (Result:8hour block)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * Please note we are basically talking about a delete and an un-delete here. The problem is this page gets a lot of traffic.
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * There are more... The issue is that this is discussed here and the user seems to be ignoring requests to stop.

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. -->
 * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Time report made: 01:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: The issue has been discussed here and the user seems to be ignoring requests to stop.


 * First offence, 8 hour block --Robdurbar 15:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Muggle1982 reported by User:Hkelkar (Result: already blocked)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here:

Time report made: 02:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments:2 points:
 * 1) While some of these edits are partial reverts, they are a clear example of edit-warring on the part of the user despite warnings provided to him
 * 2) While they span an interval that is slightly longer than 24 hours, they are aclose enough to conclude that the user is violating the "electric fence" philosophy behind the 3rr rule and does not seem to show any tendency to discuss any issues in the talk page.Other users and I have tried to initiate discussions with him but he has responded with incivility WP:Civility in our talk pages.Hkelkar 02:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Update:He has been blanking warnings etc from his talk page and .Hkelkar 02:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Update: he continues to blank other people's entries in the talk page of Talk:Udit Raj and persists blanking his own talk page.Hkelkar 03:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

2006-10-11T03:08:33 Alphachimp (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Muggle1982 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 hours (talk page blanking, disruption) William M. Connolley 17:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

User:HanzoHattori reported by User:PPGMD (Result: 8h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:35, 5 October 2006


 * 1st revert: 11:01, 10 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 12:56, 10 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 14:02, 10 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 21:41, 10 October 2006

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. -->
 * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Warned here: 3RR Warning and on article talk page.

Time report made: 02:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments:
 * Some reverts also reverted vandelism also PPGMD 02:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

rv3 appears to be just reverting vandalism William M. Connolley 07:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Selected the wrong diff updated with the correct 4th revert. PPGMD 14:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think he's right; but that doesn't justify 4R: 8h William M. Connolley 17:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Curandero101 reported by User:Jeff3000 (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:27, October 10, 2006


 * 1st revert: 04:12, October 11, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 04:17, October 11, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 04:21, October 11, 2006
 * 4th revert: 04:24, October 11, 2006
 * 5th revert: 04:28, October 11, 2006
 * 6th revert: 04:37, October 11, 2006 by IP sockpuppet User:58.167.144.208 (note IP signed as Curandero101 in this edit)
 * 7th revert: 04:53, October 11, 2006


 * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here. Warning Diff

Time report made: 04:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: No citations for additions. -- Jeff3000 04:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Add'l. Comments: IP edit is almost certainly sock-puppetry. I'm at four reverts already (oops). MARussellPESE 04:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are, which may yet get you into trouble. This should have been reported ages ago... anyway, 24h William M. Connolley 07:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

User:CyberGhostface reported by User:Mikedk9109 (Result: 12h each)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. -->

Time report made: 20:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments:

User insists on reverting other peoples edits. Thinks he owns the article. --Mikedk9109 20:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think I "own" the article. The only edits I have reverted are Mikedk9109's. The article refers to the character of Leatherface in all present incarnations. In the introductory paragraph (which basically outlines the character) Mikedk9109 frequently adds irrevelant information pertaining to only the remake. I reverted it as there is already a section dedicated to the remake, with explanations each time as to why its not needed.
 * I would also like to point out that I offered to do a mediation case with Mikedk9109 to settle this civilly but he ignored them and made this report after I wrote it. He wrote "I think mediation would be useless, seeing that we cannot get along."--CyberGhostface 20:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Cyber, I did not make this report after you tried to have a "meaidation" with me. After you reverted I reported you. You think you own this page, and have no respect for what other people try to do. You think you own it. I have suggested you look over WP:OWN but you simply blew it off, and made some excuse to say how you didn't think you owned it. You've reverted countless other users edits because they don't "suit" you, not just my edits. Which were perfectly valid by the way. --Mikedk9109 20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Each time I reverted it I backed up it with logical reasoning, most of which to you never responded to. Trying to keep false information out of the page doesn't count as 'owning' it, especially since its only one type of edit which I have been reverting. If you post false, biased information to an article you can't expect it not to be reverted.--CyberGhostface 20:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That name is not false or biased. It is true. It is his alternate identity, and has to be included the intro. Your making new excuses every time I respond to try and turn this against me. Regardless, you've broken the 3RR. --Mikedk9109 20:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Its an identity thats only relevant for two out of the six films Leatherface has appeared in and is also featured down in the article. The article applies to Leatherface's character as it has been in all six films. He's only been referred to as Hewitt in two. Its like if someone makes a Dracula film and says his real name is Marten Vladimir. That name might be relevant enough for its own section, but it would be irrevelant and infactual if in the main header of the article it was written "Dracula, also known as Marten Vladimir is a character..." and so forth. Its important enough to be featured in the remake section, it is not important enough to be featured in the introductory paragraph which refers to all incarnations of Leatherface, not just the most recent. That's not excuses...its fact.--CyberGhostface 21:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * CyberGhostFace, why did you get drag another user into this conflict? That user has no business in this. Other than that, I'm done arguing, I'll just wait for the ruling. --Mikedk9109 21:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Because A.) I was getting nowhere trying to convince you myself, B.) Bignole is a major contributor to the article, and I figured his advice would be helpful in settling this, and C.) Because the article and Wikipedia itself is a collaborative effort and if I have any problems I have every right contact another party for assistance.--CyberGhostface 22:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This is stupid. You now *both* have 4R on the article... 12h each William M. Connolley 07:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User:71.143.14.118 reported by User: AuburnPilot (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on.


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 16:08, 11 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 16:41, 11 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:01, 11 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:23, 11 October 2006
 * 5th revert: 19:30, 11 October 2006
 * 6th revert: 20:01, 11 October 2006


 * Necessary only for new users: Warned user of 3RR at 18:31, 11 October 2006

Time report made: 20:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: Seems to be a serial spammer adding content about Linda Christas International Schools anywhere possible. AuburnPilot

24h William M. Connolley 21:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Codex Sinaiticus reported by User:Cúchullain t/ c (Result:No block)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:07, October 10, 2006


 * 1st revert: 18:41, October 10, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:07, October 10, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 08:26, October 11, 2006
 * 4th revert: 12:44, October 11, 2006
 * 5th revert: 14:44, October 11, 2006 (Here he added the disputed info back in under the edit summary "add'l info".)

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. --> Warning
 * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Time report made: 20:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: The user reverts with accusatory edit summaries, and responds abusively on the talk page to civil requests to back up his statements with sources.--Cúchullain t/ c  20:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not revert the last time after the warning, I tried to reflect the sources I brought up on the talk page for a compromise wording ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The user does respond agressively as a matter of course, here and elsewhere (also on my own talk page). I have suggested that he NOT SHOUT and tried to be conciliatory. Perhaps this will be a wakeup? -- Evertype·✆ 23:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A compromise? Right. At any rate, you don't need to be warned to know not to revert more than 3 times. I see you've been blocked for it before. That last time you just stuck the contentious material back in after being belligerant on the talk page.--Cúchullain t/ c 01:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

no block has he didn't revert after warning, avoid the article for 24 hours though or I will reblock Jaranda wat's sup 01:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Kester Teague reported by User:Jaranda wat's sup (Result:24 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 21:37, 11 October 2006
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert: 22:04, 11 October 2006
 * 6th revert: 22:11, 11 October 2006
 * 7th revert: 22:56, 11 October 2006

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. -->
 * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
 * warned but blanked 2 min later

Time report made: 22:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments:

There are many more reverts like 10+ but this is enough, keeps removing sourced info Jaranda wat's sup 22:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nm BLocked by User:Pilotguy Jaranda wat's sup 23:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Cripipper reported by User:John Smith&#39;s (Result:protected)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:29, 11 October 2006


 * 1st revert: 15:07, 11 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:39, 11 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 21:51, 11 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:56, 11 October 2006

A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Time report made: 00:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments:

Although later reversions made by Cripipper were not quite the same, they had the same effect as to remove reference to the role of Mao Zedong in the Cultural Revolution being reduced by the CCP. I myself acknowledged the point that sources were required and provided them. However Cripipper continued to revert, even after I had made an effort to reach a comprimise over a new version. He even declared that the sources were not "acceptable" and thus liable to be removed. Given such an attitude I'm afraid I feel I have to report him - I did warn him beforehand. John Smith&#39;s 00:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please not that this is an edit issue that has been going on for almost a week now. Not only has John Smith's already broken the 3RR himself with regard to this today, he refuses to engage with other editors on this issue on the relevant talk page, instead choosing to decree from on high in his edit summary which edits he accepts and which he does not, instead of attempting to reach a consensus on the discussion pages. Cripipper 00:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually changed the entire position of the edited section, which had previously refered to the commission of the CR. I also added sources. Thus I have not broken the 3RR. I also explained what I was doing in the edit summary, as well as leaving a note on the talk page. You made the changes before reaching a "consensus" - I was merely providing some sources to resolve a query. Now you've moved the goalposts and claimed they're not good enough. John Smith&#39;s 00:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You changed the entire position because it had been shown that the previous rvs you have been performing all week on other editors' changes were incorrect. Your first contribution to talk was about one hour ago, after a week of reverting these edits. What you finally replaced them with were sources which do not meet Wikipedia's verifiability standards. Accepting the deletion of the nonsense that was previously there and replacing it with slightly different nonsense referenced from nonsense is not improving an article. Cripipper 01:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Take it to the talk page, protected. Jaranda wat's sup 01:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User:The Hungry Hun reported by User:BostonMA talk (Result:no block)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:

Comment withdrawn by User:BostonMA


 * 1st revert: 12:59, 11 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:42, 11 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 21:16, 11 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:28, 11 October 2006


 * Not a warning but a reminder that user had made 3 reverts -- User had already been blocked for 3RR violation on this page on a previous occasion. (I have been a user since December 2005)

Time report made: 00:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: first diff, need to look at lower part of edit

The first revert looks like a vandalism revert as well of some unexplained blanking no block Jaranda wat's sup 01:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please look at the first revert again. Adding the same image as the other reverts.  --BostonMA talk  01:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * interest declared: following comment is from user under review
 * The first revert is clearly a vandalism revert - the picture in question just happened to be among the vandalized content. In your opinion, would the right way have been to undo all the vandalism except for the picture? That can't be the right way, can it?--The Hungry Hun 07:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes Hungry Hun, you are correct. It makes no sense to revert part of the previous changes.  I see now that the first reversion should not count.  My apologies.  --BostonMA talk  14:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Adding the same image? Now, that takes nerve, for this image was already present: it is User:BostonMA who has been blanking it. User:BostonMA is the latest wave of a rising tide of fundamentalist editors who blank images of Muhammad on various articles, in his case without bothering to make an argument on talk - and even so, what can the argument be, other than that the image must be censored to make Wikipedia Halal? (struck inappropriate comments --BostonMA talk 14:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)) And the diffs show that the image is not the only thing that User:BostonMA saw fit to arbitrarily censor which HungryHun valiantly restored, knowing he was taking he risk of being reported here and possibly sanctioned by an admin less reasonable than Jaranda. If anything, this report only underscores the need to take action against users who adopt User:BostonMA's approach to editting Wikipedia: for every blip on the noticeboards there are two users who give up editting - really defending - these articles because there is no established mechanism for dealing with this madness, other than to stay glued to Wikipedia and revert them all day or the even more laborious path of arbitration. User:BostonMA should be blocked for his ceaseless and unashamed disruption. (struck inappropriate comments --BostonMA talk  14:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Observation Post 08:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply to Observation Post. I will respond to the comments you made here on your talk page.  Anyone interested may see my response there.  --BostonMA talk  14:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User:221.132.112.133 reported by User:Siddiqui (Result:three reverts)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Continously reverting on Memon, Sindhi Memon, Memoni language-->

Time report made: 00:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Only three reverts, you need four Jaranda wat's sup 01:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This user made three reverts in Memon and two in Sindhi Memon and Memoni language. I cannot revert him again without committing 3RR myself.
 * Siddiqui 01:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User:218.185.94.226 reported by User:Marnanel (Result:48 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on Vagina. User:218.185.94.226:


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:57


 * 1st revert: 00:39
 * 2nd revert: 00:50
 * 3rd revert: 00:54
 * 4th revert: 00:57

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. -->
 * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Time report made: 01:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments:

Blocked by another admin for 48 hours, next time for vandalism place it in WP:AIV. Jaranda wat's sup 01:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Aminaa reported by User:Viewfinder (Result:12 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 16:31, 11 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:12, 11 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 21:45, 11 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 00:25, 12 October 2006
 * 5th revert: 00:30, 12 October 2006

 Comments:
 * The 3rd revert is a minor variation, all the other reverts are simple reverts. Was warned about 3RR violation in this edit summary, but insisted he was not in violation, using abusive language, but still continued to revert.

12 hours Jaranda wat's sup 01:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Alankc reported by User:User:Dtobias (Result:)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:58


 * 1st revert: 18:54
 * 2nd revert: 21:50
 * 3rd revert: 22:00
 * 4th revert: 22:14

Time report made: 02:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: Seems to be part of an edit war with an anon user.
 * I've protected the page in preference to blocks; hopefully they can quickly resolve the issue. It's the registered user who seems to be causing the problem. --Peta 02:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Resolved. --Peta 03:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Rbj reported by User:FeloniousMonk (Result:24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:33, 11 October


 * 1st revert: 17:33, 11 October
 * 2nd revert: 18:37, 11 October
 * 3rd revert: 19:25, 11 October
 * 4th revert: 20:08, 11 October

3RR warning _before_ this report was filed: 19:32, 11 October

Time report made: 03:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments:

User:Alfred_Vella reported by User:DWaterson (Result:24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:06, 11 October 2006


 * 1st revert: 00:17, 12 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 10:12, 12 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 10:47, 12 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 12:33, 12 October 2006

Time report made: 11:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: I blocked Alfred Vella for 24h as he seemed unresponsive to attempts to talk this out. I will leave a message on his Talk page advising him to discuss on the article Talk page before edit warring. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 16:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Calgvla reported by User:Tekleni (Result:24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:12, 12 October 2006


 * 1st revert: 06:44, 12 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:53, 12 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:58, 12 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:07, 12 October 2006


 * Proof user knew of the 3RR before the fourth revert: 16:01, 12 October 2006

Time report made: 16:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments:
 * Blocked for 24h, he has been warned several times for disruptive behavior and was blocked for 12h just two days ago. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 16:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

JCScaliger reported by User:Larry Dunn (Result:No block)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: no exact version, as small changes are made each time, but the substance is continual reverts to changes to sections "Origins of Medieval Knighthood" (x5) as well as "Social Class" (x4).


 * 1st revert: 11 October, 22:52
 * 2nd revert: 12 October
 * 3rd revert: 12 October
 * 4th revert: 12 October
 * 5th revert: 12 October, 20:31

Time report made: 21:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC) All dates are 12 October.
 * The first is not a reversion.
 * What would it be called? I made some changes to the text here:  and he responded by deleting the sentence altogether.
 * That's a revision; perhaps not the ideal revision. Larry Dunn added the claim which seems to be at issue; perhaps it  would be better not to discuss Ministeriales here altogether.

Septentrionalis 01:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * All right, I'll try that and see what happens.Larry Dunn 01:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The second is a misrepresentation; the edit is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knight&diff=80914465&oldid=80914415 this diff of 00:10 12 october; which is a continuation of the same compound edit. No one else edited between them.
 * I did the comparsion from the end of the compound edit. The relevant part of the compound edit is here: Larry Dunn 01:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the same edit of 22;52; you don't get to count it twice. ( Septentrionalis 01:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry, I see what you're saying. I've just deleted the reference to the ministeriales, as well as the section on social status that JCScaliger apparently found necessary because of the reference to them, so hopefully that will put an end to it.Larry Dunn 01:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see this exchange has come to something. Actually, this shouldn;t even count once; it's the basis for partial reversions, if anything. Septentrionalis 02:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't follow. What I do know is that, in a 24-hour period, this user changed edits I made four or five times as part of a debate over wording.  My understanding is that behavior is prohibited by Wikipedia's user policy.  I'd ask that an administrator take a look at this.Larry Dunn 04:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The third diff of 13:56 is a substantial restoration of sourced material, but not an exact reversion; as this compound diff will show.
 * The fourth diff of 17:31 adds a sentence of the form "X is possible, Y is also possible", where   Larry Dunn added "X is possible".
 * The fifth diff of 20:31 is a rewrite of JCScaliger's fairly extensive edit of 19:39.

By contrast, Larry Dunn's edits have been two exact reversions. compound diff 04;22 to 15:55 and compound diff 15:55 to 17:58. The first of these appears to be, on the points at issue, substantially a reversion to the edits he made when he first began to edit the article. Compound diff, 05:31 11 September to 04;22 12 October. Septentrionalis 01:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't it possible to finesse a revert to look like a revision? My understanding from Sarah was that that is also not acceptable.Larry Dunn 01:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The 3RR rule cannot be broken by reverting one's own edits. If you had edited between 22:52 and 00:12 the next day, there might have been a partial reversion; but you did not. None of those tweaks can be counted. Compound reversions work like this:
 * User A edits to version 1.
 * User B edits to version 2.
 * User A edits to version 3.
 * User A then goes back to version 1.


 * The problem is going back to version 1 around someone-else's edit. That counts as one revert. Septentrionalis 01:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments:
 * No block, this isn't a 3RR violation. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would personally block both users for working around WP:3RR policy. --Madchester 23:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neither of them did it more than three times, if so many, and the page seems to be stable. Septentrionalis 02:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Lordkazan reported by User:WarHawk (Result:Both users blocked)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:28

Time report made: 00:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocking both users for 24 hours for edit warring. Cowman109 Talk 00:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Ernham reported by User:Muchness (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Time report made: 00:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: User is aware of 3RR policy and has previously been blocked for a 3RR violation. --Muchness 00:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

For someone that actually reads this, hopefully you have the time to actually read everything in context in the edits/summaries, which clearly demonstrate vanadlism, whether intentional or otherwise, thus no revert, only rectifying obvious vandalism. The user mark83 was in fact the only one to violate the 3RR in those exchanges, as at least one of his edits was clearly vandalism, again whether accidental or not. Additonally, another admin was semi-involved already, creating a sectionon in the talk page to avoid such edit wars. However, mark83 never seemed to care enough about the issues at hand to give his two-cents. Instead, this muchness fellow here reports me for supposed 3RRV, an interesting guy that appears to have never contributed to the wiki in question where the supposed 3RR occured, at least not in quite a long time(I didn't look through all of his/her history). It's all very curious, especially the corresponding neener-neener messages in my talk pageErnham 13:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I edited the page, removing a section. This was not a revert but a standard edit. 
 * Ernham revert 1:
 * Mark83 revert 1:
 * Ernham revert 2:
 * Mark83 revert 2:
 * Ernham revert 3:
 * Mark83 revert 3:
 * User warned he will break 3RR by reverting again at 00:50, 13 October 2006
 * Ernham revert 4: at 01:03, 13 October 2006

I have asked the user to stop calling me a vandal, it is wholly unacceptable. As for a dicussion having already taken place and me ignoring it, my last edit was at 00:53, 13 October 2006. The discussion did not begin to 04:13, 13 October 2006 Mark83 14:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitely 3RR from E; I don't see any vandalism. M has 4 identical edits but its not clear the first is a rv. 24h for E William M. Connolley 15:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Jaranda reported by User:152.163.101.12 (Result: warning)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 01:38, 12 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 02:05, 12 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 00:07, 13 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 01:54, 13 October 2006

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. -->
 * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Time report made: 02:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: Some kind of revert war on the Brady Leaf page, it's the admin Jaranda vs two editors over should the article be a redirect or not, which I think it should not. 152.163.101.12 02:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Not technically inside 24, so warned William M. Connolley 15:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Siddiqui reported by User:Hkelkar (Result: 48)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 09:59, 12 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 10:04, 12 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 10:07, 12 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 04:05, 13 October 2006


 * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here: The User is not new.He's been a wikipedia editor for a long time.

Time report made: 12:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: User has been edit-warring on multiple articles, including History of Pakistan.Hkelkar 12:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to have four reverts on the same article.

BhaiSaab talk 17:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1st revert: 01:38, 12 October 2006 (a revert of this edit)
 * 2nd revert: 11:01, 12 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 11:05, 12 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 11:09, 12 October 2006 (which you reverted back)

48h for S. H self-reverted. William M. Connolley 18:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

User:81.65.131.39 reported by User:ChrisGriswold (Result:)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * User has repeatedly re-added list section based on a source prohibited by WikiProject Comics editorial guidelines and which violates the copyright of the publisher who first published the list. User has also repeatedly removed the unreferenced tag and citations in other sections, as well as the references section. User has been warned a number of times and has never discussed changes on talk page.
 * 1st revert: 15:40 October 12, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:55 October 12, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:36, October 12, 2006
 * 4th revert: 04:18, October 13, 2006
 * 5th revert: 12:01, October 13, 2006


 * 3RR warning

Time report made: 16:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments:

Don't see why #5 is a rv William M. Connolley 22:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't remember. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 18:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Sammyterry reported by User:XP (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4
 * 5

There are more as well today scattered in history under other sections, but this one is most aggressive.

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. --> Notified user of 3rr policy on their talk page when issuing the welcome, and earlier let them know not to remove sourced content.
 * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Time report made: 21:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: This particular article has been reported previously I believe to the Foundation by User:Haisch, who is the subject of the article, so extra caution and speed is needed perhaps. · XP  · 21:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * User is still at it. · XP  · 21:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 21:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Barryispuzzled reported by User:Smatprt 22:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC) (Result:No block)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 06:44
 * 2nd revert: 18:24
 * 3rd revert: 19:18
 * 4th revert: 21:26

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. -->
 * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Time report made: 22:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: [Barryispuzzled] has threatened to keep reverting my properly sourced additions "every night before he goes to bed" and has now engaged assistants to keep reverting in his absense. It has been noted by others that he and [alabamaboy] are attempting to "own the page" and their usertalk indicates they are teaming up on this harrassment. A read-thru of the discussion page will show that this is not his first altercation, and that new editors, such as myself, have been attacked, harrassed, and chased off the page. [barryispuzzled] also has cut off discussion after hastily assembling a "consensus" of those that agree with him, but ignoring numerous other users comments or suggestions.

The fourth edit isn't a revert. No block Jaranda wat's sup 03:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Fyslee reported by User:Levine2112 (Result:12 hours each)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:42, 13 October 2006


 * 1st revert: 21:25, 13 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 22:28, 13 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 22:33, 13 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 22:50, 13 October 2006

Time report made: 22:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: Editor is initiating an edit war on three page simultaneously (Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF).

 Comment: Levine2112 made his first revert before the first one of mine listed above, and thus made his 4RR immediately before I made my 3RR. If I did anything wrong, it was certainly unintentional. The whole thing is found at Quackwatch, where we were discussing the matter. I used Wikipedia policies to show that two links were in total violation of WP:RS, WP:EL, and WP:BLP, and therefore, since no one was responding with anything better than emotional arguments, I made a bold delete. That doesn't count in a 3RR, which only counts reverts, hence it being called 3RR, rather than 3DRR I'm trying to keep libel out of the articles, and Levine2112 and company are trying to include it. Motivations are totally different. -- Fyslee 00:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comment: I have asked Fyslee to provide me with the DIFFs showing my violation as he charges. He has not been able to... because it doesn't exist. This is not the place to argue our edits, just his violation of the 3RR, which you can see in the four DIFFs provided above. Please also note that in my 3rd and final revert, I used the edit summary to warn Fyslee that we has on the verge of violating 3RR. It is hard for me to buy that his violation was, as he says, unintentional. He's an experienced editor here and should know better than use an edit war to push his POV agenda. Levine2112 00:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Both of you broke 3rr that I see, 12 hours each. Jaranda wat's sup 03:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: (I'm involved, so I wouldn't consider overriding the blocks.) I think this needs to be taken to  WP:BLP/Noticeboard when they come off 3RR (which is in a few minutes, if I read the time correctly), as User:Fyslee claims to be reverting WP:BLP  violations. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What my report could have looked like
User:Levine2112 reported by User:Fyslee (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on . :

To keep the edit history understandable, I'll list the edits chronologically but separately, since they count separately:

Bolen link (Quackpot Watch)


 * Previous version (before my delete) reverted to: 20:49, 12 October 2006
 * -- Both links are there, and had been there for a long time. My examination of the rules, as I explained them in the discussion above, led me to delete one or both of them. They should never have been there in the first place.


 * My first delete (not a revert) of the Bolen link -- 00:14, 13 October 2006. This was what Levine2112 reverted (his 1st revert below).
 * My edit summary:
 * "self-published email newsletters even when posted on websites, are not allowed as external links or sources, except on articles about the author of the emails"


 * His 1st revert: 00:20, 13 October 2006

I left the Bolen link, even though it involves libelous accusations that have, under forced depostion, been admitted to be "euphemisms."

Rosenthal link (QuackWatch Watch)


 * Previous version (before my delete) reverted to: 20:49, 12 October 2006
 * -- Both links are there, and had been there for a long time. My examination of the rules, as I explained them in the discussion above, led me to delete one or both of them. They should never have been there in the first place.


 * My first delete (not a revert) of the Rosenthal link -- 23:25, 13 October 2006. This was what Levine2112 reverted (his 1st revert below).
 * My edit summary:
 * "Rosenthal site violates WP:RS


 * His 1st revert: 00:24, 14 October 2006
 * His edit summary:
 * "reinstating relevant critical link which provides not only opinion on subject but court documents and relevant news articles and interviews"


 * My 1st revert of only the Rosenthal link: 00:28, 14 October 2006
 * My edit summary:
 * "Bolen and Rosenthal sites violate WP:RS and WP:EL; use specific links to court documents in the article"


 * His 2nd revert: 00:30, 14 October 2006
 * His edit summary:
 * "Revert to revision 81295755 dated 2006-10-13 22:24:29 by Levine2112 using popups."


 * My 2nd revert of only the Rosenthal link: 00:33, 14 October 2006
 * My edit summary:
 * "Bolen and Rosenthal sites violate WP:RS, WP:EL, and WP:BLP; use specific links to court documents in the article."


 * His 3rd revert: 00:38, 14 October 2006
 * His edit summary:
 * "careful Fyslee... on the verge of 3RR"


 * My 3rd revert of only the Rosenthal link: 00:50, 14 October 2006
 * My edit summary:
 * "Same reasons apply. You just made 4rr. I'm discussing on talk."

It would appear that I was mistaken at this point. He was at 3RR, not 4RR, and so was I. My (belated) apologies!!

If my first delete is to be counted as my first revert, then the 3RR policy needs to be more clear. I don't recall ever having read this. If it is there somewhere, please point me to it.

Time report made: 21:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

COMMENTS

Context

NB: All of this was happening in the context of a discussion about External Links, where gross violations of WP:RS, WP:EL, and WP:BLP were discussed. I requested explanations of any errors in my reasoning, explanations based on Wikipedia sources, and not on emotional and other types of reasoning. I have not received them. I would like to understand these policies. If I have misunderstood them, then I have a right to have them explained properly as I have requested. The other editors should debunk by understanding using policies. If the policies are ambiguous or unclear, then they should be revised instead of censuring me or ganging up on me. I am certainly willing to abide by policies.

It was only after failing to receive explanations based on Wikipedia's policies that I began to delete the two links. I believed I had undebunked Wiki policies to back me up. The proper response to my deletions would have been to debunk my interpretation on the talk page, and not for Levine2112 to start an edit war, and then call in the troops when he had reached 3RR. Most of the editors on these articles hate the subjects of the articles and are doing what they can to create an undue balance of criticisms, and even without regard to their quality, using sites that violate WP:BLP.

Vastly different motivations

This is not about disallowing ordinary negative sites. Other sites with negative viewpoints are available and allowable, but these two sites are of the type that are expressly forbidden.

I am applying Wikipedia policies in an attempt to properly limit and control the use of libelous sites (limit and control libel), as required by the policies mentioned above. Levine2112, OTOH, is trying to get as much negativity in the articles as possible (promote libel), including dredging up the most disgusting packs of lies (proven under deposition) available.

Our very different motivations should be taken into account. If any error of judgment occurs, it should be on the side of limiting and controlling the use of libelous information here at Wikipedia, and not on the side of relaxing our standards. "We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." - Jimbo Wales.

Because these particular sites involve WP:BLP issues, these deletions are particularly sensitive, and the 3RR rule may not apply to my deletions and reverts, but still apply to Levine2112. This is a mitigating factor in my behavior. If I have erred, I have erred on the proper side.

Background info

My original delete (not a revert, and thus not counting), and Levine2112's subsequent reverts (starting an edit war, with his first revert counting as "1R"), all involved two different links on three articles, and thus counting was confusing in the heat of the battle, especially nearing 2 AM her in Denmark. I suspect that my miscount was because of a very similar situation occurring on the Stephen Barrett article at the same time.

I went to bed about 2 AM and did not read the later comments or see the 3RR block until the next (Saturday) morning. He writes from the LA area, and I write from Denmark, although I am originally from Southern California. We are working with a very large time difference, with me being nine hours ahead of Calif. time. I did not document the diffs, not because I couldn't, but because it was very late (early!). I'm taking the time to do it now. If my counting of edits was in error, then it was an honest mistake and certainly not deliberate. I expect Levine2112 to exercise good faith. If I was mistaken, and I seem to have been about his revert count, then I apologize. I still believe that I did not do a 4RR and should not have been blocked, especially in light of the WP:BLP issues involved. -- Fyslee 21:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Tekleni & Eupator & Clevelander & Hectorian reported by User:Calgvla (Result:Page Protected)
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:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert: Sockpupet of Eupator IP address is located in Canada, Eupator's home.

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. -->
 * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Time report made: 23:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments:They are working together to remove the POV tag, there is an ongoing RfC the tag should remain

Too many people revert warning, page protected instead. Jaranda wat's sup 03:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User:KarlBunker reported by User:-- Selmo (talk) (Result:)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * 1st revert: 10:54, 12 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 12 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 11:20, 12 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 22:04, 12 October 2006
 * 5th revert: 13 October 2006

Time report made: 23:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: User has asked to talk about the article before rolling back, however, duscussion turned into an "I'm right-your-wrong" marathon.

Comment: An administrator noted that KarlBunker violated 3RR. I have been trying to not respond in kind to him so I have not reported it. -THB 04:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Spartaz reported by User:Kevin Breitenstein (Result: 8h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:41, 8 October 2006

This will be a little unconventional, I apologise, but the context is neccessary.

Not within the window I'm using, but shows point:
 * 15:21, 12 October 2006 spartaz: his summary: "revert to version with correct tags for unverified images"


 * 03:45, 13 October 2006 70.52.72.33: edit summary "rv"
 * 12:36, 13 October 2006 spartaz: edit summary: "restore tag"
 * 15:08, 13 October 2006 spartaz: edit summary: "revert to last version with correct tags for unverified images"
 * 16:15, 13 October 2006 spartaz: edit summary: "This is my third revert. user:mikklai is being disruptive and removing tags on disputed images that WP:PUI requires them for disputed images"

Time report made: 01:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: At the RFCU on spartaz, the checkuser, UninvitedCompany, views the sockpuppetry as obvious. Thus, if the sockpuppetry is obvious, this is not only breaking the spirit of 3RR through an 'allotment' idealogy, but straight out lying about it. After the 3rd revert with an account, and 1 revert logged out, you say you've only done it 3 times, to escape the 3RR rule. Also note that a 4th revert was done by Spartaz's account a little under 45 minutes after the 24 hour window, not including the IP's revert. There's 5 reverts in a 25 hour period if we include the IP. Kevin_b_er 01:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

8h William M. Connolley 09:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User:TwoHorned reported by User:Hkelkar (Result: 8 to 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:49, 13 October 2006 and 17:59, 13 October 2006 both partial reverts amount to one full revert. See comments.


 * 1st revert: 17:59, 13 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:17, 13 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 02:20, 14 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 02:26, 14 October 2006
 * 5th revert: 02:51, 14 October 2006 (as anonymous ip 81.57.10.83: He just logged off and did it).

Time report made: 07:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: Each revert is slightly different, but all of them involve removing the word "researcher" as a characterization of the subject of the article with various bogus justifications provided.Hkelkar 07:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Did I forget to sign this? Oops. 8h, extended to 24h for anon editing William M. Connolley 15:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User:67.190.44.85 reported by User:Sparkhead (Result:)
Three-revert rule violation on . :

Reverts involve two sections of the same article:

First concerns a quote from the subject of the article, "All my loves"...

Previous version: Revision as of 21:55, October 13, 2006diff
 * 1st revert: Revision as of 22:34, October 13, 2006


 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 23:53, October 13, 2006

Combined with the multitude of mini-edits, it got quite annoying just to track down. The more obvious violation concerns a template for article improvement in the talk page: Previous version: diff


 * 1st revert: 22:56 Oct 13
 * 2nd: 1:35 Oct 14
 * 3rd: 1:44 Oct 14
 * 4th: 1:57 Oct 14

Note the comments to go along with the edits:


 * 22:52, October 13, 2006 67.190.44.85 (Talk) (article is better than a "B." I looked at other "B" articles, and most of them suck. The types of people who rate these articles are not very accomplished, otherwise they would have a real job. ,)
 * 22:54, October 13, 2006 67.190.44.85 (Talk) (Like I said, I have no respect for the "expert" opinion here. Delete!)
 * 22:56, October 13, 2006 67.190.44.85 (Talk) (Why is it so difficult to remove bullshit at the top of the page?)
 * 01:35, October 14, 2006 67.190.44.85 (Talk) (I challenge you to block me, especially considering that I wrote almost all of the article! See discussion as well.)
 * 01:44, October 14, 2006 67.190.44.85 (Talk) (Do you really think that you can block me from using Wikipedia? I am at a school computer now, so if you try anything, I'll just switch to the computer next to me!)

Time report made: 00:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC) (Updated)

 Comments: This user also made 36 "mini-edits" in the space of 3 hours, including some other minor reverts (lost track), and had the changes reverted by four other editors.  *Sparkhead  12:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No "prev version" so don't know 1st R is one. Any warning? William M. Connolley 15:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Note updated information above. Also note the editor has been reported by someone else on WP:AIV Seems like more than just 3RR, but with all the edits in a short timeframe can be difficult to track it all down.  *Sparkhead  00:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Wikima reported by User:-Justin (koavf)·T·C·M (Result: 8 / 48)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:15, October 13, 2006


 * 1st revert: 15:46, October 13, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 10:43, October 14, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 11:34, October 14, 2006
 * 4th revert: 11:40, October 14, 2006

Time report made: 16:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: Note that two changes were made since the old version to which Wikima is reverting; he did not take out the refernce to subsidies, but keeps on deleting the ones to napalm. Note also that my edits have not simply been reverts, but additional scholarly sources per talk. I've tried to discuss this on the talk page, but it's going nowhere. Wikima prefers to simply delete this information instead of putting and insists that credible sources aren't enough evidence. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No: user koavf has reverted 5 times within 24 hours the changes done by wikima:
 * 1st revert: 19:33, 13 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 03:49, 14 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 14:30, 14 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:27, 14 October 2006
 * 5th revert: 15:40, 14 October 2006

wikima has been discussing all the time and asking you not to revert his change and to bring evidence for the allegation of Napalm,but you koavf were not cooperative.--A Jalil 17:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jalil. I haven't seen that.
 * I think koav shoudl have informed me. It is sad that he reacts this way.
 * The topic on use of napalm is strongly disputed. I do dispute it
 * I do a huge effort to discuss things
 * I don't undertsand this action from someone who reverts almost every change that others do?

Cheers - wikima 17:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

8h for W (how can you say Please do avoid edit wars when you're edit-warring?). K gets 48 for edit-warring yet again, and will get a week nexxt time (in the unfortunate case of there being a next time) William M. Connolley 18:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok boss - No problem. I accept the rules
 * I asked him to avoid an "edit war" because I had opened a whole section with a special message only to inform him that we need to discuss as he is famous for his reverts.
 * Thanks anyway for your efforts - wikima 10:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I want report myself (Rex) and Ulritz (Result: 24h each)
Three-revert rule violation on, and.

I hope the administrators forgive me for not providing single diffs, but given the degree of edit warring it would be pointless.
 * Stahlhelm: 6 reverts within 1 hour.
 * Various terms used for Germans: 5 reverts within 2 hours.
 * Franconian languages: 6 reverts within 2 hours.

Time report made: 18:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments:

I'm so tired of this user. I've tried everything, discussing, mediations and at this very moment even an arbcom case ... it doesn't matter, he does not react and it does not interest him. This user has started a crusade against me.

Nobody is doing anything about him or his behaviour, and he gets away with everything: insults gaming the system, ruining wikipedia. Today I lost it. I could not stand his behaviour anymore. No matter how many references and sources I digg up that oppose him, no matter how wrong I prove him to be, no matter what I say, all I get are insults and reverts. People like him, honestly, should not edit wikipedia.

Please adminstrators, block me for the 3RR, block him, and please restore/protect the pages in question. Thanks in advance. Rex 18:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Not really whats for the best here. I've blocked you both for 24h, so if someone else wants to fix the pages, they will get a chance William M. Connolley 19:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Bov reported by User:Peephole (Result: 3h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:59, 13 October 2006


 * 1st revert: 23:21, 13 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 02:52, 14 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:38, 14 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:20, 14 October 2006

Time report made: 19:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: I reported user Bov for an earlier breach of 3rr on the same article. He was given a warning back then. 

3h William M. Connolley 19:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 5th revert: 00:48, 15 October 2006, removing a quotation from a cite I just added. Tom Harrison Talk 01:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Tannim reported by User:KittenKlub (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:03, 14 October 2006


 * 1st revert: 13:05, 14 October 2006 (AOL Sock puppet: 64.12.117.6)
 * 2nd revert: 15:42, 14 October 2006 (AOL Sock puppet: 64.12.117.6)
 * 3rd revert: 18:50, 14 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 21:39, 14 October 2006

Time report made: 21:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: User is using AOL IPs and was warned yesterday of a 3RR on the same page as well. The user is believed to be a suspected sock puppet of a banned user.

24h, since this is close to vandalism William M. Connolley 09:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You only gave him 3 hours and he just continued where he left off. KittenKlub 15:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops. Well I've given him 24h now William M. Connolley 16:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Yuber reported by User:Amoruso (Result:No vio)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:  and  or


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

Time report made: 00:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: The 4 reverts or partial reverts have to do with the order of the name of the region (Arabic/Jewish), the sentence about fedayeen incursrions to Israel and the addition of Arabs to the history passage about the Ghassanids. He has been given a warning before the report here but argued that he didn't violate it. Amoruso 00:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No violation occurred as my addition of the sentence about the Ghassanids looked nothing like the old version. Further, the switching of the order of the names is not unique enough to be tied to a previous version, and the removal of the fedayeen sentence was not a revert to a previous version either.  This report is very shoddy and shows no actual reverts but rather edits to an article.  Yuber(talk) 00:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It was exactly the same, it's classic reverts per WP:3RR. btw, among many, you actually were banned before on this article for 3RR, which is why ..... Amoruso 04:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * He didn't violate 3RR. Those were all one-time edits, and no edit warring occured.-- Koji Dude  (Contributions) 04:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course edit-warring occured... with me. Strange comment. Amoruso 04:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, from the diffs you provided it seemed like just regular edits. Either way, I count 3 reverts for each of you on that history page, and we all know 4 is nessecary for a block.-- Koji Dude  (Contributions) 04:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

User:81.154.252.34 reported by User:Jeff3000 (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:15, October 14, 2006


 * 1st revert: 19:03, October 14, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:01, October 14, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 00:24, October 15, 2006
 * 4th revert: 00:35, October 15, 2006
 * 5th revert: 00:49, October 15, 2006
 * 6th revert: 02:26, October 15, 2006


 * A diff of 3RR warning before this report was filed here. 19:25, October 14, 2006

Time report made: 00:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: Removing fact tags, and POV in a subsection. -- Jeff3000 00:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 09:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Dahn reported by User:NikoSilver (Result: 8h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:46, October 7, 2006


 * 1st revert: 00:28, October 15, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 00:56, October 15, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 01:17, October 15, 2006
 * 4th revert: 01:40, October 15, 2006

Time report made: 01:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments:

User keeps un-linking Constantinople from the intro. User is experienced in 3rr, as evident (ironically) from his last edit summary. •N i k o S il v e r• 01:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Further comment: User's attitude concerning the un-linking of Constantinople is totally inacceptable. Three users explained him why this link is necessary and he stubbornly insists in his opinion violating basic Wikipedia rules. The worse for me is tha lack of the necessary co-operation attitude Wikipedians should show.--Yannismarou 08:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that the prev version was quite old. OTOH its not that old, and Dhan has made reverts around then, so must be aware of it. 8h William M. Connolley 13:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Good thinking. That prev version was his rv for the same reason. •N i k o S il v e r•  14:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

User: 204.154.128.114 reported by User:Isarig (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:06, 15 October 2006


 * 1st revert: 03:08, 15 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 03:10, 15 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 03:12, 15 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 03:15, 15 October 2006

A diff of 3RR warning before this report was filed:

Time report made: 03:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: Abusive anon editor who uses racial epithets against other editors.
 * comment - 204.154.128.114 made 3 more reverts since then making it 7. I also have suspicions that he may be connected to User:Almaqdisi looking at his contribs and reverts about Palestine and Arabian Peninsula.   Amoruso 05:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

24h

User:74.33.2.89 reported by User:Diceman (Result: no block)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:12, 15 October 2006


 * 1st revert: 08:05, 14 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 09:57, 14 October 2006 DIFFTIME
 * 3rd revert: 06:23, 15 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:24, 15 October 2006

Time report made: 10:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: 3 reverts within a 24 hour period. To quote this page "Revert warring is disruptive, and the 3RR is not an entitlement to three 'free' reverts per day."

This is a loooong way outside 24h William M. Connolley 10:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You are a f*cking timewaster (go ahead, block me). It's only seven hours. - Diceman 06:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Bbb1992 reported by User:Panarjedde (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:25, 15 October 2006


 * 1st revert: 01:28, 15 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 02:34, 15 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 02:57, 15 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 11:59, 15 October 2006


 * Necessary only for new users: . Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.

Time report made: 12:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments:
 * His edits are also a violation to WP:POINT, since he wants to "protest" against the Turkish name in the page of the Greek city of Alexandroupoli.--Panarjedde 12:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Diffs not version please; but this is sufficiently obvious that I'll forgive you William M. Connolley 13:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Radiant! reported by User:John254 (Result: protected)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:

Note that this fourth revert is not an exact revert to ; however, Three-revert rule states that "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."
 * 1st revert: 09:48, 14 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 10:30, 14 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 07:59, 15 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 09:28, 15 October 2006

Time report made: 14:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

A nasty little fight where there shouldn't be one, but 2006-10-15T16:49:23 Centrx (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote: Edit warring [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) saves the day... William M. Connolley 18:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Pawel_z_Niepolomic reported by User:City-17 (Result: 8h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:23, 29 September 2006


 * 1st revert: 02:01, 15 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:30, 15 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 16:12, 15 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:20, 15 October 2006

Time report made: 16:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: Previous violation 00:21, 14 August 2006. Also just broke the rule on Lukas_Podolski. Claims it's the third revert, but he miscounted.City-17 16:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

8h. Sigh. William M. Connolley 18:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Sm1969 reported by User:Smeelgova SEE NOTES RE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT Sm1969 19:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC) (Result: 8h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:11, 14 October 2006


 * 1st revert: 04:38, 14 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 04:42, 14 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:34, 15 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:55, 15 October 2006
 * 5th revert: 19:01, 15 October 2006

Time report made: 18:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments:
 * User refused to wait until consensus had been reached on talk page, but instead continued to revert numerous times. Yours, Smeelgova 18:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC).
 * We have been going back and forth on whether this IS the promotion of copyright infringement. I don't think we are going to reach consensus.  Please have an administrator look at this.  I don't know the procedure for getting administrators involved, but Smeelgova is teaching me more about Wikipedia.

It appears that User:Sm1969 is using an IP as a sockpuppet to revert the disputed edit. John254 19:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This now places User:Sm1969 in clear violation of the 3RR, on the basis of    John254 19:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Apologize, I forgot to login. Sm1969 19:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC) (sm1969)


 * I have spoken with people at LE accountable and the request to remove was made by Art Schreiber on grounds of copyright ownership. The fact that Rick Ross will not post the video, and it was taken down from YouTube and Archive.org and that France 3 on its site only refers to LE's web site are strong indications that neither France 3 nor Landmark Education gave permission.  Wikipedia is not a means for promoting copyright infringement.  Please contact me by email on this site and I will put you in communication with people at LE.  Sm1969 08:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have verifiable, sourced information to back up this claim? Thank you, Smeelgova 18:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC).
 * That's not the good faith test. We now have several points indicating promotion of copyright infringement:
 * 1) France 3's web site no longer mentions the broadcast, but does post a reference to Landmark Education.
 * 2) It was taken down at both YouTube and Archive.org for "violating terms of use" and "issues with the item's content." (User Smeelgova posted the links to YouTube and Archive.org until both of those web sites took the content down.) Sm1969 19:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) The entity doing the translation into English subtitles does *NOT* identify itself (remains anonymous).
 * 4) Rick Ross, who has also promoted the video with links, will not host its content.
 * 5) The only entity that can make the rescission request is the entity that owns the copyright (to any or all of it).
 * 6) I think this is unambiguous evidence that it is copyrighted and that one of the copyright holders has invoked copyright.
 * 7) Please call the Director of Media Relations referenced at LE's web site for confirmation. With the evidence of infringement presented here, I feel you have the burden of proof if you want to keep promoting this video.
 * 8) This video is hosted nowhere legimately on the Internet such that the user can the purchase its content. (That's an assertion.) Sm1969 19:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sm1969 18:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * All of the above is a clear violation of Wikipedia No Original Research. So I ask again, do you have verifiable, sourced information to back up your claims?  Yours, Smeelgova 18:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC).


 * That is not the intended interpetration of "No Original Research." If someone else were to copy and distribute, on the Internet, an hour long episode of any television episode (as is the case here, actually 1 hour 5 minutes according to the video), the default interpretation would be that it IS copyright infringment, not that asserting it is copyright infringement is "original research."  I take the position that this is using the reputation and availability of Wikipedia to promote copyright infringement and an intent to have an encyclopedia "make news" rather than report on news.  Further, the fact that the translator will not identify himself/herself only increases the likelihood of copyright infringement.  You can not even find out who authored (e.g., Smeelgova) the English subtitles.  Sm1969 19:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC) Please call in the wikipedia administrators. 71.146.134.77 18:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * How about on the Wiki page for the "Beatles" you put a link to Google where you can get a free (copyright infringing, zero cost, illegal) hour long copy of a Beatles CD? Would you then say, "Well, it's original research." if someone argued that you did *NOT* have permission to do this? Sm1969 19:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't Wikipedia also cite the poster of the links to the copyright infringing material as violating wikipedia policy? Sm1969 19:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No even close to "in 24h" in the original. But with the sock, OK, 8h first offence William M. Connolley 20:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg reported by ParadoxTom (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


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

Time report made: 1430CDT, 15Oct06

 Comments: I placed a 'totally disputed' tag on the page, and listed my reasons for doing so on its associated Talk page. User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg refuses to engage in constructive debate and merely reverts away the tag, which is obviously necessary on a contentious article like that. Thank you.

24h William M. Connolley 19:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Nikodemos reported by User:-- Vision Thing -- (Result:)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:43, 23 August 2006


 * 1st revert: 00:10, 14 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:50, 14 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:27, 14 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:27, 14 October 2006

Time report made: 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: First of all, these were reverts of vandalism. User:Vision Thing reverted my edits out of hand with no explanation , and I restored them. Second, these are not, in fact, four reverts to the same version. You will notice that I changed an entire section of the article between "revert 3" and "revert 4": In fact, "revert 4" was not a revert at all, but merely an attempt to start a complete re-write of a section that had been removed by a third user because it was uncited (see the removal  and my rewrite ). -- Nikodemos 19:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Commodore Sloat reported by User:Isarig (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:59, 14 October 2006


 * 1st revert: 00:15, 15 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:05, 15 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:13, 15 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:25, 15 October 2006

Time report made: 20:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: Isarig's assertion that 01:59, 14 October 2006 was the version reverted to, is incorrect. In particular, the version is not identical to the version he claims is the baseline version. The current definition of revert given here WP:3RR is as follows:
 *  The result will be that the page becomes identical to how it used to be at some previous time. A partial revert undoes only some of those changes.

In summary, the definition currently says identical, and these versions are not all identical to the baseline version. Therefore I believe no blocking action should be taken in this instance. Nevertheless, I would ask that another admin please review this opinion. --CSTAR 21:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

PS. I've left a note for User:William M. Connolley to request a review.--CSTAR 22:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a complex revert, in that User:Commodore Sloat's changes have spanned a time period where other changes have also taken place (including changes be him to other sections). Nevertheless, the relevant part is the footnote, which in the baseline version reads "The Middle East Quarterly characterizes its mission as follows: "In the halls of academe, the Quarterly delivers a welcome balance to the many materials that relentlessly attack the United States and Israel.", and to this version it has been identically reverted by User:Commodore Sloat 4 times, as the diffs show. Isarig 00:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is, perfectly clearly, 4R. Quite what CSloat is up to is a mystery to me - he ought to know well enough this will get him blocked. And it has William M. Connolley 08:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

These notes need to be addes to this discussion. Administrators need to get Isarigs' Number. He reverts to lure and trap good faith editors into 3RR traps!!!!!!!!!!!!! The above two notes added by Will314159 18:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ha - nice one. Looks like you just violated the same rule, but I can't report you because I am now blocked. A wonderful display of good faith; have a nice day.--csloat 17:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * another b.s. block initiated by Isarig. Once he violated 3RR. I let him go. he turned me in. I got blocked for 24 hours. then I turned him in for his violation prior to mine that i had let go in a forginving nature, and it was ignored. he's a real prince. Sorry it happened Commodore. Call for help next time. take care! Will314159 18:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply to Will: Making these claims is pointless. If you believe somebody violated 3RR, then file a formal complaint. Otherwise, you are just soapboxing.--CSTAR 20:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Eupator reported by User:User:Caligvla (Result:No 3RR)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Time report made: 20:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: He is spreading libel and personal attacks--Caligvla 21:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Take it from a more experienced editor. That is not a 3RR violation: if he (or you) revert one more time though, then we will have a violation.--Tekleni 21:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Muggle1982 reported by User:Hkelkar (Result:already blocked)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:06, 15 October 2006


 * 1st revert: 15:13, 15 October 2006 Which he did as an anon ip
 * 2nd revert: 15:20, 15 October 2006 Which he did as an anon ip
 * 3rd revert: 16:06, 15 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 15 October 2006
 * 5th Revert: 16:23, 15 October 2006

Time report made: 21:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: This user tried to edit-war in Udit Raj and got blocked. He then used a block-evading sockpuppet that got indefblocked. he wisened up and used an anon to make 2 reverts and now logged in to make 2 more reverts. He is highly disruptive and is becoming a problem.Hkelkar 21:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Update: He has been pattern vandalizing Indian Caste System, messing up the renderings and putting bogus tags all over the article.I reverted his changes on the grounds that they are extremely vandalistic and unencyclopedic.Hkelkar 21:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Update:He persists edit-warring on Udit Raj and Indian Buddhist Movement. Please intervene as this user clearly has no respect for wikipedia rules and norms.Hkelkar 21:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Persists 3RR violation on Udit Raj Version reverted to:05:01, 11 October 2006
 * 1st revert 15:50, 15 October 2006
 * 2nd revert 16:34, 15 October 2006
 * 3rd revert 16:36, 15 October 2006
 * 4th revert 16:48, 15 October 2006

Hkelkar 21:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - Muggle has also removed sourced facts from the page that portray Udit Raj in a negative manner. As Hkelkar's additions were sources, BLP is no excuse for Muggle's reverts.Bakaman Bakatalk 21:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Muggle1982 is already blocked for 48h for vandalism. It appears to me that Hkelkar also violated the 3RR on the Indian Caste System but it might be a case of restoring a simple vandalism, I am not sure. Alex Bakharev 02:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User:66.233.115.220 reported by User:Eupator (Result:Warning)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th Revert:
 * 6th Revert:
 * 7th Revert:
 * 8th Revert:
 * 9th Revert:
 * 10th Revert:

 Comments: This was done 2 days ago and the page was protected but the anon whom I suspect to be a sockpuppet of user Caligvula has now returned.--Eupator 22:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments I can only speculate that this is a straw man sockpupet of Eupator, in an attempt to draw more fire on me. He has used racist insults, mass deletions and personal attacks because he doesn't like my RfC, now it would seem he is using technology to attack me. He has no evidence to support his POV and has been relentlessly disruptive to the community. Please take action.--Caligvla 22:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous. How would you support that accusation? A checkuser is in order.--Eupator 02:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User:69.116.237.67 reported by User: Khoikhoi (Result:8h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:04, 16 October 2006
 * 1st revert: 01:14, 16 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 01:15, 16 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 01:25, 16 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 01:33, 16 October 2006


 * Necessary only for new users: 01:18, 16 October 2006

Time report made: 01:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: Anon is trolling the Turkey discussion page. &mdash; Khoikhoi 01:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the anon for 8h for both 3RR violation and trolling Alex Bakharev 01:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User:ParadoxTom reported by PinchasC (Result: 1 week)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:17, 14 October 2006


 * 1st revert: 04:24, 15 October 2006
 * 2rd revert: 05:02, 15 October 2006
 * 3th revert: 14:35, 15 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 00:34, 16 October 2006

Time report made: 04:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: User was blocked 6 times in the past 6 weeks for 3rr violations on this article. The last 2 blocks were for a week each. See his block log. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  04:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

1 week (again) William M. Connolley 08:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Almaqdisi reported by User:Amoruso (Result: protected)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:10, 15 October 2006


 * 1st revert: 09:51, 15 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 06:57, 16 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 07:01, 16 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 07:03, 16 October 2006

Time report made: 05:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: Each time Almaqdisi reverted to include the word "mosque" and erased sourced info about history, but the four classic reverts on the mosque instead of shrine dispute. He has been warned many times on his user page of 3RR but continuously violated it .... and also used the word vandalism while violating. Amoruso 05:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

2006-10-16T06:19:08 Voice of All (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Dome of the Rock: Users engaging in edit warring. [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) William M. Connolley 08:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User:86.143.79.99 reported by User:Normalmouth 14:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC) (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * 1st revert: 08:10, 16 October
 * 2nd revert: 11:04, 16 October
 * 3rd revert: 13:01, 16 October
 * 4th revert: 13:40, 16 October

Time report made: Normalmouth 14:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

 Repeated deletion of factual, sourced information without explanation

24h William M. Connolley 17:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Eupator reported by User:Caligvla (Result: no block)
Three-revert rule violation on Talk:Armenia. {{3RRV|Eupator}:


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


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

Time report made: 15:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments:User:Eupator was warned several times by User:Aguerriero not to make blanket deletions and constant reverts, please take action
 * First of all, 3RR was not violated. Second of all an article's talk page is not your personal playground. You cannot repeat an existing RFC and nobody has made any requests. You created the redundancy to overshadow the overwhelming opposition your RFC received.--Eupator 16:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

you revereted it 3 times--Caligvla 16:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, in that case we can stop here, because 3RR requires *4* reverts. Please read the rules William M. Connolley 17:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Ernham reported by User:The359 (Result: 48h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: October 16 19:49 Original information that was edited by Ernham.


 * 1st revert: October 16 10:01 & October 16 10:03 by Ernham
 * 2nd revert: October 16 10:25
 * 3rd revert: October 16 11:40
 * 4th revert: October 16 12:20

Time report made: 16:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: User seems to have a problem with the use of the use of "Michael Schumacher insisted he had not made an error" instead of "Michael Schumacher insisted he was innocent," believing the first statement to be slanderous towards Michael Schumacher. However if Michael Schumacher believed he was innocent of cheating (the event that is being discussed), then the only logical conclusion is that he made an error instead of intentionally cheating. Therefore the statement is not slanderous, nor is there any real need to have it changed or to have the news article that was added removed.

User also believes that the addition of the news article about other teams in the sport complaining is somehow in violation of Wikipedia's policies when it is in fact a well documentated fact.

I should also point out that this same user is listed for 3RR on this page already from an earlier incident three days ago. The359 16:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

48h this time William M. Connolley 17:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Aadal reported by User:Gnanapiti Talk - Contribs (Result: no block)
VIOLATION violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:37, 15 October, 2006


 * 1st revert: 00:51, 16 October, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 01:53, 16 October, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 02:30, 16 October, 2006
 * 4th revert: 03:04, 16 October, 2006

Time report made: 18:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: In the Carnatic music article, the user has been consistently reverting the changes by other Editors and not providing enough citations. The issue has been extensively discussed here but the user still persists on keeping his versions. Multiple editors have been against his POV. They have even explained it to him on talk page. But he is still going ahead with his POV on the article page without any regard for the discussion on talk page. Gnanapiti 18:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

3R yes; but prev version isn't William M. Connolley 19:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User:81.117.200.27 reported by User:JBKramer (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 17:45, 16 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 17:34, 16 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 16:53, 16 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:13, 16 October 2006

User is clearly aware of WP:3rr - their final edit summary accuses me of vandalism to make a wikilawyering attempt to dodge 3rr. User is likley to be a Ruy Lopez sock.

Time report made: 18:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 19:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

===In response to User:Aadal case : User:Aadal reported by User:Gnanapiti Talk - Contribs (Result: 8h)===

VIOLATION violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:14, 14 October, 2006


 * 1st revert: 00:51, 16 October, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 01:53, 16 October, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 02:30, 16 October, 2006
 * 4th revert: 03:04, 16 October, 2006

Time report made: 18:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Koavf reported by User:Szvest 22:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC) (Result: 1 week)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:45, October 16, 2006


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 20:27, October 16, 2006
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 20:39, October 16, 2006
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 20:51, October 16, 2006
 * 4th revert: Current revision (21:14, October 16, 2006)

Time report made: 22:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments:
 * 3RR again after coming back from another 3RR infraction. I don't know if the 24h and the usual 48h period can make this user understand that there are rules and policies here to abide to. -- Szvest 22:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

1 week William M. Connolley 09:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Kdbuffalo reported by User:Andrew c (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:41, 12 October 2006


 * 1st revert: 20:00, 15 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 09:45, 16 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 11:22, 16 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 14:05, 16 October 2006
 * 5th revert: 19:54, 16 October 2006


 * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Time report made: 22:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: This revert involves removing information critical of the subjects arguments in a section specifically labeled criticism, and replacing it with praise. The first edit is a complete blanking of the information. Edit 2 and 3 are replacing the criticism with praise. And edit 4 removes one of the critical sentences, and replaces it with one of the praises (the other praise is moved to another section in another edit, and one criticism is left in). Also, user was reported last time they were logged in, but was not blocked because the 4th revert was 2 hours too late.

24h William M. Connolley 15:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User:75.35.132.212 reported by User:siafu (Result: blockedd elsewhere)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:59, 16 October 2006
 * 1st revert: 19:33, 16 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:45, 16 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:47, 16 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:19, 16 October 2006
 * 5th revert: 20:45, 16 October 2006

Time report made: 02:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: User warned by User:Khoikhoi. This is not the only page where this user is violating 3RR; seems to be going around removing images from pages on Chinese history for reasons obscure-- see user contributions.

 Comments: Using lead to blocking? Who said that?--Skyfiler 02:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

2006-10-17T02:43:07 ERcheck (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "75.35.132.212 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalism, numerous warnings) William M. Connolley 15:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Ryulong reported by User:Hbdragon88 (Result:No block)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:31, 15 October 2006


 * 1st revert: 20:45, 15 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:51, 15 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 20:55, 15 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:56, 15 October 2006

Time report made: 04:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: A content dispute (whether the Pink Ranger is second-in-command, not pure vandalism, so 3RR applies here.


 * I was dealing with an editor who has been blocked multiple times in the past for inserting false information and generally not helping the project. It can be construed as vandalism. Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 3RR can only be contravened in the case of "pure, simple vandalism" which this was not. Hbdragon88 05:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Still, this is also several hours after the fact. Neither myself nor the IP editor have touched that article in nearly ten hours. 3RR is not punitive. Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The spirit of the 3RR is to stop edit warring altogether, which usually entails a talk page dicussion (whcih wsan't even started). A 3RR is a 3RR. Hbdragon88 05:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's also dealing with an IP editor who is inserting new information about a television show that is over five years old. There are several newbies who won't take these things to talk pages; I've even been threatened by logged in users who think that they're little bit of trivia is important and needs to be added to the massive sections you see on those articles. Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This doesn't look like a straight-forward content dispute to me. I've looked through the histories and the IP was vandalising various Power Ranger articles at the time. I believe Ryulong was acting in good faith. No block, user to be cautioned. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User:KrishnaVindaloo reported by User:Levine2112 (Result: 8h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:28, 17 October 2006


 * 1st revert: 07:47, 16 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 12:56, 16 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:57, 16 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 02:06, 17 October 2006
 * 5th revert: 03:07, 17 October 2006
 * 6th revert: 10:15, 17 October 2006

Time report made: 04:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: This user seems hell-bent on pushing this POv of his in this article as well as the Pseudoscience. That's fine. But he is being uncooperative and all-to-quick to start revert edit wars.


 * Note also that
 * other editors twice (18:22, 16 October 2006, 22:00, 16 October 2006) made specific objections, on Talk:Chiropractic, to User:KrishnaVindaloo's edits. Both of these objections transpired between KrishnaVindaloo's 3rd and 4th reverts listed above, and he either ignored or failed to comprehend them (either way, his obduracy continues a pattern of problematic editing, cf. User talk:KrishnaVindaloo and especially Talk:Pseudoscience).
 * KrishnaVindaloo is aware of 3RR. -Jim Butler(talk) 05:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

8h William M. Connolley 15:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User:64.20.43.134 reported by User:Rotinaj (Result: sprotect)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 05:50, 17 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 05:56, 17 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 06:01, 17 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 06:20, 17 October 2006

Time report made: 06:26, 17 October 2006

 Comments: The last revert didn't erase all previous information, he merely added what he had been adding before. Still, this user will continue to vandalize the article if his ip is not banned.

There was an awful lot of anon edit warring going on so I've sprotected it. Hopefully that will allow regular users some peace to sort it out William M. Connolley 15:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Sarvagnya reported by User:Arya Rajya Maharashtra (Result: 12hr for disruptive conduct relating to this edit war)
Three-revert rule violation on . :

The above user has been reverting official warnings from his page again and again. He has been warned for the indiscriminate use of popups. But he keeps on removing them time and again.


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 06:25, 17 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 06:31, 17 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 07:12, 17 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 07:25, 17 October 2006

Time report made: 07:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Supreme_Cmdr reported by User:Ehheh (Result: 72h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:28, 15 October 2006


 * 1st revert: 11:56, 16 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 07:56, 17 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 08:14, 17 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 08:36, 17 October 2006
 * 5th revert: 09:11, 17 October 2006

Time report made: 14:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments:

Part of longstanding edit warring over the inclusion of an external link in the Derek Smart article. User's been blocked over this before, most recently last week on the 10th. Ehheh 14:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

72h William M. Connolley 15:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Nres reported by reported by User: Khoikhoi (Result:12 hour block)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:48, 16 October 2006
 * 1st revert: 16:00, 16 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:14, 16 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 21:32, 16 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:55, 17 October 2006
 * 5th revert: 16:35, 17 October 2006
 * 6th revert: 17:22, 17 October 2006


 * Necessary only for new users: 02:47, 17 October 2006

Time report made: 16:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: The 4th revert is the re-addition of the image there was no consensus to replace. &mdash; Khoikhoi 16:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In the 5th revert, the replaced the image again. &mdash; Khoikhoi 16:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Nres blocked for 12 hours. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Tannim reported by User:KittenKlub (Result: 48h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:22, 16 October 2006


 * 1st revert: 20:44, 16 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 02:20, 17 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 09:14, 17 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:19, 17 October 2006
 * 5th revert: 15:44, 17 October 2006

Time report made: 17:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: I am not party to this 3RR, but the same user is continously pushing 3RR and barely stopping to prevent it at Barbra Streisand and he was already blocked for 3RR on that page. The user is also a reincarnation of a blocked user who was banned because of multiple 3RR violations. KittenKlub 17:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

48h

User:Deeceevoice reported by User:Egyegy (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:59, 17 October 2006


 * 1st revert: 12:05, 17 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 12:36, 17 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 12:43, 17 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:53, 17 October 2006

Time report made: 18:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments:

Deeceevoice has been edit warring on the Great Sphinx of Giza for many months and violated 3RR on that article alone several times if you check out the article's discussion page. He's well aware of the 3RR rule as you can see from his history of innumerable violations. He also has an ongoing arbitration case. Egyegy 18:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 18:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Law82 reported by User:Tewfik (Result:24 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:14:39, 16 October 2006


 * 1st revert: 01:21, 17 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 01:33, 17 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 01:45, 17 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 05:56, 17 October 2006

A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here: 01:47, 17 October 2006

Time report made: 18:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: Blocked for 24 hours. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  22:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Isarig reported by User:csloat (Result:No violation)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:04, 15 October 2006


 * 1st revert: 11:40, 15 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 12:23, 15 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:17, 15 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 12:44, 16 October 2006

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

 Comments: His fourth revert was barely 25 hours after the first; the user is clearly gaming the 3RR, and in the meantime, he reported me for violating the 3RR, indicating clearly that he was well aware of the issue and reported me in order to censor my participation for 24 hours so that he could revert again as soon as his time had expired. This is a user who constantly uses reverts instead of constructive edits and frequently reverts without discussing the issues in talk (of the four items reverted, he only defended one of those issues in talk, for example). A block is clearly warranted for gaming the 3RR in this manner.--csloat 20:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Prior to reporting you, I alerted you on you Talk page that you had vioaated 3RR, and asked you to self revert to avoid being blocked. You refused. This is a bad faith report, of events more than 2 days old, which do not even constitute a 3RR violation. Isarig 20:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not "refuse." I didn't see your note at all until I had been blocked.  I have other things to do in life besides edit wikipedia -- check my user history and you will see no edits between your note and your reporting of my 3rr violation (how much time did elapse between the two anyway?)  If you wanted to show good faith you would have waited for a response rather than gaming the rules.  My report is not in "bad faith" -- I clearly indicate above why I think a block is warranted even though it is technically not a 3RR violation.  As you can see here, the 3RR "does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. Users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day."--csloat 20:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you have now fianlly taken the time to read WP:3RR, I'm sure you noticed this: "Historical incidents are of no interest — please do not report anything other than current and ongoing problems." Isarig 20:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No violation. If it had been 4 reverts in 24 hours and 5 minutes you might have had a stronger case. On top of that, this is an old case already. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's only an old case because I was blocked for 24 hours for revert warring. This is a problem with the process here -- when only one party in a revert war is blocked, it appears as an administrative endorsement of that side of the war.--csloat 22:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

ISARIG lives to abuse 3RR good faith editors and WP itself for another day. A sad occasion for WP, Maybe time for Citizendium. Best Wishes Will314159 01:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Will, your personal attacks are totally inappropriate here and anywhere else you might make them. I again respectfully request that you stop this kind of behaviour.  Tewfik Talk 04:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:81.154.252.34 reported by User:Jeff3000 (Result:sprotected)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:11, October 15, 2006


 * 1st revert: 02:27, October 17, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:36, October 17, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 00:19, October 18, 2006
 * 4th revert: 02:08, October 18, 2006


 * Necessary only for new users: A diff at 00:22, October 18, 2006 of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Time report made: 02:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: User was blocked for 3RR on the page a couple days ago. After the block was over, he returned to the page adding POV content, and deleting other verifiable information. He's been asked to come talk on the talk page, but ignores all requests for discussion. -- Jeff3000 02:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sprotected. It's not exactly 3RR, though he's playing games, so I've sprotected for now. Jayjg (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User:snowolfd4 reported by User:Trincomanb (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 04:14, 17 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 17:14, 17 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 21:19, 17 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 03:16, 18 October 2006


 * 3RR warning.

Time report made: 03:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments:

User User:snowolfd4 has gone on a spree blanking, vandalizing and pushing his POV on numerous Sri Lanka related articles. Here are the diffs: on LTTE, where he seems to have an deleted entire section coming up with some nonsense reasons. On Tamilnet: He is seeking to push his POV, on STF he has done the same : , on this page he has reversed the changes of a number of people. All of this has been done with no discussion, consultation with other users and unilaterally. He has thrown NPOV writing out the window and needs to be stopped. I think his problem is that I am not the only one complainning, number of editors have complained about his POV pushing and blanking for some time. We clearly need administrator intervention. Trincomanb

I should add, I just noticed he has also removed statements from the Sri Lankan Army section on human rights. He has consistently removed any statements he does not like without any form of discussion. Trincomanb 04:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

2006-10-18T23:16:42 Centrx (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Snowolfd4 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Edit warring on Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Simply, do not revert. Discuss disputed changes on the talk page.) William M. Connolley 20:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

User:TwoHorned reported by User:Bondego (Result:48 hrs)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 08:10, 17 October 2006


 * 1st revert: 10:52, 17 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 13:53, 17 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 08:57, 18 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 09:21, 18 October 2006

3RR Warning (and not a new user, not first 3RR violation)

Time report made: 10:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: User:TwoHorned's edits show an editing pattern that might violate WP:BLP, he is adding poorly sourced attacks on biographies of living people, and attacks them also on talk pages. --Bondego 10:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 48 hours. Is just back from a 3RR violation compounded by block evasion on the same page.

User:Avraham reported by User:Hossein.ir (Result:No violation)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:41, 18 October 2006


 * 1st revert: 06:29, 18 October 2006 Removing POV-statement, and also adding some information
 * 2nd revert: 12:37, 18 October 2006 Reverting various parts in one edit
 * 3rd revert: 12:52, 18 October 2006 Reverting various parts in one edit
 * 4th revert: 13:16, 18 October 2006 Reverting various parts in one edit

Time report made: 13:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: He's repeatedly calling others work vandalism. Although I've told him that this is against wikipedia guidelines, he told that this IS vandalism. Even if my edits were POV edits, he shouldn't label my edits vandalism, because of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I consider this a personal attack. The funny thing is that he's an administrator! --Hossein.ir 13:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No violation. First edit does not appear to be a revert, but rather the addition of information. Jayjg (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * From WP:3RR:
 * 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.
 * Also, you're also a frequent reverting pages Avraham reverts, and continuing his POV edits, so It's needed that some other administrator that is not in Wikiproject:Judaism involve in decision.
 * Hossein.ir 15:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is also a history of abusing administrative rights about you. You've protected the page Military and economic aid in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict in favor of User:Avraham's edits. diff. So I think you're not suitable for this decision.--Hossein.ir 15:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part", and he's done this with his first edit.--Hossein.ir 16:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reversion with the first edit, and articles inevitably get protected on the Wrong Version. I'm not sure what your statement about finding an "administrator that is not in Wikiproject:Judaism" means, but I'm not a member of that project, and your insinuation is ugly at best. Finally, don't accuse me of having "a history of abusing administrative rights", and don't strike my comments again. Jayjg (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Removing, and also adding some information means reverting. I can't understand why you're threatening me? What do you mean by "don't strike my comments"? Don't get angry. And also, I didn't accused you "a history of abusing administrative rights", I've just told that you've lokced a page, in favor of User:Avraham. If you're sad about what you've done, it's not my problem.--Hossein.ir 05:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This feels like you trying to pick a fight. Please do not do that. Try to remain civil. Jayjg is one of our most respected users. Saying he's protected "the wrong version" is not really proof of misconduct. We don't protect any particular version. And besides, if you compare Avraham's last version of the page with the one Jayjg protected, they aren't the same anyway. And the first edit listed here is not a revert as I stated on AN. --Woohookitty(meow) 09:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'm confused. Is "Removing " tag a revert or not?
 * Hossein.ir 11:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're not confused at all; you're picking fights, and now you're actually vandalizing the article itself, by inventing new policies. Your behavior is increasingly disruptive, and you seem to be editing solely for the purpose of edit-warring. Jayjg (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm confused because of your behavior. If you reread your sentences, you'll understand that "I'm under attck". What do you mean by "inventing new policies"? Anyway, I've heared enough of your personal attacks. Your comments are out of scope, because it doesn't change a thing about 3RR violation.
 * And about your words: "now you're actually vandalizing the article itself, by inventing new policies. Your behavior is increasingly disruptive, and you seem to be editing solely for the purpose of edit-warring", this is your opinion, and I don't want to care about it. But, please remain civil, and stop attacking on me, because your attacks made me scared. :-(. The nice thing about avi is he does his personal attacks with voice that can be considered as "voice of common". When he want to call someone a vandal, he says that "All the wikipedians think that he's a vandal". You're not even using that trick. Compared to you, he's a very cool guy. :-). Anyway, please talk about 3RR because I don't want to respond all your out of scope comments. Anyway, read Biographies_of_living_persons, writing style section for more information on what you call "invented rules". You can read parts of it here:
 * The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.
 * --Hossein.ir 16:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm ignoring most of your baiting, but I will point out that "avoiding an advocacy journalism point of view" does not mean that newspapers like the New York Times are not reliable sources when it comes to Biographies of Living People. Jayjg (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Not when the sentence was re-written by Kirby to remove the POV. I believe it would help if you read edit summaries. -- Avi 12:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a new rule invented by you. Precisely: "If I rewrite a section and revert it to restore an old version, it shouldn't be considered as a revert". Isn't it what you mean?
 * Hossein.ir 16:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

/sigh. No. I believe your facts are incorrect. Here are the diffs:
 * Kirby places POV tag 00:55, October 17, 2006
 * Kirby adds that the POV is that of the NYT to the article 01:41, October 18, 2006
 * I add more citations, and say that once the NYT is explictly mentioned, there is no longer a POV issue, so remove the tag.

So, I belive that both your understadning of wiki policy/guidelines as well as your facts are not correct. I believe that it would go a long way in helping you be a much more productice editor if you read up on these guidelines. Thank you. -- Avi 16:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part". So, this is a revert. The fact that you've added one or two more reference for this is not related to this.

--Hossein.ir 17:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you are not a native speaker of English, so I will try one last time. Kirby fixed the problem at that time, so the tag was no longer necessary. Kirby forgot to remove the tag after he fixed the problem. -- Avi 17:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:General_Nolledge reported by User:Flex (Result:24hx2)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:26, October 18, 2006 (with some additional minor changes by the reverter along the way)


 * 1st revert: 11:23, October 18, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 12:58, October 18, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 14:09, October 18, 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:16, October 18, 2006

Time report made: 19:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: This user has made some additional minor edits along with the reversions. I made overtures on the article's talk page and on the user's talk page. When I added a 3RR warning, s/he posted this on my talk page:


 * empty threats


 * Please stop vandalising the page and trying to remove content or I will get admins to block you.

In effort to provide full disclosure, I did prematurely warn General Nolledge, which I corrected, and General Nolledge was responding to that premature warning rather than my final warning.
 * 24 hours. Editor has been editing since late July, and it looks like a BLP issue as well. Jayjg (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Full disclosure" would have indicated that you violated 3RR as well.    You're both blocked now. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Flex is now violating his ban by editing as anonymous user on Hugh Ross (creationist). (I am too, but I've not edited any articles). This is a silly rule, why do you ban the vandals and not the people who are trying to introduce NPOV?
 * There's no indication that that IP is Flex, and I've done IP checks to make sure. You, on the other hand, are violating your block by editing here, Talk: pages, and even the articles themselves. I'm extending your block another 24 hours, and if you violate it again, I'll double that. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 13:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You violated your block again, and now your block is 48 hours. If you keep this up it will become permanent. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Sosomk reported by User:62.1.223.155 (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:15, 18 October 2006


 * 1st revert: 18:08, 18 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:16, 18 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:34, 18 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:47, 18 October 2006

Time report made: 19:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: User maliciously keeps inserting comments of a personal attack nature within my own comment in the RfA, thereby obstructing the sensitive procedure of the RfA and adding words in my mouth. He has been constantly advised not to by third User:Errabee in his talk and by me, but he responded with a WP:NPA  and reverted again. The user makes also personal attacks against offline admin User:Aldux, User:Ghirlandajo, and the RfA candidate User:Khoikhoi. Also, relative NPA report filed here. 62.1.223.155 19:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, user has been blocked before once for 3RR and therefore is aware about the procedure. He is also currently blocked for his persistent "NPAs and general disrupting behavior", despite multiple warnings. 62.1.223.155 22:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

2006-10-18T22:08:26 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Sosomk (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (personal attacks, non-response to warnings, and generally disruptive behavior) William M. Connolley 20:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Retsudo reported by User:Andrew c (Result:24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:25, 16 October 2006


 * 1st revert: 09:53, 18 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 13:41, 18 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 16:06, 18 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:20, 18 October 2006
 * 5th revert: 05:13, 19 October 2006
 * 6th revert: 06:59, 19 October 2006


 * Necessary only for new users: 18:40, 18 October 2006

Time report made: 00:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: The warning on talk was before the 4th revert. User read the warning, commented on my talk page about how they felt it was justifiable to break the 3RR rule, and then went ahead and broke it. Also, look at the history for that page for the 15-16th, there are 3 of the exact same reverts by the same user. --Andrew c 00:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours and warned about trolling. The user appears to be here just to POV-push in religion-related articles. We'll see. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 16:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Yukichigai reported by User:Ryulong (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:45, October 16, 2006


 * 1st revert: 19:23, October 18, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:40, October 18, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:46, October 18, 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:52, October 18, 2006
 * 5th revert: 21:48, October 18, 2006

Time report made: 01:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: A Man In Black had originally cut out all of the spammy links in the article, and then prepared to send it to AFD, until he decided to just merge what was salvagable into Deus Ex. Yukichigai then proceeded to edit war with AMIB, after which AMIB asked me to look into the situation. I read things over, and I reverted Yukichigai to the redirect created during merger, after which he reverted for a fourth fifth time and then called me a sockpuppet of AMIB.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

24h

User:BhaiSaab reported by User:Hkelkar (Result: no block)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:47, 18 October 2006


 * 1st revert: 22:13, 18 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 22:19, 18 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 22:19, 18 October 2006

Time report made: 03:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: While he has not made a fourth revert yet...

Then we can stop right there. This page is busy enough as it is without 3R reports. If you have problems, try WP:DR William M. Connolley 09:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

User:JdeJ reported by User:Tonycdp (Result: No clear violation)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 14:01, 18 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:59, 18 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 08:05, 19 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 10:00, 19 October 2006
 * 5th revert: 10:46, 19 October 2006
 * 6th revert: 07:53, 20 October 2006

Time report made: 11:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User warned on his/her talk page of the 3RR rule on Noel Malcolm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonycdp (talk • contribs) 11:12, 19 October 2006

Why was adding the fact tags a RV? Why was William M. Connolley 20:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you look at where tags have been added and the manner in which they have been added (i.e. on N. Malcolms contributions widely available on the internet). He/She kept putting them to make a point to protest against other tags that I've put in place to substantiate some ridiculous claims about a historian.


 * In his last revert today (the 6th) he continues with POV pushing without providing neutral sources people agree on. From the edits in the last two days you can see that his claims were reverted several times by various users. He keeps engaging in edit wars.Tonycdp 09:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Dahn reported by User:--Timor Stultorum 13:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)(Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


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

Time report made: 13:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, no. And this is Timor himself:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mircea_Eliade&diff=82409015&oldid=82162879
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mircea_Eliade&diff=82414262&oldid=82409188
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mircea_Eliade&diff=82417416&oldid=82416429
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mircea_Eliade&diff=82419851&oldid=82417897
 * Dahn 14:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Dahn made three reverts, not four, as required. I request the case to be dropped and Dahn to be more careful in the future. Revert warring will never solve the problem. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  14:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I feel I should add that, in-between the edits provided by Timor, I had actually added tags calling for expansion of certain sections. I believe that the actual objection is about "undue weight", not about "POV"; hence, the solution was to expand sections insufficiently dealt with (as per agreement on Talk:Mircea Eliade). Timor has re-added the tag which cautioned against "lack of neutrality", which is: a. not the case; b. in blatant disregard the fact that the questioned info is thoroughly researched and referenced. Dahn 15:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

24h for TS who has, amusingly, broken 3RR. Unlike D, who hasn't William M. Connolley 15:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

User:74.33.2.89 reported by User:ThomasHarte (Result:Warned)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:56, 9 October 2006


 * 1st revert: 3:35, 13 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 01:27, 14 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 21:53, 14 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 06:54, 15 October 2006
 * 5th revert: 20:13, 15 October 2006
 * 6th revert: 05:34, 17 October 2006
 * 7th revert: 0:13, 18 October 2006
 * 8th revert: 14:10, 18 October 2006


 * Necessary only for new users: 10:49, 15 October 2006

Time report made: 22:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: User 74.33.2.89 keeps reverting a reference in this template to the old 1990s console "Sega Mega Drive/Genesis" to the American-centric "Sega Genesis", contrary to the result of a poll held to decide the title of the main console article. They have performed 8 reverts to the article in the last 6 days, each time not justifying what they are doing. They are ignoring their talk page and the template discussion page. Though it isn't conclusive, the IP 74.33.2.89 is registered to Frontier Communications, Inc. in Rochester, NY and other IPs from the same ISP have been making similar unjustified edits regularly for almost a month.

The talk page for User 74.33.2.89 implies they have been doing something a similar thing to the Xbox 360 article, again without justificaiton for their edits. However that is not the main basis for this complaint.

Though the edits seem generally to avoid "3 in 24 hours", this report relies on the 3RR policy being "The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence" ... intended to stop edit wars. ... Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others. ... everting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context." I think this context justifies a ban in that the user is repeatedly reverting to a format already rejected by the wikipedia community without justification and is not responding to attempts to enter into dialogue.
 * Warned. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Davehas12 reported by User:Teiresias84 (Result: 8h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:


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



Time report made: 08:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: The editor appears to be a newbie. He seems to be determined to defend his view on what the page should look like, but otherwise seems resonable, and a modest sanction or even a warning may be sufficent.

8h for a first offence William M. Connolley 09:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Gaius Octavius reported by User:Armon (Result: Malformed report)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


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

Time report made: 09:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: User:Gaius Octavius's first 2 reverts apparently made while logged out (IP 67.55.7.195). It may be a newish user error, an attempt to game the system, or I may simply be wrong in making this report. Please check his IP for a match. I've given Gaius Octavius the option to self revert without result, or a denial that it's the users IP.


 * Not going to act on this, but I will say that next time, please give us diffs, not page states. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Psychohistorian reported by User:Will Beback (Result: Withdrawn)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:42, October 19, 2006


 * 1st revert: 18:58, October 19, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:31, October 19, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 12:06, October 20, 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:58, October 20, 2006
 * 5th revert: 17:30, October 20, 2006

Time report made: 17:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A revert which I didn't factor into my count as the one done at 19:31. It seems I did break the 3RR and am reverting that edit to bring me back within three. -Psychohistorian 18:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: The fifth revert was the result of him self-reverting, then re-reverting again. -Will Beback 17:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to withdraw the complaint since the editor undid his revert. -Will Beback 21:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

User:William Mauco reported by User:MariusM (Result: No previous version)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 20 Oct 02:44
 * 2nd revert: 20 Oct 14:48
 * 3rd revert: 20 Oct 19:12
 * 4th revert: 20 Oct 19:34

Time report made: 20:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: User:William Mauco is a suporter of separatist government of Transnistria and want to have the last word in all Transnistria related articles. In this article he is including a denial of the fact that the family of Transnistrian president Igor Smirnov owns the Sheriff company from Transnistria. In article's talk page we agreed that we don't have the stockholders list of Sheriff (company). I stated my position that, in lack of data, we should not mention anything about who owns this company, but User:William Mauco is pushing to have a paragraph with denial included in the article, without any proofs that the denial is correct.--MariusM 20:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's the 4th time when vandal engage in revert war. Severe block. User:Ianos
 * (This user is a sock, currently editing as 193.138.127.70. He added his comment here in order to delete two contributions from me. See ) - Mauco 14:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The four edits were not reverts per se, since there a development in information between the first revert and the four reverts, and Mauco attempted to change the section based on feedback. This cannot be classified as a revert war since there wasn't oscillation between two different page versions and there was no consistent removal of information. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 06:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The rephrasing done by Mauco was insignifiant, he didn't care about fedback as in talk page I told from the begining that I don't agree with any denial without proofs. The sentence "no credible analysts any longer claim that there are ownership ties linking the Smirnov family to Sheriff" is founded in all 4 reverts. I mention that I made previously other 2 reports for 3RR violation of this edit warrior, and, despite his violation, he was not blocked, only warned . Other wikipedian (User:Greier) who engaged in dispute with Mauco received 1 week block for 3RR violation, and it seems Mauco engaged meatpuppets to block Greier . Do we have double-standards in Wikipedia? This will affect the credibility of this wonderfull resource.--MariusM 08:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * He did, however, attempt to respond to the reverts with a rephrasing, which shows that this wasn't simply an outright edit-war (if anything, you deleted his content without changing it). In any case, the revert war has stopped, and I don't see why you're seeking a "prosecution" for prosecution's sake. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 09:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia rules should apply to everybody, if we allow double standards people will lose confidence in Wikipedia. This particular user very often make refferences in disputes about respecting Wikipedia rules, he should learn first to respect them.--MariusM 09:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but in this case, he has not technically broken the 3RR rule. There is nothing that can be done to block him according to Wikipedia policy. That Greier was blocked before may have been either justified or unjustified, I don't know anything about the case. If you like, I will ask three other admins to review this case, so we can get a broader input of ideas. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 09:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I definitely don't agree with you and I believe it was a 3RR violation, as the 3RR apply even in minor edits. Greier is already unblocked, his one week penitence passed, but it can be usefull to review with other admins the existence of double standards in Wikipedia.--MariusM 09:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I have asked two other admins: User:Jmabel and User:Bobo192. Bobo192 was picked at random. I'm definitely committed to ensuring that everyone feels that any admin decision or stance is justified and fair. If you like, you can also ask other users (preferably admins) for their input into this case. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 09:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for contacting me, Ronline. Though I do suggest that the easiest thing to do to stop yourself, primarily, from getting worried about the situation, is to continue letting your thoughts be known on the talk page, since you can discuss it as far as you want without worrying about administrative action being taken (within civil reason). Information, too, appears to have changed since. Let's concern ourselves with the validity of this information first and foremost. Bobo. 10:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this is what you're referring to, but the 4th revert as posted above by MariusM was made less than 24 hours after the first revert - i.e. 4 reverts were made in 16:50 hours. The question is over whether that fourth edit can be classed as a revert. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 10:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying this, that is what I had intended. I counted the wrong revert once, however, I must wonder whether the information that was present sixteen hours ago from the Wikipedia text was identical information as was present previously. Bobo. 10:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Awnsering to Ronline's request, I personall feel there isn't ground enough for a block; I can't help noting that an important information has been left out, that is the link to the previous version. Personally, I wouldn't block.--Aldux 11:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The following 2 comments were added here by me earlier, but blanked[ ] by a sock:

I am Mauco, the accused. User:MariusM consistently deleted a paragraph which is key to the article in question. Every time I restored it, I discussed it in the article's Talk prior. He replied, and I incorporated his concerns and changed the wording to accomodate him. These four restores are not identical, but improvements based on his input. I also answered him, in the article's Talk. He nevertheless wants the whole paragraph deleted, and seeks to block me (an editor which he has a content dispute with) because he has no other arguments for why the paragraph should not be included. - Mauco 01:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Mauco here again. Before you block me (which I hope you won't - please examine the page and its talk) I must also call your attention to some highly suspect and unethical behavior by my accuser, User:MariusM in his actions on this particular article where he violates WP:SOCK. Here, he advertises for a meatpuppet: at 22:59. He wrote in Romanian so English-only readers would not understand the request. He explained that he needed User:EvilAlex to delete a paragraph so that he (MariusM) wouldn't be caught for WP:3RR. Then, at 23:25, EvilAlex did as he was told with a misleading edit comment. Minutes later, at 23:31, MariusM then returned and deleted the evidence of his request, overwriting it with a meaningless comment on something else and a misleading edit log entry. - Mauco 02:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The last part of Mauco's message was already discussed on User:Ronline talk page and in the article talk page. I have to copy my comments also here:
 * Mauco, you enjoy playing with meatpuppets . Don't pretend you are virgin. You are one of my teachers about how to work on Wikipedia, as I have little experience here.--MariusM 15:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with this personal attack. I am glad, however, that MariusM provided the link so that everyone can judge my behavior on its merits, and not based on what he says. - Mauco 15:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The request to User:EvilAlex was after the 3RR report, in order to repair what Mauco damaged breaking the 3RR rule.--MariusM 15:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why the misleading request in Romanian, which admins don't understand? Both of you speak English. The language of this Wikipedia is English. When you did your cover-up and deleted the evidence, you did so with an ENGLISH comment to the meat puppet. - Mauco 15:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I add my opinion that 3RR rule violation is a technical issue, we should not transform it in a content dispute. Is irrelevant if Mauco's paragraph is valid or not (I believe not), as long as he broke the rule instead of following the normal path of WP:DR. I hope double standards are not tolerated in Wikipedia. Mauco was already warned twice for 3RR violation, without being blocked, if he will not receive a block now, this will be an encouragement for him to continue his behaviour.--MariusM 15:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And I add my own personal opinion that user MariusM is continually and purposely avoiding to engage in constructive dispute resolution in Talk pages, so as to force others into reverting him, possibly in order to give us "enough rope to hang ourselves" (he then files 3RR reports stealthily, without warning the other party to the dispute). When he himself gets to edge of 3RR, he then solicits meat puppets to continue this pattern of disruptive action. MariusM, may I point out that this is far from the first time that you solicit the same editor to help you in similar behavior. - Mauco 15:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Talk page of many Transnistria related articles show that I engaged very, very long discussions with you, but you are not constructive at all, , , , , . I tried even a formal mediation in an other article which you still refuse, against the opinion of all other parties involved and of Mediation Comitee. You are the only person against whom I submitted 3RR report (this is the 3rd time), as I didn't find anybody else with such unwillingness to constructive editing like you.--MariusM 16:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing the links. Admins who review them will no doubt reach a different conclusion than you do. I fully stand by my evaluation of the situation, as my editing record shows, my contributions, and the time that I spend on answering requests and doing fact running for these articles. - Mauco 16:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring is blockable regardless of whether it technically exceeds the numbers on 3RR. In this case, if either user warrants blocking, both would warrant it. —Centrx→talk &bull; 17:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As you did not quote the previous version reverted to, it's not possible to verify that there actually were three reverts here, so no block. Stifle (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

User:CC80 reported by User: Durova (Result:12 hours blocked)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 10:49, 19 October 2006
 * 1st revert: Revision as of 23:14, 19 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 12:10, 20 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 14:54, 20 October 2006
 * 4th revert: Revision as of Current revision (19:19, 20 October 2006)

Time report made: 00:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: I've recused myself from performing this block because I suspect this is a sockpuppet of someone I disputed with in the past. Wikipediatrix brought the recent behavior to my attention and I agree this violates WP:3RR.  Durova  00:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

First offence, 12 hour block. Robdurbar 16:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Bdean1963 reported by User:Messhermit (Result: Incomplete)
Three-revert rule violation on List of dictators.


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


 * Bdean was already warned by another user . He disregarded and keeps adding Fujimori to the list.
 * He does not provide sources and refuses to acknowledge that.
 * He has self-proclaimed himself as a "Human Rights Advocate", clearly promoting a political agenda here in Wikipedia.
 * Has being accused by several IP users of using "loaded terms" and "weasel words". Messhermit 03:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You have not indicated what he reverted back to, please provide the oldid of the page that he reverted to. Stifle (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

User:S Seagal reported by User:Hkelkar (Result: 12 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:

Multiple Partial reverts to 12:22, 19 October 2006 and keeps moving article from one title Indo-Bangladesh Border Conflict of 2001 to another Indo-Bangladesh War of 2001 against consensus.


 * 1st revert: 23:36, 20 October 2006 Partial revert to old content (Demonstrably false)
 * 2nd revert: 23:40, 20 October 2006 Note: the revert here is a page move to the old title of the article when it was created
 * 3rd revert: 00:04, 21 October 2006
 * 4th revert: Revision as of 02:53, 21 October 2006 Same as first revert
 * 5th revert 02:54, 21 October 2006 Back to page moves

Time report made: 08:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: User acts against consensus and carries out disruptive page moves and revert-wars.Hkelkar 08:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3rd revert is a 404, but the other four are valid, so 12 hour block. Stifle (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Mig11 reported by User:PaxEquilibrium (Result: Blocked until 5am)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:24, 19 October 2006


 * 1st revert: 17:10, 20 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 17:10, 20 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 09:22, 21 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 10:23, 21. October 2006

Time report made: 18:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments:
 * Blocked until 5am. Stifle (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

User:81.154.252.34 reported by User:Jeff3000 (Result:)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:13, October 20, 2006


 * 1st revert: 02:33, October 21, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 10:54, October 21, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 16:43, October 21, 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:41, October 21, 2006
 * 5th revert: 02:39, October 22, 2006
 * 6th revert: 03:23, October 22, 2006
 * Necessary only for new users: A diff at 17:10, October 21 of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Time report made: 18:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:40, October 21, 2006


 * 1st revert: 16:42, October 21, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:43, October 21, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:57, October 21, 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:03, October 21, 2006
 * 5th revert: 02:39, October 22, 2006
 * Necessary only for new users: A diff at 19:00, October 21 of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

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

Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:05, October 19, 2006


 * 1st revert: 23:08, October 20, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:44, October 21, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:55, October 21, 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:26, October 21, 2006
 * 5th revert: 02:38, October 22, 2006

 Comments: The user has been blocked for 3RR twice this week (once at 99 Names of God, which had to be semi-protected after he returned, another time at Islam in China). He's additionally been blocked for modification of cited numbers, addition of copyright info, and vandalism. In this round, he's going against the source that is used in the page for consistency. He's been reverted by two other editors, and asked to come to the talk page multiple times in multiple cases, but refuses. He's also bypassing NPOV in Islamic view of miracles. -- Jeff3000 18:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Dasondas reported by User:Yas121 (Result:No violation)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 16:16, 21 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 21:27, 21 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 21:48, 21 October 2006
 * 4th revert: DIFFTIME

Time report made: 22:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: I told this editor discuss changing contraversial articles 1st on the Talk page and then warned him on his talk page about the WP:3RR rule after Rev 3 times but he just delted it from his Talk page.


 * One needs four reverts in 24 hours, not three, to violate. Secondly, the way this report is formatted, the first Diff is the original edit, so there are actaully only two reverts. -- Avi 07:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:69.86.190.128 reported by User: Tbeatty 23:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 16:27, October 21, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 16:23, October 21, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 16:16, October 21, 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:30, October 21, 2006

Blue Tie reported by User: IronDuke (Result:No violation)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * Here is the first one:


 * The second: (as IP)


 * The third:


 * The fourth: (this is a separate issue, but the removal of the category is a different revert).

 Comments: This is relatively amicable, for a 3RR dispute. I warned Blue Tie, he responded that he felt he had not violated 3rr, but wanted me to report him if I still felt he had, so he would know if he had. If he has, I don't think he should be blocked, just invited to self-revert. FWIW. IronDuke 01:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Blue Tie's edits do not appear to constitute a 3RR violation, since the second, third, and fourth reverts were consecutive, and Three-revert_rule states that "Consecutive edits by the same editor are considered to be one; thus if an editor makes three separate successive edits, each of which reverts a different section, but with no intervening edits by other editors, this is counted as one revert."John254 01:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No violation per John254's citation from WP:3RR. There are only two net reverts here. --Core des at 08:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Isarig reported by User:csloat (Result:No violation)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:14, 14 October 2006


 * 1st revert: 18:25, 16 October 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:27, 17 October 2006
 * 3rd revert: 07:29, 18 October 2006
 * 4th revert: 07:38, 19 October 2006
 * 5th revert: 07:51, 21 October 2006
 * 6th revert: 14:02, 21 October 2006

Time report made: 01:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: Not actually a 3RR but 6 reverts in as many days; user is gaming 3RR. I have reported him for this before and there was no action; thus, he keeps doing it. I don't even disagree with his edit but I do disagree with his insistence on making his point by reverts rather than by using talk or by seeking other opinions. He seems to believe he is above other users here. Every time I have an interaction with him, he attacks me personally and reverts my changes until I bend over backwards to make a change acceptable to him. Perhaps a block is not in order, but someone should at least let him know that such behavior is not appropriate on Wikipedia.--csloat 01:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yet another bad faith report. Read the comments that were given to you the first time. I have in fact been using Talk, with you, and as you note, we have both agreed with the version I am reverting to. The users who I am reverting are the ones not participating in the Talk discussion. User Will314159 has made the same 6 reverts in 4 days, has not participated in the Talk discussion that you and I had, and yet you don't see fit to claim he's gaming the system. The bad faith here stinks to high heaven. Isarig 04:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Isarig is good at wikilawyering and throwing up smokescreens but not at substantive communications. Just do a search on this noticeboard and you can see how many controversies he's been involved in and how many people he's trapped or goaded in 3RR violations by refusing to interact reasonably. Maybe this attempt by CSloat will make him a better editor. Best Wishes. Will314159 04:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Seeing as you made as many reverts as me on this article, in a shorter period of time, and without providing any justifications for your edits on the Talk page, I would be a little more cautious about throwing around allegations, if I were you. Isarig 04:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Will should get a warning too, as should I when I get sucked into your edit wars. Frankly, none of us should be revert warring.  I singled you out because I followed an edit summary that claimed you had violated the 3RR and because I have gone through this with you recently.  The problem is that I am willing to discuss things and make compromises to other points of view in order to come up with a page that is acceptable to people from different POVs; you are not willing to do so yourself -- you simply keep reverting until the other side gets tired.  The fact that you keep yourself to three reverts a day just means you know how to game the system and it shows your revert wars are part of a methodical strategy rather than a heated response to frustration (which is how I would characterize mine.--csloat 09:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. It's 'my edit wars', and you just 'get sucked into' them. I find your description here to be dishonest. I am quote willing and capble to compromise, and have done so on many occasions. I am willing to do this with editors who discuss their POV. Isarig 14:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, it is not acceptable to evade the 3RR by using an anonymous IP to make your edits. I'm not positive  is you, but it is mighty suspicious that he comes in to make the same edit you are making.  A checkuser may be in order.--csloat 10:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no idea who 24.68.240.196 is, and I deeply resent your baseless allegations. My IP is 71.202.97.61, as can be easily determined. Isarig 14:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No violation. This board is for reporting 3RR violations, not "6 reverts in 6 days". Please stop wasting time with this and similar reports. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Yas121 reported by User:Dasondas (Result:Violation, but blocked for two months for other reasons, so block here would be moot.)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:


 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:


 * 4th revert:

Time report made: 02:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

''' Comments: I posted a note to his user page here and only made this report after noticing that he was still logged-in and editing at Wikipedia while apparently ignoring my request. I also note that earlier in the day he made a rather uncivil request of me here regarding the same policy, although I had only made two reverts'''

You should put the time stamps on the diffs, it makes it easier, but Yas, this is an example of four reverts in 24 hours. The original version is 10:03, 21 October 2006, and you have changedback to that four times within 15 hours, and placed an inappropriate warning on Dasondas's talk page. If anything, you should have used the warning, but instead you used the violation when he was not near violationg 3RR. But as you are blocked for two months for rascist trolling as it is, any 3RR block will likely be concurrent and then moot. -- Avi 07:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)