Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive33

User:65.96.234.178 reported by User:Strothra (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 04:34, 6 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:12, 6 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:18, 6 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:25, 6 December 2006
 * 5th revert: 15:42, 6 December 2006
 * 6th revert: 15:58, 6 December 2006

Time report made: 20:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: Anon editor repeatedly adds the same irrelevant mass to the article and does not discuss for weeks. Warning --Strothra 20:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 21:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Nexm0d reported by User:Fossa (Result:8hour block)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 10:49
 * 2nd revert: 11:43
 * 3rd revert: 18:53
 * 4th revert: DIFFTIME

Time report made: 00:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

 Comments:

This is a natinalist dispute. The current user would like Bosnian-born of Bosniak/Serb parentage to be a Serb. He changes her birthplace in from Zvornik to Srpska Varos (really "Novy Varos" in official terms) despite the source from her own official website stating the she was born in Zvornik ("Rođena je 23. aprila 1981. godine, ( na izmaku prvog sata toga dana), u Zvorniku, u Bosni i Hercegovini") Fossa 00:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * An 8 hour block for first violation and because the user has a reasonable long term record on Wikipedia. --Robdurbar 10:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

User:WarHawkSP reported by User:Beaker342 (Result:12h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 11:55, 6 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:25, 6 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 23:31, 6 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 00:10, 7 December 2006

Time report made: 01:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: Persistent edit warring despite warnings, unwillingness to work to consensus, and use of misleading edit summaries, etc. Beaker342 01:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Fighting for Justice reported by User:Netscott (Result: no block)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:37, 6 December 2006


 * 1st revert:06:50, 7 December 2006


 * 2nd revert:06:58, 7 December 2006


 * 3rd revert:07:02, 7 December 2006


 * 4th revert:07:13, 7 December 2006

This user has filed a 3RR report before and is familiar with what 3RR is never-the-less he was warned at 07:26, 7 December 2006.

Time report made: 07:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Very clear cut case of simple 3RR. User:Fighting for Justice has been reverting across two separate editors. (→ Netscott ) 07:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

self-rv William M. Connolley 09:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 04:32, 5 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 13:10, 6 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 13:51, 6 December 2006 - abuse of popups to rv content dispute
 * 3rd revert: 13:56, 6 December 2006 - same as above
 * 4th revert: 15:08, 6 December 2006

Time report made: 09:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

 Comments:
 * User has a history of 3RR violations Hkelkar 09:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 10:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Later unblocked by Samir as it was discovered that 2 reverts were due to BhaiSaab reverting vandalism. See this - Aksi_great (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Tajik reported by User:Baristarim (Result:No violation)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Time report made: 11:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: User has a history of 3RR violations. This article was unprotected only yesterday after this user asked for its unprotection. Insists on removing the Turkish name present in the intro. Just for WP:POINT he also included the Italian and Polish  names, which was immediately reverted by an administrator per WP:Point. User has just come out of a 48h block for incivility, and there was a discussion at the ANI about this. I don't what could be done to stop this, the user has been warned many times... Baristarim 11:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it, later reports have been taken care by admininstrators, but why hasn't anyone touched this? It is a clear-cut case. I had warned this user that he was breaking 3RR and asked him to revert himself, about 24 hours ago.. Not only he disregarded that post, he continued editing in other articles and the very same article, again, 24 hours after. I have still not reverted him since I do not wish to start an edit-war, and would prefer that this issue be taken care in a more mature way. I hadn't reverted his fourth edit in the first place since I would have also broken 3RR. Heck, maybe I should have, considering that it has become ok to break 3RR lately for some reason :)) Baristarim 01:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This isn't a 3RR vio. The reverts are here, here and here. What you have listed as the "first revert" isn't a revert. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A revert is defined as an edit, not the simple act of taking out something. Are you joking? :)) There were four edits where the same exact deletion is done in the space of 6 hours, since when has the definition of edit and revert changed? As soon as the article gets unprotected, and he removes the name in question four times in the space of six hours, that is a 3RR vio. Baristarim 10:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * From the WP:3RR: "A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word (or punctuation mark)." Can someone else please take a look at this? This user has already broken 3RR in another related article couple of hours ago. Baristarim 16:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not a violation. While what the policy says is true, a revert is essentially an act of "undoing" someone else's edit (whether that's adding or removing something) and restoring a previous version of something (it need not be the whole article, it could be a punctuation mark). The first cited edit is not a revert.--Euthymios 17:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I just scanned Tajik's contribs for the last two days, and I see no evidence of any 3RR violations anywhere. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Because... the version reverted to still has the disputed "turkish" in it William M. Connolley 17:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Have I been living in a different logical dimensions? The first edit done was also a revert since it was the deletion of the contribution of another editor. Who do you think put the deleted info there in the first place? Aliens?? Of course it was the contribution of another editor. The first edit was a revert, the article was just coming off protection. That's the reason why there was such a long wait between the revert of that info. Because the article was protected. The user asked for its unprotection, there were two WP:POINT edits that were reverted by an admin + 4 reverts. Have the rules of logic and common sense completely changed?? :) What concerns me is no longer the merits of this 3RR vio, it is simply the logical inconsistency. From [[WP:3RR]: A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word (or punctuation mark). 


 * If the concerned administrator had said that he didn't see the need for a block even though there was 3RR vio, that would have been perfectly fine and understandable. However, what is baffling is the fact that it has been closed as "no vio".. Weird, that's all.. Baristarim 18:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Davkal reported by User:InShaneee (Result: 3 days)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * 1st revert: 06:37, 7 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 08:04, 7 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 08:35, 7 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 10:06, 7 December 2006

Time report made: 16:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

 Comments:


 * As diffs show, user was warned more than once.
 * Note also that this user has a history of 3rr violations as well as incivility.


 * Blocked for 3 days. JoshuaZ 17:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Paul Raj reported by User:Venu62 (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:14


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

User:Paul Raj, aka User:Vaikunda Raja uses his real userid as well as a number of ips in the range 61.1.210.xxx has been inserting links to Ayyavazhi in numerous articles despite the community's concerns about its notability and the appropriateness for inclusion in a summary article. This user has created dozens of articles on thie 'religion' and inserted numerous links from unrelated articles. He will not listen to reason as numerous discussions have taken place in other related articles:,. Parthi talk/contribs 19:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 21:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

User:RunedChozo reported by User:Itaqallah (Result: 3d)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:29, 6 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 23:00, 6 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 16:10, 7 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:20, 7 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 21:00, 7 December 2006 (almost a complete revert bar an extra sentence he adds in)

Time report made: 21:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments: he has also been making aggressive personal attacks for which he has been reprimanded in the past, describing my latest edit as an "islamist coverup", and has also been acting in an uncivil manner on Talk:Beit_Hanoun_November_2006_incident. he was in fact banned very recently for behaving in exactly the same way.  ITAQALLAH  21:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

3d William M. Connolley 21:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Comments: He also made a baseless by no means supported accusations about sock-pupperty - as it cn be seen here. Also, he made two other 3RR rule violations on November 24, and November 25 on the same article.

Time report made: 00:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, that sockpuppetry allegation looks valid to me, as both User:Nova Nova and User:71.252.81.35 are reverting to the same version. Anyway, there's no 3RR violation here, as there are three diffs above, not four. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:23, 6 December 2006

Time report made: 14:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1st revert: 04:12, 7 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 00:42, 8 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 01:31, 8 December 2006

 Comments: These are only the last 3 reverts in 24 hours. Deathrocker's focus on this article seems to be limited to my and another user's edits. User does not contribute to talk page regarding the relevant subject matter. User has a history of 3RR violations, blocks, and uncivil behaviour. He has been reverting the same edits for over a month:
 * 11:31, 25 November 2006 Note his edits to misspell 3 correctly spelled words, and uncivil behaviour.
 * 14:20, 13 November 2006
 * 22:52, 10 November 2006
 * 21:59, 7 November 2006
 * 17:51, 5 November 2006
 * 14:12, 4 November 2006


 * No block. Deathrocker has only reverted three times in the last 24 hours; it takes four to violate WP:3RR. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Deathrocker is on revert parole. Violations are typically reported here. Dmcdevit·t 08:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 24 hours. Sorry for stepping on anybody's toes. Luna Santin 21:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Jobjörn reported by User:Itake
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:46, 5 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 14:46, 5 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:22, 5 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:26, 5 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 21:09, 5 December 2006

Itake 19:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Itake 19:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Srkris, [User:59.92.50.88], User:59.92.59.162 reported by User:Venu62 (Result:)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

Time report made: 20:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: User:Srkris is under a one week block for various violations including WP:AGF, WP:COPY, WP:V, etc. He has now returned before the block finishes and has been editing anonymously. He has been deleting text from the Carnatic music article and blanking out his user page. He has also been leaving fake warnings in my Talk page. - Parthi talk/contribs 20:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Vernyhora reported by User:Kuban kazak (Result: 8h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:44, 6 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 23:55, 6 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 22:09, 7 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 11:41, 8 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 13:47, 8 December 2006
 * 5th revert: 22:30, 8 December 2006

Time report made: 22:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: User is new on wikipedia, but for his contributions seem to be focused on one artilce only. Over the last month the article has survived repeated attacks of different users and anons who keep on wrongly categorising the article, even though the lengthy discussion on talk pages and the consensus that was driven out of that indicates the opposite. Examples of this is User:LuisMatosRibeiro, who despite numerous warnings continued to add the controversial category. Hence I have reasons to believe there is sockpuppetry involved, reasons include careful timing of the fifth revert and knowledge of wiki terms and edit summaries. Has been warned of repeated vandalism and Personal attacks, and of 3RR. --Kuban Cossack 22:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

8h William M. Connolley 10:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Kiske reported by User:C33 (Result:)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * 1st revert: 19:04, 7 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 12:04, 8 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 12:52, 8 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 14:03, 8 December 2006

Time report made: 23:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: User has engaged in an edit war to remove the word "dictator" from the article. He has made the identical edit 4 times in the last 24 hours.

But you've forgotten the "prev version", which is in the template for a good reason. Can you work out what that reason is? 09:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC) William M. Connolley 17:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:49, 8 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 12:35, 8 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 02:08, 9 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 02:46, 9 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 04:20, 9 December 2006
 * 5th revert: 17:06, 9 December 2006

 Comments: User has been making the same edits, more-or-less over and over in spite of several other editors asking him not to. --BenBurch 17:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 17:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Crculver reported by User:129.12.200.49 19:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC) (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:11 8 Dec 2006


 * 1st revert: 17:27 9 Dec 2006
 * 2nd revert: 17:36 9 Dec 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:10 9 Dec 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:40 9 Dec 2006

User:Privacy reported by Aldux
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:36, 5 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 23:21, 8 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 23:25, 8 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:05, 9 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:31, 9 December 2006

 Comments: Had been previously warned of the 3RR, has been constantly attempting to impose his pov on all the other editors.--Aldux 20:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

24h. Claims "rvv2 but I can't see the V William M. Connolley 20:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 16:43, 9 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:03, 9 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 22:13, 9 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:54, 9 December 2006

 Comments: Quite obvious as first revert was without saying anything, and after it was rather "attacking" Finnish users who disagree and have provided points. His comments "And as I repeat, only you Finns have this obsession", "If you Finns think SU didn't win, all the rest of the World think it did, so it's your problem.". These kind of comments can easily heat up people. However no points provided.. --Pudeo (Talk) 21:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

First offence and no warning (before reverts) so 3h. Also "sock" blocked William M. Connolley 21:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Rjensen reported by User:ProhibitOnions (Result: 31h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 2006-12-08 11:38:15


 * 1st revert: 2006-12-09 10:55:14
 * 2nd revert: 2006-12-09 11:51:09
 * 3rd revert: 2006-12-09 23:19:53
 * 4th revert: 2006-12-09 23:30:33
 * 5th revert: 2006-12-10 00:37:16
 * 6th revert: 2006-12-10 07:48:44

 Comments: This user seems to have an issue with the sourced fact that Nelson Rockefeller died in the presence of his aide Megan Marshak. User has removed text from the talk page on this subject and changed rationale for revert several times. May have personal ties to the case. As I have edited this article recently, I can take no action. Pro hib it O ni o ns (T) 23:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 31 hours. Khoikhoi 10:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User:68.5.242.136 reported by User:Captain Spyro (Result:)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:17, 9 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 23:17, 9 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 22:24, 8 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 20:41, 8 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:21, 8 December 2006
 * 5th revert: 01:30, 8 December 2006
 * 6th revert: 16:31, 7 December 2006
 * 7th revert: 02:17, 7 December 2006
 * 8th revert: 23:15, 6 December 2006
 * 9th revert: 22:04, 6 December 2006
 * 10th revert: 16:37, 6 December 2006
 * 11th revert: 23:46, 5 December 2006

Comments: This is my first time doing the 3RR report. Now, the problem lies in a revert war. This has been going on the past few days. The member refuses to listen to the other editors and continues to revert. He has accused us of whitewashing and conspiring to hide the truth. Constant POV pushing. He has been banned twice before for vandalism and has done this during the summer as well. The 3RR was violated yesterday, but he reverted it recently again today and as I said, this has been going on for the past few days.


 * Where was the 3RR violated? Please provide diffs. Khoikhoi 10:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have provided 12 reverts. To be honest, they are all the same, but they are proof of an 'edit war,' if you will. It started days ago when I attempted to write a statement in a neutral way as it felt way too one-sided and he reverted it back and it continued from there.Captain Spyro 03:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:27, 5 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 06:57, 10 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 07:05, 10 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 07:16, 10 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 07:24, 10 December 2006


 * Although not necessary user was warned before final revert.
 * just out of curiosity: do you care to put a diff or the warning?--RedMC 05:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See 4th revert. Amoruso 06:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

 Comments:
 * the first revert was actually my first edit. I was not aware someone, in the past had made changes similar to mine.--RedMC 05:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * you were perfectly aware as obvious from the talk page. It's not similar changes, it's an exact revert in a known dispute. Amoruso 05:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * this is a mis-representation of truth. i was aware there was a discussion on the matter, but i was not aware someone else already changed the page (note that there are some inconsistencies between the "Previous version reverted to" and the reverts.--RedMC 05:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It does not matter if you were aware of the previous edit or not - you made repeated (4) changes to other editors' work, and as WP:3RR clearly states: " a revert, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word (or punctuation mark). Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting." Isarig 05:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The first edit was my contribution, it was not an undoing.--RedMC 06:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. You undid the previous wording ("captured"), and replaced it with your own. That you incidentally re-created a version that was already there 5 days earlier is beside the point. Isarig 06:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Uhm... but if the fact that my edit re-created a previous version is "beside the point", why it is presented as a proof against me?--RedMC 06:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

8h William M. Connolley 11:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Richardmalter reported by User:Crum375 (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:53, December 8, 2006


 * 1st revert: 11:54, December 9, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 21:12, December 9, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 04:43, December 10, 2006
 * 4th revert: 05:06, December 10, 2006

 Comments:
 * See also User:RichardMalter for previous block history of same user. Crum375 06:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See also this previous 3RR warning (which was ignored and resulted in a block). Crum375 06:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that Yoshiaki Omura and BDORT are now the same article (merged). All past 3RR violations/blocks are on these/this article(s). Crum375 07:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 11:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Amoruso reported by User:RedMC (Result:48 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:39, 7 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 07:10, 9 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 05:31, 10 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 06:00, 10 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 07:14, 10 December 2006

 Comments:
 * Actually 4 reverts in 24h and 4'...--RedMC 06:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not only you miswrote this report, you also don't know how to count 24Hrs. Also, please stop your vandalising to that page incidentally. Amoruso 06:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 48 hours for second violation. 4 minutes from 24 hours is not an appropriate reason, and reeks of gaming. Also, characterization of others' edits as vandalism when they are clearly not (see WP:VAND) is uncivil. Dmcdevit·t 11:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * User unblocked by User:Crzrussian after 12h, with the following reason: "No response from Dmcdevit. 24 hours and four minutes is not 24 hours - and 3RR is a precise tool - so time served is enough IMO. Accusation of incivility is "pulled up by the ears", as we say in Russian."--RedMC 00:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a bit suprising to see that this editor who was clearly gaming the system has since been unblocked by User:Crzrussian. 09:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I and dmcdevit have both already placed a barb or two on his talk page. Maybe someone should also point outu this discussion here. -Patstuarttalk 09:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I am here. I don't think 3RR should be used in this fashion - to be extended to not-quite-3RR situations in order to justify other concerns. If you want to block an editor, find a reason (gaming the system is a fine one) and start a discussion on ANI. - crz crztalk 13:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's safe to assume that long time admin User:Dmcdevit's judgement in making the blocking call was fine here, there is no need to clog up ANI for clear cut cases like this. Bear in mind that the other editor involved here himself was just blocked for 3RR on a report filed by User:Amoruso. 13:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * For an appropriately non-punitive 8h, which is about what Amoruso served. - crz crztalk 15:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Arjuna808 and User:UtherSRG reported by User:Ucucha (Result:Warning)
Three-revert rule violation on . and :


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:33 5 December


 * 1st revert: 11:43, 6 December
 * 2nd revert: 20:21, 6 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 22:39, 6 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 02:12, 7 December 2006

 Comments: This is only the most severe part of a long revert war; there have been 15 reverts (if I've counted correctly) since 28 November. It was originally about an external link added by Arjnuna808 and considered inappropriate by UtherSRG, but later on they also reverted other things. Note that UtherSRG is an admin. Ucucha 06:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why have you waited three days to file the report? Please provide diffs for each user separately. El_C 07:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The edit war has been going on for weeks now (see my comment above). When I saw another revert on my watchlist yesterday I thought it was enough. I've also found a 3RR break for the other edit warrer now:
 * 19:14, 4 December
 * 20:23, 4 December
 * 21:27, 4 December
 * 18:33, 5 December
 * Each time, the link to tarsier.org was readded. Ucucha 07:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Those reverts go even further back, and there has been no activity since Dec. 10. That said, definitely let us know if the insertion of the link continues. Thanks. El_C 23:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Owl2hagrid reported by User:Celithemis (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:49, 9 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 16:31, 9 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 04:28, 10 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 05:36, 10 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 06:21, 10 December 2006
 * 5th revert: 07:57, 10 December 2006

 Comments: Inserted the same link 5 times in 24 hours, the fifth time after a 3RR warning.

Note that a previous 3RR warning concerning the insertion of this same link was given by Kafziel in March (diff) but removed by Owl2hagrid when he returned to editing on November 22 (diff). All of Owl2hagrid's contributions relate to this link.  &mdash;Cel ithemis  11:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 12:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User:70.112.120.146 reported by User:Hanuman Das (Result: 24 hrs)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:09, 22 November 2006


 * 1st revert: 19:23, 9 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:26, 9 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 12:33, 10 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:18, 10 December 2006


 * warning

 Comments:
 * I found the Tantra massage article on 3 December. It's tone was unencyclopedic and it was tagged as being unreferenced. I completely rewrote the article from good internet sources and fully cited it. The anon editor keeps reverting to the previous, uncited and unencyclopdic version. I have invited the editor to add further cited material from whatever sources they have been using. In response, they have accused me of being a member of some specific group of massage practitioners. I am not. &mdash;Hanuman Das 15:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 24 hours. El_C 07:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Seraphimblade reported by User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (Result: 24 hrs No breach)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 04:31, 10 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 09:59, 10 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 10:19, 10 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:43, 10 December 2006 16:49, 10 December 2006 (Both the edits together constitute one revert)
 * 5th revert: 21:36, 10 December 2006

 Comments: This user was warned multiple time about breaking the 3RR,, , but chose to feign ignorance and claim he somehow did not violate the 3RR. Also please note the first revert was very similar to past edits, of the article and thus also counts as a revert.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Object to first edit being characterized as a "revert"-Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg cites an edit from two and a half months ago, which was not my own and made well before I became involved with the article. My edit was in response to the RfC filed on the article. Have repeatedly requested Moshe and Jayjg to provide rationale for reverts and to work on a compromise wording, thus far to no avail and with no discussion forthcoming. (I do not object to 2, 3, and 5's characterization as reverts, and 4 already has been struck. However, that's 3.) I also object to Jayjg's edit summary ("per talk. Seraphimblade, you've already violated 3RR, please do not revert again or I will have to report it.") , both on the grounds that it was untrue and on the grounds that despite not reverting again I was reported anyway. Seraphimblade 03:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To add-4, a minor formatting edit, was struck at the time of the previous comment. As of now it links to the first time I moved the section-unless this too is similar to a months-old edit, perhaps? To revert to something it must have been previously done! Seraphimblade 03:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, Seraphim knows perfectly well that it doesn't matter that previous versions were first reverted by different editors, he also knows perfectly well that his first revert relates to an argument that has been going on for a long time, and thus clearly constitues a revert. I consider his current claims that he has tried to compromise with me to be extremely dishonest, as he has repeatedly claimed that we should not be allowed to revert him because there is now a "consensus that he is correct" which is completely untrue since if anything the majority of editors on the article are against him. I also am rather confused about his argument of why revert-4 was not valid, I accidently wrote the wrong edit originally but quickly corrected it. Also, the only reason Jayjg did not report him when he originally broke the 3RR was because he was not aware that Seraphim had already been warned twice before. Even then I still probably would not have reported him if Seraphim admitted he was indeed in violation of the policy, instead he chose to engage in the worst kind of gratuitous wikilawyering, and then had the gall to warn me for edit-warring. This user's actions have become increasingly difficult and byzantine.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the "warning for edit warring" was not given by me (though I understand the confusion and I don't believe Moshe intends to mislead, I believe he was himself misled. The comment was placed so that it appeared to be part of mine.) . Secondly, I object to the expression of disagreement as "wikilawyering". Finally, I disagree that trying a new solution to a problem (especially given new input), or that trying yet another after the first one has been reverted, is "reverting"-it is editing. Seraphimblade 03:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that trying new solutions to old problems does not necessarily constitute a reversion, however, in this case Seraphim's edit was so similar in tone to the reversions that occur day after day that it hardly constitutes a novel attempt at solving the problem. It should have been obvious that his edit would provoke the same kind of of response that he recieved.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 24 hours. El_C 07:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was wrong, the third reversion ends up counting as a self-revert. User unblocked. El_C 08:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:66.211.32.50 reported by User:Isarig (Result: 24hrs)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:41, 9 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 04:26, 10 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:05, 10 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 22:26, 10 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 03:15, 11 December 2006
 * 5th revert: 03:25, 11 December 2006

3RR Warning:

 Comments:
 * 24 hours. El_C 06:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Nanty reported by User:Truthspreader (Result: 12hn each)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 15:50, 10 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 22:30, 10 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 08:37, 11 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 08:50, 11 December 2006
 * 5th revert: 09:09, 11 December 2006

Comment The user is removing sourced text, which is sourced from IMDB and USA today. The first source clearly that he is a Muslim and second source says very clearly that Will wants to perform Hajj (pilgramage) to Mecca where only Muslims can go by law. But user is reverting again and again.  TruthSpreader Talk 09:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 3RR by both sides :-( 12h each William M. Connolley 10:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Corrosiv-O reported by User:Rcnet (Result: 3h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: n/a tagged for deletion]


 * 1st revert: 03:07, 11 December 2006 PST
 * 2nd revert: 03:16, 11 December 2006 PST
 * 3rd revert: 03:21, 11 December 2006 PST
 * 4th revert: 03:49, 11 December 2006 PST

Comments: Self-publisher deleting speedy delete tag. 4 RVs on this tag, more on other tages (db empty). Due to 3RR I can no longer protect this tag as I entered it once, and reverted the tag twice. both the User:Corrosiv-O and Article:Corrosiv-O need an admin.

Rcnet 11:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

3h; article deleted William M. Connolley 12:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:BooyakaDell reported by User:81.155.178.248 (Result:Indefblock)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:30, 4 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 19:57, 14 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 02:52, 15 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 14:26, 15 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:11, 15 December 2006

 Comments:

User continues to insert a link to original research, against Wikipedia guidelines. I made my reasons for removing this link clear on the talk page citing the appropriate guidelines, and no valid reason for the insertion of the link has been made. 81.155.178.248 16:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It appears as if anon IP 81 beat me to it as I was planning on reporting him. My edits were fully justified. All you have to do is see the discussion on the talk page. Eight points were brought up by myself (clearly numbered on the talk page). Eight points were ignored. He even admitted to ignoring them at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/BooyakaDell&curid=8407325&diff=94598554&oldid=94598495 . He violated community concensus. If ANYBODY violated WP:3RR, and I'm not saying anybody did, it was him.BooyakaDell 22:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't make any false accusations, the edit history of the page clearly shows I did not violate 3RR. 81.155.178.248
 * This is part of an ongoing issue over at WP:AN/I as well. Would any admin who takes action on BooyakaDell check that out as well? SirFozzie 22:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Issue has been resolved with the IndefBlock of BooyakaDell per WP:AN, next time this gets updated you can delete this. SirFozzie 22:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User:PassionoftheDamon reported by User:Anthony Krupp (Result: 12 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:13, 11 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 03:32, 10 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:58, 10 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 22:47, 10 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 05:14, 11 December 2006

 Comments:

This user is reverting my own highlighting of my own text. This, after his bad-faith namecalling, which another user, User:Scienter, independently spotted. (See my user talk page for that: User_talk:Anthony_Krupp.)


 * Result: 12 hours, since it's a first offense. Warned user to knock it off, and I will leave the same warning for Anthony Krupp.  Edit warring over formatting is really picayune, on either side. Nandesuka 13:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:71.133.246.228 reported by User:DLX (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


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


 * 1st revert: 18:34, 11 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 10:55, 11 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 09:02, 11 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:57, 10 December 2006

 Comments:

24h. Note that if this was vandalism, you could have reported it as such elsewhere William M. Connolley 19:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 2006-12-11T00:59:14


 * 1st revert: 2006-12-11T01:22:48
 * 2nd revert: 2006-12-11T03:39:11
 * 3rd revert: 2006-12-11T03:58:58
 * 4th revert: 2006-12-11T16:26:40

 Comments: Four reverts, and under the untrue assumption that OIT is not peer reviewed (Nicholas kazanas in JIEE). Also in the third diff he warned the user he was revert-warring with that he made three reverts. USer has been warned before. Baka man  00:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * These reverts were not to the same version. Three were made against edits by WIN (a problem editor reverted by other active Wikipedians as well). The fourth was a revert of a separate matter. There is no violation here. CRCulver 01:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply - Separate matter? It was a bad faith revision under false pretenses. Its also the intention to censor the article, when OIT already has Kazanas, Talageri, Misra, and Agarwal to back it up in JIEE. I think WIN was adding to the article and yourself and were merely gaming the system to silence his edits. I dont think WIN is as widely reagarded as a "troll" outside your circle of like-minded editors. Baka  man  01:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * None of my edits were bad-faith. The fourth revert was reversed by you with an interesting bibliographical tidbit, so I stood corrected and reverted no more. As for WIN's edits, sorry, but barely literate screeds and removal of appropriate academic writing merits a revert. CRCulver 01:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

48h. There is a suggestion in the edit histories that WIN may have broken 3RR but its not obvious to me William M. Connolley 10:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If WIN had broken it, the board is available for users to report him. Baka man  00:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:LeeHunter reported by User:JoshuaZ (Result:24H)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 19:37, 11 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 21:13, 11 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 22:03, 11 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:06, 11 December 2006

 Comments:

Note that the user has two prior 3RR violations which the user has been blocked for on the related article Homeopathy(although one of them he was unblocked for for it being technically just outside 24 hours) and that the user has been repeatedly edit warring over the inclusion of this category on that article. See and  JoshuaZ 01:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

User:203.69.36.50 reported by User:SteveHopson (Result:)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 12 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 12 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 12 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 12 December 2006

 Comments:

Oddly enough, the URL "http://01:46" doesn't work very well as a diff. Was there anything about "Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is" that you found confusing? William M. Connolley 10:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologies, this was my first time to use these procedures and I found all the instructions to be a little overwhelming -- I'll study the help pages more thoroughly. SteveHopson 14:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Update User has not made any further reverts since being made aware of the 3R policy. I request removal of this notice.  SteveHopson 05:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

User:66.61.20.159 and User:68.36.193.31 reported by User:PHDrillSergeant (Result:)
Three-revert rule violation on.

Continues to revert to old version instead of new version which has the template to redirect.

Any special reason you didn't include the list of reverts? William M. Connolley 10:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

User:G-Dett reported by User:Isarig (Result: 8h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:22, 11 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 14:25, 11 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 23:04, 11 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 01:43, 12 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 01:54, 12 December 2006

 Comments:

8h William M. Connolley 09:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:05, 11 December 2006

2006-12-12T06:29:36 Khoikhoi (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Theplanetsaturn (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation at Jhonen Vasquez) William M. Connolley 09:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Irishpunktom reported by User:Tom Harrison (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:22, 12 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 15:44, 12 December 2006 removes 'Jewish', removes 'fall of Constantinople.'
 * 2nd revert: 16:11, 12 December 2006 removes 'Jewish', 'Fall of Constantinople.'
 * 3rd revert: 17:04, 12 December 2006 removes 'Jewish.'
 * 4th revert: 17:12, 12 December 2006 changes 'of the Jews', to 'of Jerusalem.'

 Comments:
 * Limited by arbcom to one revert per week. Repeatedly removed Jewish from Jewish Temple Mount, In violation of Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom. Tom Harrison Talk 17:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Irishpunktom reported by User:Str1977 (Result:48 h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :

12:22, 12 December 2006] - Irishpunktom does not always revert to exactly the same text, but always on the same two pictures captions, see also the previous edit by him 11:24, 12 December 2006.
 * Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=93798152&oldid=93797853


 * 1st revert: 15:44, 12 December 2006.
 * 2nd revert: 16:10, 12 December 2006 and 16:11, 12 December 2006.
 * 3rd revert: 17:04, 12 December 2006.
 * 4th revert: 17:12, 12 December 2006).


 * The editor knows about the 3RR, as he has been blocked many times before.

Comments:

This comment on the talk page also suggests that Irishpunktom violated WP:POINT, as he argues for a simple caption while adding more and more details (not all accurate).

Str1977 (smile back) 17:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC) (I filed the report simultaneously with and independently from Tom Harrison, resulting in an edit conflict.)
 * This user is on Arbcom parole (Requests_for_arbitration/Irishpunktom) and only supposed to do one reversion per week anyway. I suggest a much longer block. Patstuarttalk 18:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:59, 11 December


 * 1st revert: 06:26, 12 December
 * 2nd revert: 11:42, 12 December
 * 3rd revert: 12:04, 12 December
 * 4th revert: 12:06, 12 December
 * 5th revert: 12:22, 12 December
 * 6th revert: 12:29, 12 December
 * 7th revert: 12:37, 12 December

The following is an additional violation of the 3RR by the same user on the same article


 * 1st revert:


 * 2nd revert:


 * 3rd revert:


 * 4th revert:


 * 5th revert:

And he was warned here -Psychohistorian 19:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

 Comments:
 * Rtc has been a contributor since September 2005, is aware of 3RR, see his talk page. FeloniousMonk 19:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked. Pretty clear case of edit warring.--CSTAR 19:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Halaqah reported by User:Beit Or (Result: no block)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:05, 12 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 21:03, 12 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 21:16, 12 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 21:32, 12 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 21:35, 12 December 2006

Removing Nazi Germany ("rv" 3) is obviously absurd, but not obviously a revert. So only 3. William M. Connolley 23:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:15, 11 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 04:05, 12 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 05:23, 12 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 06:06, 12 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 06:17, 12 December 2006

 Comments: He was reverting two editors, myself and User:InShaneee, even though he wasn't providing a confirmable, verifiable cite for a claim that seemed fishy. On the talk page, he wanted other editors to take his word for the claim. When two editors tried to explain the need for verifiable content, he got huffy and argumentative.

I hope I've filled in the fields accurately. I'm afraid I've only done this once before in a year-and-a-half, and I find the process a bit confusing. Still, the editor in question made continuous reverts, as cited, all because he couldn't find a valid cite and accused us of somehow being "irresponsible" for asking for one.
 * 24 h block after reviewed by Khoikhoi -- Samir धर्म 04:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Unre4L reported by Baka man  (Result: 24 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 2006-12-11T13:23:18


 * 1st revert: 2006-12-12T08:01:21
 * 2nd revert: 2006-12-12T11:06:05
 * 3rd revert: 2006-12-12T16:17:59
 * 4th revert: 2006-12-12T17:48:56
 * 4.5 revert 2006-12-12T20:38:36

Comment - This user has ignored consensus on Talk:Pāṇini and has revert warred with four users on the page without citations (which I have provided for my assertions) on his part. The user has made six reverts on the panini article in two days and has also made personal attacks on Indian users. Baka man  01:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Clear breach of 3RR. Block: 24 hours -- Samir धर्म  04:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:E104421 reported by User:Tājik (Result: 48h/24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 13:01, 5 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 17:41, 12 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 01:13, 13 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 02:05, 13 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 03:33, 13 December 2006

 Comments:

The same user has also violated the 3RR in White Huns, a parallel-article he has created to "Hephthalites", hoping that nobody realizes it. Tājik 01:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Admin comment: E104421 has indeed broken 3RR on two articles; moreover, White Huns seems indeed to be a POV fork. However, Tajik has also been engaged in sterile edit-warring, with 3 reverts each on 3 articles, each continuing long series of earlier reverts in the previous days. Both users have a history of accusing each other of stalking (baseless, in this particular case), and Tajik has again been making personal attacks against E and against other admins. Both have longish previous block logs. 48h for the one, 24h for the other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_Ivy&oldid=93032237


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

 Comments: User not only has violated 3RR, he keeps inserting as "cited fact" that Rutgers "declined an invitation to the Ivy League", which is an urban legend and has never appeared in print. His citation is "a bunch of different articles in the Rutgers library" and he refuses to list specific dates for these publications because "it would be over 500 of them". Additional help in resolving this issue after the 3RR ban would be appreciated. His edits are contentious with comments like "Fuck you!" during another revert. Wise 04:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Retort in my own defense: Wise was repeatedly reverting cited material which is not only disingenuous and inappropriate, but akin, in many editor's eyes, to vandalism. References repeated over a 20-25 year period generate too many individual references to list, and listing one resource (we're talking 4 pieces of microfilm in the Rutgers University library) is sufficient as I read the WP guidelines regarding citations, and with prevailing external academic standards. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 04:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think it is obvious that ExplorerCDT was fending off a sock or a troll (or both). Just check the edits! Discretion is strongly advised. --Irpen 04:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Besides, this is not even 3RR. Lack of diffs in the report was apparently for a reason. --Irpen 04:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've put in the 4 diffs... all I've asked is that the user cite one specific article and he can not. If Rutgers was asked to join the Ivy League in 1954, would there not have been an article written about it that someone can list the date and page of in the appropriate newspaper, etc.? At any rate, he did revert 4 times to essentially the same version. Wise 05:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

24h for 3RR; besides, is incivil William M. Connolley 09:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Halaqah reported by User:User:Humus sapiens (Result:24h )
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 13:03, 12 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 13:16, 12 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 13:35, 12 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 02:12, 13 December 2006

Comment: Relisting a violation by who chose to return and violate 3RR in spite of being thoroughly warned. Plus incivility and bad faith. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Admin deciding, please see topic talk thx as 3RV shouldn't be absolute. Rcnet 15:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We either enforce our policies consistently or we do not. Compare this violation with this and this. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

As this is a content dispute I have blocked Halaqah for 24 hours. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  00:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

User:CC80 reported by User:Wildnox (Result:24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:24, 12 December 2006
 * 1st Revert16:46, 12 December 2006
 * 2nd05:56, 13 December 2006
 * 3rd 10:01, 13 December 2006
 * 4th 11:17, 13 December 2006

 Comments: Two users edit warring on Homosexuality; both have been blocked in the past.--Wildnox 12:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. ---J.S (T/C) 21:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:09, 12 December 2006
 * 1st Revert11:55 12 December 2006
 * 2nd09:32, 13 December 2006
 * 3rd 11:12, 13 December 2006
 * 4th 11:21, 13 December 2006

 Comments: Two users edit warring on Homosexuality; both have been blocked in the past.--Wildnox 12:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I might point out that I almost reported Izanboard the other day, but he had already been blocked for 48h in the same matter, so I removed it. -Patstuarttalk 13:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the block the he recieved that day was a result of his vandalism of another users page and personal attacks (fueled by their interaction the page in question) rather than the 3rr violation --Wildnox 18:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24h. ---J.S (T/C) 21:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Richardmalter reported by User:Crum375 (Result: 48h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :

(note: IP is also, see Comments below)


 * Previous version reverted to: 06:49, December 12, 2006


 * 1st revert: 12:50, December 12, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 02:37, December 13, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 05:33, December 13, 2006
 * 4th revert: 08:22, December 13, 2006

 Comments:
 * This user was just blocked for 3RR by William M. Connolley on same article, and was warned multiple times
 * Here is a diff showing 58.166.14.32 is his IP: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yoshiaki_Omura&diff=93803942&oldid=93803847
 * He has been blocked several times for 3RR on this page (see also previous handle )
 * He has now filed for Arbitration on this page, but this is no reason to violate 3RR yet again
 * I only now noticed that User:GenghizRat has also reported this 3RR - please see these reports as combined, then

3rd in rapid succession. 48h William M. Connolley 18:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Lordubernoob123 / User:193.63.43.10 reported by User:Rcnet (Result: speedy)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: [n/a attack page subject to speedy delete]


 * 1st revert (delete speedy): 05:17, 13 December 2006 PST
 * 2nd revert (delete speedy): 05:23, 13 December 2006 PST
 * 3rd revert (delete speedy): 05:29, 13 December 2006 PST
 * 4th revert (delete speedy): 05:44, 13 December 2006 PST
 * 5th revert (delete speedy): 06:10, 13 December 2006 PST

''' Comments: User using sock puppets to elude 3RR and thus stops me reverting deletion of speedy tags. User 193.63.43.10 previously blocked for vandalism.''' Rcnet 13:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the page, hopefully that will do William M. Connolley 18:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Dacy69 reported by Eupator (Result: prot)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:30, 13 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 17:30, 12 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 17:37, 12 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 22:31, 12 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 10:30, 13 December 2006

 Comments:
 * First time offender; however, was warned regarding 3RR here:.--Eupator 14:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes its 3RR but page now prot William M. Connolley 18:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:J.L.Main reported by Dionyseus (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:49, 11 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 02:02, 12 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:26, 12 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:41, 12 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:57, 12 December 2006
 * 5th revert: 5:45, 13 December 2006

- * User warned about WP:3RR :  Comments: User was warned in the Wii discussion page. Also, in the first revert I listed, the user made it clear in his edit summary that he knows about WP:3RR. Dionyseus 18:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 18:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:24.218.180.170 reported by User:150.216.151.53 (Result: semi)
Three-revert rule violation on and. :

For Sveasoft:
 * Previous version reverted to: 21:10, 11 December 2006
 * 1st revert: 01:30, 12 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 07:11, 13 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:56, 13 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:06, 13 December 2006

For WRT54G:
 * Previous version reverted to: 03:43, 13 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 16:36, 13 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:59, 13 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:07, 13 December 2006

 Comments: This has happened multiple times before (refer to Sveasoft vandal report). It's usually done by a disgruntled Sveasoft employee.
 * Just a note, it's hard to evaluate these without diff-links. ---J.S (T/C) 22:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article William M. Connolley 23:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:53, 10 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 01:32, 11 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 16:06, 11 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:22, 11 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 21:00, 11 December 2006
 * 5th revert: 13:55, 12 December 2006
 * 6th revert: 17:22, 12 December 2006

- * User warned about WP:3RR :  Comments: User has been blocked for 3RR in the past, he has also been blocked for using a sockpuppet to tagteam. Dionyseus 20:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

48h William M. Connolley 20:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:CJCurrie reported by User:Alan.ca (Result: no block)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 2006-12-11T09:54:37
 * 2nd revert: 2006-12-12T14:52:13
 * 3rd revert: 2006-12-12T15:12:00
 * 4th revert: 2006-12-13T17:03:45

 Comments: This is the second time this user has reverted my changes, the first was on the Russ Powers article in September/06. He backed off of the Russ Powers article when I started a mediation with the volunteer cabal. In this case, the article had no sourced information, I added information from a newspaper article and removed a list of unsourced awards given. The editor, a wikipedia admin, chose to remove my sourced facts and reinclude his unsourced awards. I attempted to discuss this with him on his talk page, but did not receive a response other than the reverts as documented.Alan.ca 22:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to add that CJCurrie is engaged in a revert war on the Paul Christie article with user:GoldDragon. In this case CJCurrie is careful to make only 2 reverts in a 24 hour period, but it is obvious revert warring. Maybe someone should investigate this user. Alan.ca 23:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This is a frivolous complaint. There is no 3RR violation on the Judy Marsales page: Alan.ca does not seem to realize that my reversions took place over a period of three days. This isn't the place to discuss content issues, but I might observe in response to his comments that (i) the "unsourced information" was trivial in nature, and has been removed from the article in any event, (ii) the "sourced facts" I removed from the article relate to an inconsequential event, and were in fact thinly disguised POV-pushing.

Alan.ca may also be unfamiliar with the fact that User:GoldDragon has a history of reverting the same edits over and over and over, even in situations where no-one else agrees with his contributions. He also has a long history of 3RR violations, incivility and generally poor behaviour. (Review: ) I've tried introducing compromise language several times, but, unfortunately, I've learned that one frequently has to descend to his level of multiple reverts to counter his dubious edits. It isn't pleasant, but the alternative is even worse. I've tried reasoning with him in the past, but to little avail. Now, I'm simply hoping that he'll lose interest in the Paul Christie situation.

Btw, this has nothing to to with admin powers. CJCurrie 23:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Diffs not versions please. And... within 24h. No block William M. Connolley 23:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:39, 9 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 20:14, 10 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 22:50, 10 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 01:09, 11 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 01:33, 11 December 2006
 * 5th revert: 08:43, 11 December 2006
 * 6th revert: 12:58, 11 December 2006

 Comments: The relevant paragraph in this case is the paragraph containing a link to Ars Technica. This user was blocked for 3RR violations on this same page just a few days ago, see block log. Nandesuka 12:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * User has now reverted a sixth time in 24 hours. Added to list above. Nandesuka 13:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Those are not reverts. You folks keep adding stuff to the page in violation of Wiki policy and you are now trying to use the same tactics you used to get Supreme_Cmdr and others banned against me. I have today opened both an RFC and a request for page protection. This is a content dispute and with the good editors gone or banned you folks are once again trying to pov-push the article. WarHawkSP 13:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

48 hour block given. -- Steel 13:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears he's evading the block by editing from an IP address. See Talk:Derek Smart &rArr;   SWAT Jester    On Belay!  23:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Brunodam reported by User:CRCulver (Result:to be determined)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 2006-12-09T16:13:48


 * 1st revert: 2006-12-11T15:23:26
 * 2nd revert: 2006-12-11T16:41:18
 * 3rd revert: 2006-12-11T18:22:48
 * 4th revert: 2006-12-11T21:37:25

 Comments:
 * One might also mention this version: 2006-12-11T18:02:02, which is a revert by an IP that, based on the edit comment, is just the same user but who forgot to sign in again. CRCulver 22:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, pasted the wrong links. Give me five minutes and I'll correct that. CRCulver 23:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done CRCulver 23:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a 3RR breach, but was the user made aware of the rule at any point? El_C 23:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, some other user warned him, but he's continued (and then went on a meltdown). CRCulver 23:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Link? El_C 23:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:DSDark reported by User:ArrEmmDee (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on, , and. :

Replacing ArrEmmDee's version. I'll make the complete version, though one need only look at his contribs. One for each article. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Mukubird
 * Previous version reverted to: 14:16 December 11, 2006


 * 1st revert: 17:00 December 13, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 17:14 December 13, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:17 December 13, 2006
 * 4th revert: 17:30 December 13, 2006
 * User continues pattern for seven reverts after this. User also edits from IP address 71.192.119.17 and made one extra revert from it.


 * Rampard
 * Previous version reverted to: 16:33 December 13, 2006


 * 1st revert: 16:54 December 13, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 16:56 December 13, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:15 December 13, 2006
 * 4th revert: 17:34 December 13, 2006
 * User continues pattern for four reverts after this. User also edits from IP address 71.192.119.17 and made one extra revert from it.


 * Trideps
 * Previous version reverted to: 17:19 December 13, 2006


 * 1st revert: 17:27 December 13, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 17:32 December 13, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:43 December 13, 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:54 December 13, 2006
 * Of the three pages user has broken 3RR on, this is the only on he doesn't persist on, and only because other editors were encouraged to appease him until his block went through.

 Comments: Identical revert of image removal more than six times in less than an hour. Any explanation is rejected and his is ignorant even after being informed after the 3rr rule. Similar activity has been occuring from an anonymous IP for a considerable amount of time before this as well, likely the same user. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ArrEmmDee (talk • contribs).


 * ArrEmmDee, you'll need to supply diffs (links showing the differences between the versions) that show clearly there were four reverts, plus the date and time of each revert. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The warning I gave him for 3RR violation (while on an unrelated article) here, his response here, if it helps. -User:Jeske Couriano


 * User has broken 3RR on three separate pages (Trideps, Mukubird, Rampard) and has indicated no intention to stop in spite of rules. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 08:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Emokid200618 reported by User:AuburnPilot (Result:31 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:34, 4 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 01:07, 14 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 01:13, 14 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 01:21, 14 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 01:26, 14 December 2006
 * 5th revert: 01:31, 14 December 2006
 * 6th revert: 01:33, 14 December 2006


 * Warning: 3RR warning

 Comments: User has also vandalized George W. Bush several times.  Auburn Pilot talk 01:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 31 hours by User:Tomf688. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Rcnet reported by User:Beit Or (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * 1st revert: 14:28, 13 December 2006 previous version
 * 2nd revert: 16:06, 13 December 2006 previous version
 * 3rd revert: 16:23, 13 December 2006 previous version
 * 4th revert: 07:29, 14 December 2006 previous version

All reverts except the first one are marked as such. Beit Or 08:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * These are not identical RVs, each time I tried a different approach - not straight up reverts See talk. nor are these 'Diffs'. This a a bogus claim by a group of POV pushers in this artcile, including 2 admins. I have made an effort not to 3RR, as can be shown by me not RVing Tutu beyond 2, and instead sticking up a POV tag. Rcnet 08:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That one "tried a different approach" does not make him or her immune to responsibility for malicious edit warring. -- Ghirla -трёп-  08:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

24h 08:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

User:LILVOKA reported by User:L0b0t (Result:)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


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

 Comments:


 * I'm warning both users, and have reverted the page myself to LILVOKA's version. No blocking action taken on my part unless it continues. Syrthiss 18:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:30, December 13, 2006


 * 1st revert: 20:16, December 13, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 05:39, December 14, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 06:58, December 14, 2006
 * 4th revert: 09:21, December 14, 2006

 Comments: 2 editors support other version. Other than these 4 reverts, this user has made 3 more over past two days.,,    ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪   Walkie-talkie  18:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure who said "24h" but there was no block entered. Since it is 4R, I've blocked for 24h William M. Connolley 20:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

User:66.227.137.56 reported by User:Isarig (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:18, 13 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 15:41, 14 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 16:30, 14 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:53, 14 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:06, 14 December 2006
 * 5th revert: 19:16, 14 December 2006
 * 6th revert: 19:34, 14 December 2006

3RR warning:

 Comments:

24h William M. Connolley 20:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

User:68.94.203.13 reported by User:Coelacan (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:44, 13 December 2006
 * 1st revert: 00:31, 14 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:09, 14 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 20:32, 14 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:34, 14 December 2006
 * 5th revert: 20:38, 14 December 2006

 Comments: User has already been blocked for 3RR to this article, so already knows of the rule. User may be the same as User:Rossnixon who used the same edit summary in some other edits, see this for instance.

24h William M. Connolley 21:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 82.249.148.163


 * 1st revert: 2006-12-14T06:52:57
 * 2nd revert: 2006-12-14T11:02:00
 * 3rd revert: 2006-12-14T13:08:58
 * 4th revert: 2006-12-14T15:07:19

Diff of warning:

 Comments: The 3rd revert is by an IP, 82.254.20.129, but I think it's incredibly obvious this is also the same user, Gollan. If you look through the Dhimmi page history the last two days, it's only been Gollan and that IP (and subtle variations on the IP) that have restored that text, and their edit summaries are very similar. Also, see this diff of a post by the IP in a relevant thread on the talk page, where it's posting essentially interchangeably with Gollan:. - Merzbow 22:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24h. ---J.S  (T/C) 22:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

User:24.39.123.238 reported by User:Crum375 (Result:24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:31, December 10, 2006


 * 1st revert: 18:40, December 14, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:16, December 14, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 21:39, December 14, 2006
 * 4th revert: 22:44, December 14, 2006

 Comments:
 * Most likely a meat puppet of User:Richardmalter (see his and article's Talk page etc), who was blocked several times now on same entry, and is still blocked
 * His claim that "This is not a revert. This is additional information -- editing." is obviously bogus, per diffs. A revert + edit is still a revert, in any case.
 * He has been properly warned, prior to his last revert. Crum375 23:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't fast enough to add this before Crum175. The IP, located in New York, is static, so blocking will be effective. Edit comments during the reversions have also had legal threats in them. --Philosophus T 23:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. Please try to reason with this editor. His personal experience might be very valuable if tempered with WP:V/WP:NPOV. ---J.S (T/C) 23:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:14 13 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 15:48 14 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 22:31 14 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 01:32 15 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 01:39 15 December 2006
 * 5th revert: 01:57 15 December 2006
 * 6th revert: 02:04 15 December 2006

 Comments:
 * Carbonate is aware of 3RR since he's been warned by others before and blocked previously for 3RR violation. -- M P er el ( talk 02:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 24hrs. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

User:24.136.99.194 reported by User:Antonrojo (Result:)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 22:44, 14 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 03:01, 15 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 03:10, 15 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 03:21, 15 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 03:29, 15 December 2006
 * 5th revert: 03:40, 15 December 2006

 Comments:There has been a repeated pattern of 3RR, first by a user recently blocked for 3RR, then by a likely sockpuppet User:24.39.123.238 (who was blocked a few reports above) and in turn the reported account. Antonrojo 03:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This IP was just blocked for 24 hours as a sock of 24.39.123.238. --Philosophus T 03:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Someguy0830 reported by User:Nagrom7 (Result:No block)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 04:43, 15 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 04:38, 15 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 00:16, 15 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:44, 14 December 2006

 Comments: Continually discussed and debated the benefit of the included line, mentioned the 3RR, was not heeded. Dispute continued. very counter productive.


 * Comment Nagrom7 refuses to discuss the issue, instead making a single comment on the talk page and proceeding to remove the line in spite of the obvious acceptance of the line by several editors. See Talk:Objects from The Lost Room. This is a content dispute that the user refuses to acknowledge, instead Wikilawyering to get his way. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment This is strictly speaking not a 3RR. BTW the URL for the revrted to version is ill-formed.--CSTAR 17:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:41, 12 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 19:18, 14 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 23:19, 14 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 00:56, 15 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 07:11, 15 December 2006

 Comments: Revert warring to add a non-notable event to the page. Has been reverted by two editors (counting myself), with reasons described on the Talk Page. Is clearly aware of the Three-revert Rule, based on this comment: 'I know all about the three revert rule and for your fucking information I wasn't the one who started this revert/edit war'. Based on his edit summaries and on this message on my Talk Page, also appears to have an anger-management problem.

24h: 3rr and incivility William M. Connolley 10:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Truthspreader reported by User:Beit Or (Result: 31h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:20, 13 December 2006
 * 1st revert: 01:33, 15 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 02:12, 15 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 07:46, 15 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 08:20, 15 December 2006
 * 5th revert: 12:12, 15 December 2006
 * 6th revert: 12:25, 15 December 2006
 * 7th revert: 13:06, 15 December 2006

 Comments: The 2nd revert removed the "fact" tag inserted by another user in the previous edit. The third revert restored the sentence referenced to John Esposito from the original version and restored the previously removed reference to Ghamidi, but presented the material sourced to Ghamidi somewhat differently. The fourth revert was effectively a revert to the version created by the third revert with a minor tweak. Beit Or 10:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Comment: User:Truthspreader continues to revert the same material.Proabivouac 13:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I believe that opinion of notable scholars should be presented. The text was fully sourced, and I've already given reasons on talk page. If my edits were not NPOV, I am ready to accept my mistake. Other than that, I would like to know that where I was doing wrong.  TruthSpreader Talk 13:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Secondly, the reverts are given enough time to argue and then arguments are given enough time to be responded.  TruthSpreader Talk 13:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Bit of a mess but there are 4R in there... 31h William M. Connolley 13:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Yuuta reported by User:Samuel Blanning (Result: never mind)
May be a sockpuppet of a banned user, but I can't be certain based on this alone, so I'm making a Checkuser request as well. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Your "prev-vn" is the same as rv1 William M. Connolley 13:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So does he actually have to make the same edit 5 times before he can be blocked? --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No. He has to make 4 reverts. The first revert can be a revert to a previous of his; or to someone else William M. Connolley 19:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The POV tag, which is the entirety of the edit, has been on the article numerous times at one point or another. Does any version with the POV tag on countas a previous version? --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Forget it, it's almost a day since the last revert, not worth bothering about now. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

User:68.155.70.148 reported by User:LILVOKA 14:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC) (Result: no block)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 16:33, 14 December 2006


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

This user has been adding an uncomfirmed fact in the article of Aftermath Entertainment. If you see the current revert the user has added the producers section, and unconfirmed facts based on information unsourced. The original article was short and simple.LILVOKA 14:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Diffs not versions please William M. Connolley 16:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You haven't added timestamps. Had you done so, you'd ahve noticed that these aren't in 24h, or even close William M. Connolley 17:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

User:4.245.120.215 reported by User:AdamWeeden (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:38, 14 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 15:00, 14 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:02, 14 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:19, 14 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:43, 14 December 2006
 * 5th revert: 3:22, 15 December 2006

 Comments: This issue was discussed in the talk page, specifically here.


 * The same user has multiple IPs. He has Special:Contributions/4.245.121.236 reverted about six times again on this IP, and his ban is not up. It should be noted that the user also vandalized the talk page numerous times as well as vandalized my talk page twice.++ aviper2k7 ++ 22:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

24h: 3rr + incivil William M. Connolley 16:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

User:LSLM reported by User:Fourdee (Result:)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert, after filing of 3RR warnings and 3RRV:

 Comments: Appears to also be simple vandalism as the photograph accurately reflects the content of the article and is of good quality. User has been blocked before for personal attacks (which he is doing again), seems to be a persistent problem. Fourdee 22:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC) User continues to vandalize article, most recently blanking entire references, categories, see also sections. Fourdee 23:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the merits, the timing here is very suspicious. It is an outgrowth of Fourdee's vexatious litigations here and on RfC against Psychohistorian, which Thulean/Lukas19 signed onto. The sequence is as follows: Psychohistorian contacted LSLM seeking comment on the RfC. Fourdee and Lukas19 noticed and piled on. Fourdee placed six (6) warning tags and a hand-written warning on LSLM's talk page. Then Lukas19/Thulean made his fourth complaint on WP:PAIN and one on WP:AIV. Then Fourdee filed a 3RR complaint against LSLM here. They had ample opportunity to warn and complain earlier, but did not. Hu 01:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The only thing "suspicious" about the "timing" is that LSLM may have decided to vandalize/3RR violate the article because of something he noticed after being contacted Psychohistorian. You are linking probably unrelated events, or if they are related, it is not because of anything within my control.  I did nothing to cause LSLM to edit the article.  Fourdee 01:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering this user persists in totally disregarding the 3RR even after being warning and the 3RRV being filed, please block him. Fourdee 02:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Starwars1955 reported by User:Aviper2k7 (Result:24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:

(last 48 hours) (last 24 hours)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert: 17:02, December 15, 2006
 * 11th revert: 17:06, December 15, 2006
 * 12th revert: 17:41, December 15, 2006
 * 13th revert: 18:12, December 15, 2006
 * 14th revert: 22:08, December 15, 2006
 * 15th revert: 22:17, December 15, 2006

 Comments: Please note that this user violated 3RR before, he should be suspended right now but he now has an username and his IP keeps changing.
 * Special:Contributions/4.245.120.154
 * Special:Contributions/4.245.120.144
 * Special:Contributions/4.245.121.193
 * Special:Contributions/4.245.120.62
 * Special:Contributions/4.245.120.215
 * Special:Contributions/4.245.121.236
 * Special:Contributions/Starwars1955

The user is the same as the IPs because their reverts are the same and the user was commenting on the talk page using the username (unsigned). The user was complaining on Talk:Brett Favre that the page should be unprotected because some stats were inaccurate. Then I tried to fix the stats (very minor btw) and he started calling me an idiot and vandalized the talk page numerous times. He also has vandalized my user page twice. This user has been excessively difficult to work with and has violated the 3rr rule many times.

I apologize if I'm putting this in the wrong place as it was already listed, but I just want to see someone notice this.++ aviper2k7 ++ 23:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked 24h. AT least 4 by logged in user.--CSTAR 17:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Fourdee reported by User:Skapur (Result: 24h for LSLM)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

 Comments:

Funny, I only count three of each revert, the standard is four. The other user in this has chalked up five reverts of the image in 24 hours and appeared to me to just be a vandal. Fourdee 03:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for once, I think the blanking (and incivil edit comments) amount to vandalism so have blocked LSLM instead. But please, in future, don't break 3RR yourself, and report the other William M. Connolley 15:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Chowbok reported by User:Jeff (Result:Page protected)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

 Comments: Hi. I made some changes to the article here that outlined some important information for people viewing the page. The page in question is a page that resides in user space, but the user insists upon silencing the information I've added. She doesn't wish people to be informed about critical policy issues and would rather people continue to be ignorant, of course. Policy pages to cite regarding 3RR on user space are at Wp:3rr, User_page and WP:OWN. User insists that he owns the page and can dictate it's content and silence the opposing viewpoint. She doesn't deserve any punishment; she's a good user. I just want her to leave the information. Thanks.--Jeff 04:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that Jeffness doesn't want me punished. I'd like some clarification on this issue. I think I should be able to present my opinions on this issue on a subpage in my userspace without having to provide "equal time" to an opposing viewpoint. What if I'd put all this stuff on my userpage? Would Jeffness still be allowed to add paragraphs and paragraphs to it? Robth believes I'm within my rights to revert but he also said this wasn't his field of expertise; I'll refrain from reverting again until I get some more admin feedback on this. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  05:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No Block. Take the dispute elsewhere please... perhaps RFC?---J.S (T/C) 08:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 4:48 16 December.
 * 2nd revert: 14:49 16 December.
 * 3rd revert: 15:07 16 December
 * 4th revert: 18:12 16 December.

 Comments: Please see also my discussion on the talk page of the article. The first few reversions were with no explanation/justification on the talk page what so ever. Monfared 18:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please also see my request for page protection.
 * Here is a report of a similar problem a few weeks ago. Monfared 18:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Time stamped diffs please. In any case, appears to be legimitate 3RR complaint. 24 hrs--CSTAR 18:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The user reverted the page 6 times during last two days and numerous times during last few weeks. Please also see User's list of contributions during last several months. It may be helpful. Monfared 18:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I added the time. Sorry for that. Monfared 19:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 03:07, 16 December IP is same as Enriqucardova; he edits with IP then signs with name.


 * 1st revert: 16:30, 16 December
 * 2nd revert: 17:54, 16 December
 * 3rd revert: 17:57, 16 December
 * 4th revert: 18:09, 16 December

 Comments:

This person is unpleasant to deal with. He's rude, pov-pushing and makes accusations about other users to discredit anyone who disagrees with his edits. He refuses to respect afd consensus to revert this page to a previous version before he turned it into a pov quotations farm. He is aware of the 3-revert rule but has been relentlessly edit warring to keep his pov additions. He's also editing with an IP address so he actually reverted 5 times. Nebkaneil 18:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There are 4, but not the ones you've listed. Anyway, 8h William M. Connolley 19:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Annoynmous reported by User:Isarig (Result: 48)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:08, 14 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 1:51, 16 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 17:20, 16 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:23, 16 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 17:29, 16 December 2006
 * 5th revert: 17:29, 17:34, 16 December 2006
 * 5th revert: 117:41, 16 December 2006

 Comments: This user also has 2 additional identical reverts editing as anonymous IP 66.227.137.56 (see talk page of the article for admission by user that he is indeed 66.227.137.56 ). He is just back from a block of 24h for the same revert on the smae page, editing as 66.227.137.56. Recommend a long block given the blatant nature of the violation (8 reverts), and the attempt to evade detection by alternating editing as 66.227.137.56 and as User:Annoynmous


 * I've blocked both Annoynmous and his/her IP for 48 hours. Khoikhoi 20:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

User:75.73.8.206 reported by User:Rumpelstiltskin223 (Result:31h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:40, 15 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 20:29, 15 December 2006 (see notes:different ip, same user)
 * 2nd revert: 17:17, 16 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:19, 16 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 17:44, 16 December 2006
 * 5th revert:18:09, 16 December 2006
 * 6th revert:18:54, 16 December 2006
 * 7th revert 19:56, 16 December 2006
 * 8th revert 21:09, 16 December 2006

 Comments:First revert done by one ip, other three reverts done by different ip. However, he made a talk page comment confessing that he was the person doing all the reverts from both ips Rumpelstiltskin223 01:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC) User is making racist remarks on other pages also. Rumpelstiltskin223 04:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked 31 hours... I was going to protect it, but decided otherwise. ---J.S (T/C) 08:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * 1st revert: 06:57, 17 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 07:03, 17 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 07:25, 17 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 07:29, 17 December 2006

 Comments: I have notified the user several times in the past that according to wikipedia guidelines, it is not right to list a person multiple times. But the user always comes back in a month or two and reverts the whole article after hard work being done to it. Chaldean 07:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 8 hours. ---J.S (T/C) 08:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Chaldean reported by User:Zayya (Result:none)
Three-revert rule violation on . :

 Comments: I have notified the user time and time again not to delete names at will. User aparently does not like some entries and decides to make unreasonable delets. I alphabelize lists, and user changes them. I research and add "legitimate' names and user delets them. If a persona is a "known professional" in several catagories, he delets some and leaves others as he sees fit.  This user is behaving wrecklessly by deleting hours of hard work.  User: Zayya 12:01:00 17 December 2006
 * Diffs not provided... ---J.S (T/C) 08:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

User:69.110.222.33 reported by User:John Smith&#39;s (Result:24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 01:34, 16 December 2006
 * 1st revert: 21:15, 16 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 21:56, 16 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 23:19, 16 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 01:24, 17 December 2006


 * Warning given: 00:21, 17 December 2006

 Comments:

Has repeatedly edited this article and the Cultural Revolution page, possibly under multiple IPs. Has been warned as I mentioned above on this and other IP talk pages. He responded with abuse, indicating he acknowledged the warning but didn't care. John Smith&#39;s 11:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked 24h. No evidence user attempted to explain reasons for reversion.--CSTAR 20:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Vernyhora reported by User:Kuban Cossack (Result:24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:38, 15 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 13:37, 16 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 14:37, 16 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 07:31, 17 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 09:06, 17 December 2006

 Comments: Sadly this is the second time I am reporting this user, for violating the same policy on the same article. User edits only this article and each time is inserting the same incorrect information. His whole talk page is a series of warnings and attempts by at least five people, including admins, for the person to return to discussion, but alas, to no effect. Request that this block be lengthier than the standard 3RR violation for the extremely disruptive behaivour demonstrated by this user.--Kuban Cossack 14:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked 24hrs. However, I suggest you seek an RfC. It's not clear to me what the dispute is. Subsequent reports will be ignored, by me at least, until an RfC is requested for this article.--CSTAR 17:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

User:89.243.14.12 reported by User:--chris.lawson (Result:24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 10:16 17 Dec 2006 (EST)


 * 1st revert: 10:25 17 Dec 2006
 * 2nd revert: 10:28 17 Dec 2006
 * 3rd revert: 10:33 17 Dec 2006
 * 4th revert: 10:35 17 Dec 2006
 * 5th revert: 10:38 17 Dec 2006


 * 3RR warning: 10:34 17 Dec 2006

 Comments: this is the fifth time we've had to deal with this vandal, who is clearly unwilling to understand the Wikipedia page-move/redirect/consensus process. Previous IPs used are, , , and.


 * Blocked 24 hrs. This doesn't appear to be a content dispute. Please try again to explain the problem to this user. On more careful examination, I guess it is a content dispute. --CSTAR 16:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

User:NisarKand reported by User:--User:Napoleon12(Result: No Block)
I am reporting the continuous vandalism on the Pashtun people article by NisarKand who is deleting cited information and posting misleading information. (1:17 pm December 17, 2006)


 * I deleted cited information? and posted misleading information? The information I provide from the "CIA world factbook", "Encyclopaedia Britannica", and "Columbia Encyclopedia" are misleading? My map from the "University of Texas in Austin (dated: 2003)" is misleading? Me adding Afghan Empire on top of Durrani Empire is misleading? Durrani Empire is not heard of but Afghan Empire or Afghan Kingdom is clearly mentioned in Britannica and other Encyclopedias. This is not misleading dude... I placed it like this --> Afghan Empire. You are misleading yourself. I stated in one image that Ahmad Shah Durrani founded "Afghanistan", with CIA factbook, Britannic and other sources next to it, but you keep removing the name Afghanistan from the image's writings. Why? You removed a very historical image of Abdul Ahad Mohmand from Pashtun people artile and stated this is not important for the Pashtun people. Dude this is one of the most historical image of the first Pashtun to reach space in 1988 and you stated that 1988 is old news and insisted on removing this very important image. WHY MAN? why you don't want this image to be remained in the article as it has been for a very very long time? You are obviously vandalising the Pashtun people artile and throwing your bad deeds on me. Look at my history and you will not find me placing a single false or misleading information anywhere in any article. I make sure I am 100% convinced of the facts before I edit information. I consider my self a very honost person.--NisarKand 19:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No diffs, no action. Both of you please take this argument to an RfC.--CSTAR 19:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)