Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive34

User:81.129.255.112 reported by User:ZS (Result:)
Three-revert rule violation on. :


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1st revert: 20:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2nd revert: 21:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3rd revert: 21:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4th revert: 19:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments: 81.129.255.112 is likely the same individual as (from the same ISP), who made similar edits in the article earlier. The editor (as 86.137.134.254) has been provided with the necessary notices on editing and edit summaries, but fails to provide any justification for complete reversions, which, among others, reintroduces counter-Manual of Style headings, omissions and questionable writing. The first 3RR warning has been issued to the user, as 81.129.255.112, yesterday (21:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)). ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶  20:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC) ╫
 * Update: The editor had been blocked for 24 hours on December 17 after another string of 3RR violations on the same article. No further action is necessary for now. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶  09:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC) ╫

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:49, 15 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 23:44, 16 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 04:17, 17 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 05:09, 17 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 07:12, 17 December 2006

 Comments:
 * Is engaged in series of complex reverts, including insisting on adding a BBC link/reference to this article/Haim Druckman, even though lengthy Talk: discussion has explain that this link and reference, as well as the other POV edits, are not appropriate for the article. Has been warned of WP:3RR many times, e.g.   and has been reverted by a remarkably large number of editors.  Seems impervious to understanding any Wikipedia policy, including 3RR. Jayjg (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  15:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for being a bit dim, but I cannot see reverts there, merely contentious edits. I certainly agree that are grounds for concern &mdash; there appears to be an issue with rapid alterations of the article without using the talk page &mdash; but, well, who amongst us is able to state that they make no edits to which others object?
 * James F. (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As was brought down above in the report, each of the 4 edits which were reverting the editors who disagreed with him were including a reference to the segregation proposed by Haim Drukman. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  17:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The only thing in common with each of them is the reference to Haim Drukman, is this correct? This may not be a 3RR situation, it appears to me that the editor has instead made 4 seperate attempts to rewrite the contentious edit in a manner that won't be reverted.  I'm tending to think this may be an editorial dispute more than a strict procedural violation. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 17:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that seems more appropriate. I'm certainly not saying that Pco is whiter than white. :-)
 * James F. (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I second this assessment and have unblocked Pco. WP:3RR: "Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part.". Evidence has not been provided to demonstrate that this had taken place more than 3 times in 24 hours. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I also agree with this assessment.--CSTAR 17:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Pco continues to violate 3RR. See below. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:72.193.96.82 reported by User:ZimZalaBim (talk) (Result:)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 12:14, 17 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 15:09, 17 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:16, 17 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:53, 17 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:39, 17 December 2006

 Comments: POV-Pushing, received third opinion, continues reverting. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Enriquecardova reported by User:StoptheDatabaseState (Result:)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * 1st revert: 22:38, 17 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 22:39, 17 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 22:45 17 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 22:51 17 December 2006


 * 3RR Warning:

 Comments: Continued edit warring from yesterday following expiry of block imposed here (1.83). Also removed 3RR4 warning from talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StoptheDatabaseState (talk • contribs)
 * The report I filed yesterday is still up. He actually reverted more than 4 times today. He blanked his talk page of the warnings again and is posting messages to himself, to hide the blanking it seems . He's also editing under this IP . Seems totally impervious to any Wikipedia policies about community consensus and 3-revert rule. Nebkaneil 02:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He's still blanket reverting the page and he does it in steps    Nebkaneil 05:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Still reverting, have filed an additional report below. MER-C 09:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:68.155.70.148 reported by User:LILVOKA (Result:)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: Current Version


 * 1st revert: December 20, 2006
 * 2nd revert: December 18,2006
 * 3rd revert: December 18, 2006
 * 4th revert: December 16, 2006
 * 5th revert: December 15, 2006
 * 6th revert: December 15, 2006
 * 7th revert: December 14, 2006

This is the second nomination for the user. The user places this in the article. This is unsourced information and also inappropriate to the rest of the article. The user claims this is vandalism. It's not vandalism. Joell Ortiz - Brooklyn-based rapper who recently signed to Aftermath Entertainment. Appeared in Source Magazine's Unsigned Hype section and Chairman's Choice in XXL Magazine while releasing several mixtapes, he sold cocaine during his mother's addiction to the drug in order to support his family. History of reverts. This user is placing inappropriate information to something that should be generally short and simple.

Originally it was: He has been featured in magazines and is working on his debut album.

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 07:38 December 17, includes the paragraph "In March of 2006, the PCO organized a protest which was entitled "Storm the White House". While the event was planned as a peaceful merger of anti-war groups, the media began requesting interviews; some commentators called the event a plan for a violent coup d’état."


 * 1st revert 21:51 December 17, restored "In March of 2006, the PCO organized a protest which was entitled "Storm the White House". While the event was planned as a peaceful merger of anti-war groups, the media and particularly the right wing media, began requesting interviews and calling the event a plan for a violent coup d’État."


 * 2nd revert 00:30 December 18, restored "In March of 2006, the PCO organized a protest which was entitled "Storm the White House". While the event was planned as a peaceful merger of anti-war groups, the media and particularly the right wing media, began requesting interviews and calling the event a plan for a violent coup d’État."


 * 3rd revert 00:54 December 18, restored "In March of 2006, the PCO organized a protest which was entitled "Storm the White House". While the event was planned as a peaceful merger of anti-war groups, the media and particularly the right wing media, began requesting interviews and calling the event a plan for a violent coup d’État."


 * 4th revert 01:30 December 18, restored "In March of 2006, the PCO organized a protest which was entitled "Storm the White House". While the event was planned as a peaceful merger of anti-war groups, the media and particularly the right wing media, began requesting interviews and calling the event a plan for a violent coup d’État."

Comment

Pco is editing very disruptively around a number of articles. She has created Political Cooperative as a vanity article and is editing it in violation of WP:COI; is adding OR to various articles; reverting against multiple editors; making personal attacks (she has called Jpgordon a liar and sockpuppet ; Jayjg a liar ; and me "some kind of freak" ); and keeps removing other people's posts from article talk pages e.g. Now she says it's a computer hacker, not her, who is making the attacks. She has been warned several times about 3RR e.g. SlimVirgin (talk)  02:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

She has also violated 3RR at as  and


 * Previous version reverted to: 05:09 December 17
 * 1st revert 07:12 December 17
 * 2nd revert 20:14 December 17
 * 3rd revert 01:49 December 18
 * 4th revert 02:18 December 18

Comment One of the sentences being restored is (written slightly differently each time):
 * "In 2002, a Zionist named Haim Druckman gained the support of 17 Israeli Parliament officials in an effort to pass a law that would deny Arabs the right to live on State land," also written as
 * "Zionists such as Haim Druckman proposed legislation that would deny rights to non-jews within the State," or as
 * "Rabbi Haim Druckman, a founder of and leading activist within Gush Emunim returned to the National Religious Party from Morasha and in 2002, Druckman managed to gain the support of 17 Israeli Parliament officials in an effort to pass a law that would deny Arabs the right to live on State land." SlimVirgin (talk)  02:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jossi. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Given the disruptive nature of this user interactions, I should have blocked for longer, but lets remember that it is a newbie. If the user persists in these type of disruptions and personal attacks, next block should be for much longer. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:69.123.136.59 reported by User:bdve (Result: no block)

 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4

User adds the same unreferenced and bogus sounding text to the Vince Russo article every time it's removed. Requests for cite in edit history go ignored.«»bd(talk stalk) 03:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No block because the RVs were not within 24 hour period. If you would've used the proper format for this request (with timestamps), that would be seen clearly. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Ivasyk reported by User:Alex Bakharev (Result:12h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:32, December 18, 2006


 * 1st revert: 01:45, December 18, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 01:56, December 18, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 02:19, December 18, 2006
 * 4th revert: 02:34, December 18, 2006
 * 5th revert: 02:48, December 18, 2006
 * 6th revert 03:12, December 18, 2006

Dif of warning:

Warning was blanked twice

 Comments: Also 3RR on Olga of Kiev by the same user


 * Seems to be already blocked by User:Malo for 12 hrs. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:R9tgokunks reported by User:71.198.59.81 (8h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:39, 14 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 05:47, 17 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:29, 17 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:07, 17 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 04:58, 18 December 2006

This is a new account, under three months old. User has ignored several prior messages on his talk page. In need of 3RR instruction and warning. It's either a newbie or a sock -- given his stubborn reverts. Thanks 71.198.59.81 07:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: 8h William M. Connolley 09:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 15:17, 15 December 2006
 * 1st revert: 14:02, 17 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 14:33, 17 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 02:47, 18 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 06:20, 18 December 2006

 Comments: Having barely emerged from a 31h block, this user has resumed edit warring over the same issue in the same article. All reverts were full or partial removals of references to the standard texts on the Jewish law. Beit Or 09:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not at all obvious these are 4R; certainly doesn't  removals of references William M. Connolley 09:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe I did not explain myself well. This edit by Truthspreader removed phrases "as it existed at the time (and as it is still understood today)" added in this edit by Briangotts and the phrase "with no citation to or support from any source, contemporaneous or modern" added in this edit by Briangotts. Thus, Truthspreader's edit was a revert, which is defined as undoing the work of another editor. Beit Or 09:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Braingotts edit was generalization of interpretation of Jewish law for all times and all places, which is definitely original research, as the cited source is only an example of a famous interpretation but not stating what it is implied.  TruthSpreader Talk 12:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure looks WP:POINTy to me, but I will leave this for another admin's discretion. Users who already have a long block-log should be extra-cautious while reverting other user's edits because it appears like they were gaming the system. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {L} 10:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have nothing else to say but WP:3RR. I would also ask the closing admin to see the history first. There was no edit warring happening. I would like to know that where I am doing wrong!!! -- TruthSpreader Talk 12:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a 3RR violation, as follows:


 * Version reverted to: 05:25 December 15: Striver removes, inter alia (important words in bold): "No contemporaneous source alleges that Sa'd based his judgment on the Torah; moreover, Jewish law has always understood the verses cited to apply only to the situation of the conquest of Canaan under Joshua, and not to any other period of history. "


 * 1st revert 14:02, 17 December: removes (important words in bold): "No contemporaneous source alleges that Sa'd based his judgment on the Torah; moreover, Jewish law has always understood the verses cited to apply only to the situation of the conquest of Canaan under Joshua, and not to any other period of history. "


 * 2nd revert, 14:33, 17 December: removes (important words in bold): "moreover, Jewish law has always understood the verses cited to apply only to the situation of the conquest of Canaan under Joshua, and not to any other period of history. "


 * 3rd revert, 02:47, 18 December: removes (words removed in bold): "[moreover, Jewish law] as it existed at the time (and as it is still understood today) [applies the verses cited to the situation of the conquest ...]"


 * 4th revert 06:20, 18 December: removes (words removed in bold): "[moreover, Jewish law] as it existed at the time (and as it is still understood today) [applies the verses cited to the situation of the conquest...]"

The words signifying that Jewish law has "always understood" X to be the case, or that X was understood to be the case according to how Jewish law "existed at the time, and as it is still understood today" were removed four times in less than 24 hours; the same words had been previously removed on December 15 by Striver, making Truthspreader's first removal a revert. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * People coming off 3RR blocks shouldn't be trying to game it on the same article. Normally this would be a 48 hour block, but because it's not quite as obvious as most, I'll only give him 24 hours. Jayjg (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User:198.172.203.203 reported by User:MER-C (Result:24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:15, 18 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 07:02, 18 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 07:38, 18 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 07:55, 18 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 07:58, 18 December 2006
 * 5th revert: 08:02, 18 December 2006
 * 6th revert: 08:09, 18 December 2006
 * 7th revert: 08:18, 18 December 2006
 * 8th revert: 08:23, 18 December 2006
 * 9th revert: 08:31, 18 December 2006

Warning here:

 Comments: Continuation of an edit war on that article. The other party, User:Enriquecardova should also be investigated and has been blocked for edit warring before. MER-C 09:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 24h both. User:Enriquecardova had been blocked only recently for a 3RR breach and has continued his disruptive behaviour. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {L} 10:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: #  16:15, 15 December


 * 1st revert: 10.04,17 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 04:46, 18 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 09:09, 18 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 10:21, 18 December 2006
 * 5th revert: 11:12, 18 December 2006

 Comments: This is a continuation of a pattern extending over several days. There has been discussion on the talk page on the issues. I would also welcome comment from an impartial observer on the merits of the arguments on each side regarding the suitability of the disputed content.
 * In good faith I honestly did not realize that I had put the section back that many times, and I apologize. On the other hand, some of these edits are not necessarily reversions, but I have added more citations and clarified them on the talk page in discussions with other editors throughout this process.  If you feel you must block me, I suppose that's alright, but know that I am sorry and will not revert again on this matter.  I do wish that the editor who had reported me would have gone to dispute resolution instead - as this is a highly sourced section.  RFC would seem to be much more appropriate for an issue that other editors are concerned about, than 3RR.  Please note my attempts to discuss this issue with the other editor on the talk page.  Though we have had differing viewpoints, I had thought that we were having a relatively amiable discussion (more polite than in the past) and it is a shame to have it come to this.  Please note that the other editor in question has reverted this section at least as many times as I have in the recent past as well - however, I will not file a counter-3RR, because up until this point it did honestly seem like we were having a good faith discussion of the issues on the talk page.  Smeelgova 11:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
 * The edits cited in the diffs (as they regard the Austrian government classification) appear to be straight reverts, starting with "In Austria..." for each of the four reverts. This is also not the first time that Smeelgova has been blocked for edit warring on the Landmark Education article.  Sm1969 11:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have just added a fifth diff to the above four. DaveApter 11:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Clarification - The inital revert and some of the others related to both the 'Austrian cult classification' section and the 'Loaded Language' section, both of which have been subject to edit wars for several days.  The fifth revert relates just to the latter. DaveApter 12:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As a sign of good faith, I have added this issue to dispute resolution, Request for Comment, at Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy, and listed in the talk page at Talk:Landmark_Education. Smeelgova 11:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

A better sign of good faith would have been a self-revert. Failing that, I've blocked you. As to the "I did not realise...": in future, please mark your reverts as such, then it will be easier for you (as well as us) to find out which are reverts William M. Connolley 13:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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

User has engaged in a series of partial/complex reverts as follows


 * 1st revert: 17:37, 17 December 2006, which is a partial revert of this
 * 2nd revert: 21:57, 17 December 2006 (two edits in series), which are a partial revert of this
 * 3rd revert: 15:18, 18 December 2006 which is an undoing of my removal here
 * 4th revert: 16:39, 18 December 2006 which is a revert of this
 * 5th revert: 17:39, 18 December 2006, a revert of this (this one added by Striver 18:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC))
 * 6th revert: 18:40, 18 December 2006, a revert of this (this one added by Striver 18:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC))

Comments: would also advise the page be protected as it has unfortunately been a site of aggressive edit warring.  ITAQALLAH  17:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * At least the first "revert" looks like an addition of one sentence. The other three appear too complex for me to comprehend. Beit Or 18:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1st one is a revertion of the removal of " moreover, Jewish law has always understood the verses cited to apply only to the situation of the conquest...". I find it strange that you do not comprehend them. Maybe it can be a result of you editing the same article that he has violated 3rr in? --Striver 18:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose the report is fraudulent. The edits are not the same. -- Ghirla -трёп-  19:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on, , , and  (in some order...) this is 4R. 8h William M. Connolley 20:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * William, I don't see a clear violation here. The fourth link you gave above (currently #154) to the 17:40 edit shows him tweaking the writing. He didn't add "contemporaneous" or "modern" or any of the other words that were being disputed. Does that link really count as a revert? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I came here when reviewing the unblock request. It does seem that the user was adjusting his point, but was still holding firm to his base assertion. I have decided not to review this unblock I agree with the block, but can also understand why the user would think it unfair. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * High, could you take a look at this report? This was someone reverting on the same article who wasn't blocked for 3RR, and yet it looks to me like a pretty clear violation. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * the link currently #154 is not particularly a revert. the first four diffs provided in the original report, contrary to what User:Ghirlandajo suggests, are either partial or full reverts.  ITAQALLAH   01:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * as blocks are not punitive, and much of the block time would have already expired by now, there seems no reason to pursue this case further.  ITAQALLAH   01:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Um. This is a fairly close call, but I think I'll unblock William M. Connolley 22:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reconsidering, William. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

 Comments: This user has been repetedly reverting cited passages from this article, even after invited to discuss his concerns in the Talk page. There is an ongoing discussion regarding this. However this user has refused to contribute to the discussion. Instead he reverts not only my contributions, but also other relevant contributions by other editors. Please see the history. Parthi talk/contribs 19:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

An easier one. 24h William M. Connolley 20:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:71.219.158.181 reported by User:ChrisB (Result:Warning)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 22:56, 17 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 00:36, 18 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 03:47, 18 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 15:44, 18 December 2006

 Comments: User has attempted to include this content in the article repeatedly over the span of the past week, using several 71.219.* IP's and the username RasputinJSvengali. -- ChrisB 22:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The forth revert was a revert of vandalism as well, will warn Jaranda wat's sup 23:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:209.112.13.81 reported by User:CJCurrie (Result:24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 06:06, 18 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 21:49 18 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 22:13, 18 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 22:32, 18 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 22:39, 18 December 2006

 Comments: I could probably just revert this as simple vandalism, but I'd prefer to err on the side of caution. The anon has added extra spaces to some of his edits, but they're otherwise identical. CJCurrie 23:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

24 hours

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 06:47, 17 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 03:39, 19 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 04:39, 19 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 05:07, 19 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 05:26, 19 December 2006

 Comments: Based on edit summaries like "lol 3rr" and "3rr fails", it seems like he's engaging in edit warring and troublemaking rather than having a legitimate reason to revert. Furthermore, his reverts keep blanking the page.


 * 48h. 24h for 3RR and 24h for lol ing 3RR. Have a nice day. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {C} {L} 10:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Mustafa Akalp reported by User:Eli Falk (Result:48)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 23:29, 18 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 01:24, 19 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 01:43, 19 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 16:26, 19 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:57, 19 December 2006


 * Comment Looking at the history, those first two reverts might be considered reverts of vandalism, and I'm inclined to give him a pass here. (On the flip side, there's a 3RR discussion on his talk page, so he's aware of the rule.) | Mr. Darcy talk 16:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He has been blocked for 48 hours. The correct links are –, , , . Note to User:Eli Falk, please leave the diffs appropriately so that the administrators can act quickly. Regards, &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {C} {L} 16:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User:217.134.119.138 reported by Elaragirl and Emir Arven (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * 1st revert: 18:14, 19 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:30, 19 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:38, 19 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:42, 19 December 2006
 * 5th revert: 19:39, 19 December 2006


 * 3RR warning given : Warned.

 Comments: Edit war in the offing, between an anon and a registered editor with a pretty extensive block log. Not a sign of discussion except comments on rv's. I tried to get a cessation of reverting. User:Emir Arven did so. Even after a warning, the anon did not. Emir Arven created a report, I have replaced it since there was a fifth revert and a warning given before that fifth revert. Elar a  girl  Talk 19:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 22:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User:ViriiK reported by User:Alan.ca (Result: No block yet)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: VersionTime


 * 1st revert: 2006-12-19T21:34:00
 * 2nd revert: 2006-12-19T21:36:39
 * 3rd revert: 2006-12-19T21:40:02
 * 4th revert: 2006-12-19T21:45:20

2006-12-19T21:45:50
 * Warning diff:

 Comments: The reverts relate to a copyright dispute. I had noticed the dispute and tagged the image for deletion based on a conflict of copyright. Subsequently another user noticed the image existed on commons and included that deletion template as well. User Viriik continues to revert this tagging despite efforts to discuss the matter on talk pages. It would be helpful if someone would review the deletion of this image and mitigate any risk of future dispute. Alan.ca 02:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: I claim exemption under the fact that the Office of the Prime Minister does hold the copyright according to the Library and Records Canada which is found here. He wants to keep pushing that only Herman Chung holds the copyright. ViriiK 06:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That does not exempt you from 3RR. Sort it out on Talk, and stop edit warring.  It's ludicrous. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Alan.ca reported by User:ViriiK (Result: 3h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 02:47, 20 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 02:35, 20 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 02:39, 20 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 02:44, 20 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 02:47, 20 December 2006

Comments: This image has been found to be officially copyrighted by the Office of the Prime Minister. The Office of the Prime Minister did indeed email back and give authorization to use this image on wikipedia. However Alan.ca refusing to accept the copyright holder giving permission to use this on wikipedia. He's being extremely ignorant about this despite the fact the Library and Archive Canada clearly gives the information of the copyright holder and that is Office of the Prime Minister.
 * Stephen Joseph Harper
 * © Office of the Prime Minister.
 * Reproduced with the permission of the Office of the Prime Minister.
 * Source: Privy Council Office
 * 

ViriiK 03:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

 Comments: I claim exemption under WP:3R Alan.ca 05:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

But you weren't removing a proven violation. You were only tagging one. And it seems there is some question about the permission anyway William M. Connolley 11:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was tagging a violation which I believe is a proven violation. I contacted the webmaster of the site on the 14 of December and have yet to receive a reply.  I cannot see how refusing to let another editor remove a copyright dispute tag qualifies my account for a 3h ban.  Alan.ca 22:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User:67.150.255.246 reported by User:FeloniousMonk (Result: 24 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:34, 20 December


 * 1st revert: 11:47, 20 December
 * 2nd revert: 11:51, 20 December
 * 3rd revert: 11:58, 20 December
 * 4th revert: 12:12, 20 December

3RR warning: 11:58, 20 December

 Comments:

A clear violation and he was warned, so 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is #2 a revert? William M. Connolley 20:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a repeat of this edit. Guettarda 20:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

2006-12-20T20:15:29 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "67.150.255.246 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR on David Berlinski) or I would have William M. Connolley 20:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Mackan79 reported by SlimVirgin (Result:24 hrs)
3RR on by

See Comments section for clarification.


 * Version reverted to 14:48 Dec 19 adds reception section, and removes para about Nazi allegation


 * 1st revert 22:46 Dec 19 restores reception section, and removes paragraph about Nazi allegation
 * Anon revert at 23:15 Dec 19 by 207.195.254.167, restores reception section, and removes paragraph about Nazi allegation
 * 2nd revert (3rd if Mackan is the anon) 23:28 Dec 19 restores reception section, and removes paragraph about Nazi allegation
 * Anon revert at 23:46 Dec 19 by 207.195.254.167, restores reception section, and removes paragraph about Nazi allegation
 * 3rd revert (5th if Mackan is the anon) 15:21 Dec 20 restores reception section, adds "despite these efforts" to the para about Nazi allegation
 * 4th revert (6th if Mackan is the anon) 18:29 Dec 20 restores "despite these efforts" to the para about Nazi allegation

He was warned about 3RR at 08:47 Dec 17.
 * Comment

Mackan79 is making complex, partial reverts. Any admin looking at this should focus on two points to see the reverts. (1) He keeps adding a "reception" section and moving material from elsewhere into it, and (2) he either removes a paragraph about allegations that Folke Bernadotte had Nazi sympathies, or else adds his own editorializing comment that the allegations persisted "despite these efforts" (referring to Bernadotte's efforts to help Jews).

An anon, 207.195.254.167, conveniently turned up twice to revert to his version, though Mackan says it's not him. There was anon reverting on another article yesterday that Mackan was reverting on too. Mackan says on his user page that he's based in Washington D.C. and the anon IPs &mdash;, , and &mdash; resolve to Maryland or Delaware, which are close by. I've included the anon reverts in the report above, but Mackan has violated 3RR even without them. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * PRELIMINARY NOTE FROM MACKAN79: SlimVirgin has now changed her report, so that my responses do not match up.  I will have to review it now and clarify. Mackan79 23:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)  [OK, after review, it is now the alleged 3rd revert that I did not consider to be a revert as explained below. It appears she edited the report between me opening the page and then posting.] Mackan79 23:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm actually glad SlimVirgin reported me, because her behavior against me over the last three days has been excedingly eggregious on multiple pages. I'm frankly floored that this kind of behavior is tolerated by an admin, especially as she appears to have angered many people in the past, who have written me to say so.


 * 1. Neither the Maryland nor Delaware IP's are me or anyone I know.  I have been in a fairly involved confrontation with SlimVirgin over the last few days, and several people have written me in support, so I don't think it's surprising that someone would come to assist me.  [Edited to add: other named users have also agreed with and assisted me]  I also looked at their pages (the anon users), and they appear to have been created well before I even started editing contentious articles.  I believe SlimVirgin's accusation is knowingly baseless and vindictive.


 * 2. I do not believe the listed third/fourth reverts were reverts.  In that "revert," following a 16 hour pause, I moved material from one section to another, and made a new addition elsewhere, after involvement by multiple other users.  I did not delete material.  Moreover, while the material had been moved previously, SlimVirgin had not made any explanation, nor opposed moving it back, despite my asking her directly.  In her earlier changes, she had also reverted several other of my edits on accident, for instance removing sources I had previously included, and re-adding falsely sourced material (both things I had explained in talk), only to realize this later and come back and revert it herself.  As I'll note below, she did this clearly because she only came to the page in the first place to escalate a fight with me, and started reverting before even reading the material.  In any case, I do not believe my addition there was a revert.  [Edited to add: I now remember, SV had actually said in Talk re the section that "I think we should say more about it, not remove it, in order to place it in context, and to give an idea of the extent of it," which is exactly what I did, even adding a sentence about the accusations' prominence in the Israeli press, exactly as SV said she wanted.]


 * The final revert, incidentally, (the 3rd then, not the 4th/5th as SlimVirgin misleadingly states) was not related to SlimVirgin, but a new user, Isarig, who showed up to revert my new addition without comment. I readded it with explanation in talk.  I was then reverted again, and I responded in talk without reverting in kind.  Isarig then proceded to begin edit warring with another user, in a way that I believe is reportable by itself.


 * 3. According to her reading, I believe SlimVirgin herself violated the 3RR rule last night in blatant editwarring on the same page.  (Isn't it also a violation for her to report an alleged 3RR that she was involved in?)  I am relatively new here, and it would take me great time to lay it out in detail, but I believe it can clearly be seen from 21:53, 19 December 2006, to 22:47, to 23:22, to many smaller edits following.  SlimVirgin refused to explain herself on the vast majority of them, particularly at first, although she did add comment well later after I could no longer edit the page due to the 3RR (and not responding despite my very well laid out explanations for each edit that I made).


 * 4. Really, I can't lay out SlimVirgin's harassment over the last few days on this page, but I think it is something that should be known.  If someone feels like looking into it, they can track it on the talk page at Zionism, and then on the Folke Bernadotte page.  My general feeling: I came in very polite and defferential, only to be ignored, and so when receiving no response, I made my edit, each time trying to incorporate their complaints, only to have it summarily reverted with virtually no explanation, no response to my comments, and no attempt to incorporate my suggestions.  This was not simply with SlimVirgin, but also with Jayjg and the minor involvement of others. The most belligerent I became was to say that I thought they were pretending to be idiots by their refusal to acknowledge my point, while still clarifying that I did not think they were actually idiots.  In any case, I think her general demeanor there was very much in violation of Wikipedia standards, but whatever, that's no big deal.


 * After pointedly ceasing to respond, however (and I say pointedly because I wrote her on her talk page, and she responded merely by reposting it on the Zionsim talk page), but then continuing to revert my new changes (which I had continued to try to make more defferential to their position and which two other editors expressed agreement with), SlimVirgin then showed up on the Folke Bernadotte page, which was the last thing I had been substantially involved in. She then started reverting everything I had done, while continuing to refuse to explain herself.  As far as that goes, again, it's easier to see the Folke Bernadotte talk page, but I remain amazed that this kind of thing would be carried on by an admin, particular in the presence and with the assistance of her allies.


 * Throughout this ordeal, I have continued making repeated defferential overtures to SlimVirgin and others on the Zionism page to simly address the matter in the talk page, to no avail. If I was uncivil at any point, which I really don't think I was, that would have to be seen on the talk pages.  In any case, this behavior on Zionism and Folke Bernadotte (where SlimVirgin's apparent friends and fellow admins also quickly followed her to assist in her revert war, while claiming that they didn't have time to discuss their edits) strikes me as a complete break-down of Wikipedia's policies.  I imagine these complaints are common, though, so again, whatever.  This accusation from SlimVirgin, though, combined with her previous harassment of me over the last couple of days, is truly out of bounds. Mackan79 22:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin has continued to revert war on the Folke Bernadotte page, while continuing to refuse to explain herself, and further flasely insinuating that an anonymous user is me. Is it not possible for an admin to check an IP address?  If so, they can probably very easily see that I was editing at the same time as that address from a different place.  Even if not, there is absolutely no basis for comparison, other than that this person showed up to defend me. Mackan79 23:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * One more thing: SlimVirgin now apparently realized that she herself broke the 3RR rule on the Folke Bernadotte page and reverted herself, but then continued editing on the page. Mackan79 00:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you give any diffs to support these allegations? Claiming an administrator is out of line usually doesn't work unless you can provide some evidence. -Patstuarttalk 00:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Mackan's been posting these very long posts to talk pages too, which is why he gets few responses. It's worth noting that the reverts above are not isolated. He's reverted around 23 times on two articles since December 11, and has made only 48 edits to articles in that period, so the revert percentage is high. That's not counting the anon IPs who turn up to revert to his versions. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I can try, but I'm relatively new and not good with the technical language. The 3RR violation on the Bernadotte page is very clear in the history; her reverts are in short succession and well documented. I clearly documented her failure to explain in talk. [I see her post here now; while my posts started long, they were entirely brief on Bernadotte where she continued to harass me] Again, I think someone would basically need to look at the talk page on both, but I'll try. I assure you, though: I'm not a partisan, not making this up, and not even exagerating, although of course it's possible I was being more contentious than I intended (though I really ceased this nearly entirely very shortly into the discussion). I think her behavior is very serious. As a starting point, I'd ask somebody to simply glance at my diff page to see the thoughtfulness of the edits I've made.  SV's statement that I merely revert is also false; I wrote the entire article on the Living Constitution.  I have been reverted lately because I have been trying to remove POV material from certain bios and now one sentence on the Zionism page. Mackan79 00:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

(Edited to add: Below is material re: SV 3RR violation and blatant edit warring on Folke Bernadotte Page, plus being heavily involved in what she's reporting against me. For previous dispute on Zionism, I think you have to glance at the talk page, but spillover hostility should be readily apparent at Folke Bernadotte.  So maybe SV can explain if she thinks there's a good reason for her hostility.  Now reviewing for she first started explaining herself)


 * 1st SV revert (21:53, 19 Dec 2006 SV) enters page, does simple revert of my last edit.  No explanation in talk.
 * My 1st revert (22:46, 19 Dec 2006) ( Reinstated material, explaining that there had been an involved discussion in talk, explained this again in talk,
 * 2nd SV revert (22:47, 19 Dec 2006) Simple revert again, no explanation.
 * Anon revert (23:15, 19 Dec 2006) Restored by anonymous user (to my previous version)
 * 3rd SV revert (23:22, 19 Dec 2006) Third simple revert, no explanation.
 * My 2nd revert (23:28, 19 Dec 2006) Reinstating material with explanation.
 * Humus Sapiens enters (23:38 19 Dec 2006) Humus enters, also having been involved in dispute on Zionism page on SV's side. Does simple reversion, no explanation in talk.  I wrote him and asked him very defferentially for comment, and he responded saying he wasn't mad at me at all, but didn't have time to read through the comments to respond.  He said he agreed with SV though.
 * Anon user revert 2 (23:46 19 Dec 2006) After SV makes four more additional edits, another anonymous user comes and reinstates to my version.
 * Jayjg enters (23:53 19 Dec 2006) Jayjg enters (also from Zionism dispute) to protect page from anonymous users.  In three edits with Humus, also reverts to SV version.  No explanation.
 * SV back at it (00:27 20 Dec 2006) SV, back, makes 7 more edits to page, including summary "removed the bit about him perhaps being reluctant to include Jews as the source doesn't say that" (material she had just reverted me to add).
 * My 3rd edit (not revert) (15:08 20 Dec 2006) After about 16 hours and many changes by SV and others, I do not revert, but revise paragraph regarding Nazi allegations, including adding a sentence in accordance with SV's request.  I also move another paragraph, after asking SV if she intended to move it or whether there was a reason, and she didn't respond.
 * SV's at least 4th revert (21:24 20 Dec 2006) Following a revert of my edit by Isarig and my revert of that (my 3rd revert, with explanation in talk), and a subsequent revert war between Isarig and Abu Ali, SV reenters and reverts my latest chagnges, without explanation.
 * SV reverts self (21:25 20 Dec 2006) SV seems to realize she overdid it and reverts herself, thoughs he doesn't say why.
 * SV continues (21:32 20 Dec 2006) SV makes several more edits to the article.

I'll save this now and see what happens. Mackan79 01:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC) [Continuing to revise, I apologize]


 * Reverts 1 and 2, and carbon-copy reverts to the original. The third is subtle, recreating the "reception" section" which was previously removed, but anybody looking at the original or 1 and 2, can see that the section title was previously inserted by Mackan and removed by others. The 4th one also a revert, over the words "despite these efforts" by Isarig although it was not identical, because the word "some" was introduced. There are still 4 reverts however. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't see how the edit 15:21 Dec 20 is a revert. Even if the preceding edit is included, the net effect was to move a paragraph to a different place and add substantial extra text to it. I don't think that text was there before (did I miss something?) The reporter summarised this as "added 'Despite these efforts'" but that is not a fair summary as there are several new phrases, an entire new sentence, and extra material quoted from the source. So I think there were only 3 reverts. --Zerotalk 14:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a revert because he restored the reception section, which he'd done several times before. Even if you add extra material each time, if you're also restoring other material, it's still a revert; if that didn't count as reverting, someone could simply tweak their text each time they wanted to restore a disputed section, and that could continue endlessly. See WP:3RR. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 17:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Truli reported by User:MariusM (Result:)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 20 Dec 06:50


 * 1st revert: 20 Dec 9:17
 * 2nd revert: 20 Dec 13:03
 * 3rd revert: 20 Dec 13:14
 * 4th revert: 20 Dec 13:15
 * 5th revert: 20 Dec 13:17
 * 6th revert: 20 Dec 13:29
 * 7th revert: 20 Dec 22:01

A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here. 20 Dec 13:33

 Comments: Mario, can you provide details about what was reverted when, because a lot of these edits are different? That doesn't mean it's not 3RR, but it would be helpful if you could spell it out. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, many things were reverted, it can be qualified also as vandalism. Pushing the description "country" for this region, which was not agreed by other editors, is part of reverts 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th. Taking out paragraph with criticism regarding elections is part of reverts 4th and 7th. Changing or deleting completely the paragraph about violent (alegedly terorist) incidents is part of reverts 1st, 5th, 7th. Deleting paragraph about smugling and weapons trade is part of reverts 5th and 7th. In revert 7th he also deleted a paragraph about travel warnings and in revert 1st a paragraph about traficking women and re-added a sentence about jamming radio and TV station (I believe he readded this sentence by mistake, as he usually want to hide problems in that region). I should add my impression that Truli is a sockpuppet of User:Mark us street (known also as User:MarkStreet and blocked already 3 times for 3RR), who anounced he will quit Wikipedia, I suspect he just changed his name to avoid scrutiny from other editors. Others had the same impression: JonathanPops, William Mauco, TSO1D, with some doubts. I don't know if I have enough reasons to ask a RCU.--MariusM 15:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:58, 16 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 16:33, 20 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 16:40, 20 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:54, 20 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 19:25, 20 December 2006


 * Warning:

 Comments:

Sir, See the reverts carefully. No one (users) discussed before their reverts, while in each of my reverts I ask them to discuss before the reverting. See the scroll down to the edit summaries and see here

Before I answered to all discussions and waited for more than 48 hours for opinions. see here No one replied and so i reverted. see here And even there in the edit summary I ask them to discuss befor reverting. No one replied but all of them went on reverting.

Also see the first three reverts as Ayyavazhi seperately and the fourth is not a revert but a different edit in which I accept their view and add Ayyavazhi as per the citations from university papers. - Paul 00:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He's been blocked before so he knows about 3RR; therefore, 24 hours. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User:KazakhPol reported by SlimVirgin (Result:24H)
3RR on by


 * Version reverted to 20:45 Dec 18, the lead says that Hizb ut-Tahrir is an "Islamic terrorist organization" and "Hizb ut-Tahrir declared a state of holy war with the United States in June 2001."


 * 1st revert 04:56 Dec 20, restored that Hizb ut-Tahrir is an "Islamic terrorist organization."
 * 2nd revert 18:40 Dec 20, restored that Hizb ut-Tahrir is an "Islamic terrorist organization"; and "Hizb ut-Tahrir declared a state of holy war with the United States in June 2001."
 * 3rd revert 03:12 Dec 21, restored that Hizb ut-Tahrir is an "Islamic terrorist organization"; and "Hizb ut-Tahrir declared a state of holy war with the United States in June 2001."
 * 4th revert 03:16 Dec 21, restored that Hizb ut-Tahrir is an "Islamic terrorist organization"; and "Hizb ut-Tahrir declared a state of holy war with the United States in June 2001."
 * 5th revert 03:32 Dec 21, restored that Hizb ut-Tahrir is an "Islamic terrorist organization"; and "Hizb ut-Tahrir declared a state of holy war with the United States in June 2001."

KazakhPol is well aware of 3RR, as his revert here indicates, where his edit summary calls it his 3rd revert. But he miscounted. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * SlimVirgin, sadly, does not understand the WP:3RR policy. She believes that three reverts in 24 hours constitutes a violation of the policy when the editor in question disagrees with her. KazakhPol 05:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He has been told that he's violated 3RR but hasn't reverted himself.  SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  05:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin, you are getting on my last nerve. You know I did not violate WP:3RR. You know how to properly merge pages, yet you choose not to. You know you should not be removing citations. You know you should not be pasting copyvios. You know you should not be wikistalking me. You know better. KazakhPol 05:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You clearly violated the 3RR as I stated on your talk page. It's pretty clear. Just because you aren't always reverting to the same version doesn't mean that they are not reverts. And since SlimVirgin is an admin of long standing, I'm pretty certain that she knows the policy pretty well. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Bignole reported by User:ShadowTao 04:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC) (Result:)
Three-revert rule violation on Aliens 1986 Film.


 * 1st Revert: 03:07, 21 December 2006
 * 2nd Revert: 03:33, 21 December 2006
 * 3rd Revert: 03:37, 21 December 2006
 * 4th Revert: 03:39, 21 December 2006


 * Original: 02:26, 21 December 2006

Bignole and I are in a debate over what constitutes verbose, and unnecessary when editing the Aliens wiki. I contend that plot elements important the story have been exlcuded, and require inclusion to add to an understanding behind the fears of the main protagonist. Futher, my changes to existing text are clarifications and revisions of the grammar. Bignole has contested that I am making additions, but if you compare the texts, you'll see that I'm fine-tuning plot elements that have already been mentioned, but have been written poorly. Anyway, can I get an Admin to settle this?ShadowTao 04:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert him initially, I was going through removing unnecessary text, following Wiki's policy for plot summaries. He didn't like it and reverted me. Simply compare my intial edit with his edits and you can see. I removed a lot of what he added, but it wasn't a revert because I rewrote a lot of those sentences differently than what they were. Bignole 04:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I assert that Bignole's text is anorexic. There are important plot specifics that are being excluded with his edits. Further, if it wasn't a revert, why are you claiming the third revert in the history?ShadowTao 04:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Shadow, you need to supply diffs showing four reverts in less than 24 hours, plus the version that the first edit was a revert to. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 04:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Allow me. Here is Shadow's first major edit, where you can see the plot before he made his major changes . Here is my initial edit (which wasn't a revert) which you can compare . Here is the history to see that I have only reverted a total of 3 times . Bignole 04:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Added reverts and the original that is in dispute.ShadowTao 04:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Shadow, but we need diffs, not links to the entire article. We need to see links to the actual reverts, so we can see clearly what was reverted, by whom, and when. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 05:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Two of those are the same edit, you just copied it twice. Your "Revert 3 and 4" are the same page. And Your "1st revert" when compared to original will clearly show that I didn't revert you and that I was editing the section. Bignole 05:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The biggest clue that I didn't simply revert him is the word count. When compared to the original plot (before he started adding a single word to it)my edit took it from 827 words to 789 words. Bignole 05:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Defense before bed
 * Original Plot, where Shadow makes first edit (for comparison)
 * My first edit, which can be compared to the plot before Shadow changed it, and seen that I didn't revert back to the original
 * My first revert
 * My second revert
 * My third and final revert
 * History to compare the links to prove I'm not cheating

I'm providing this because I want to get my defense in before I go to sleep. If you compare the original plot to my first edit (the one Shadow calls my first reversion) you can see that I didn't revert back to the original, and that I kept things that he added, but removed a lot of things, plus a lot of things from the original plot. I did revert him 3 times, but seeing as I haven't done it a 4th time, I haven't actually violated the 3RR. Bignole 05:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

According to 3RR: "Reverting, in this context, means undoing, in whole or part, the actions of another editor or other editors."ShadowTao 14:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't undo what you did, I rewrote it. The difference between the two is that I didn't take what you did and undo it back to its original state, I rewrote it to a completely new state and at the same time kept many of the things you added. Bignole 14:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Diffs not versions please William M. Connolley 12:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Mine are the differences. You can see all the red from each edit. Bignole 12:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

My first 3RR report, I'll correct and revise.ShadowTao 14:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now linking to the diffs, not the entire page. There were four reverts, not five.ShadowTao 14:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Notice his "original copy" was the copy I initially edited, and not the copy that was there before he started editing. If I reverted him on this "first edit" as he claims, then it would look exactly like the plot summary that was there before he came along, which it doesn't. If you compare what he added, and what I took out, I didn't remove everything he added, but I did remove things from what was originally there before he came. Make sure who ever is going through all this that you also check the history and compare copies. Shadow believes that if you make a bunch of edits at once that remove things from someone else's edit that it's a simple revert, when what I did was reword what he wrote. Bignole 14:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, 3RR states, ""Reverting, in this context, means undoing, in whole or part, the actions of another editor or other editors." Your actions are still covered. Further, from 3RR "Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting."ShadowTao 14:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case you undid the work of other editors on your initial edits to the plot. So, technically you would have been violating the 3RR in your "meaning" as well. Since you clearly reverted me 3 times, after my initial edit, plus your edits to the page which undid the wording over other editors before you. Thus, in your own definition of the policy, you reverted 4 times as well. Bignole 14:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Negative, because the editor whose work I edited did not revert or revise the edits I made to their text. I was not in an editing war with the other editors, and the only person whose worked I explicity revised was your own, hence 3RR in this case applies only to you and myself.ShadowTao 14:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you "undid" what was already there, when you rewrote sentences from the plot that existed before you came along, you violated your own meaning behind 3RR. Those where someone else's edits that you undid, mine included. Since what really occurred is that both of our initial edits didn't really "undo" anything, but either "simplified" or added "specifics" to a sentence, neither of us has actually violated the 3RR. I didn't "revert" anything back to its original content. Simple editing is not considered reverted if you are only rewriting a sentence, or choosing a new word. By your definition, if you use the word "blowup" and I change that word to "explode", and the original word was "destroyed", then I reverted you. Unfortunately that isn't how a reversion works. Bignole 15:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Now you're changing your story. First, you warn, then outright accuse me of violating 3RR, not just here, but in the history of the Aliens wiki and my own talk page. Now, you're saying that I've done nothing wrong. You didn't just rework my edits, you completely reverted entire sections, seemingly because I added two clarifications regarding two characters, one of which you accepted, the other rejected. You could have simply changed the points you contended, and left it at that.  Instead, you made partial changes to the points in question, then you went back and reverted everything else to the previous version. The scope of your complaints didn't cover the edits you applied to my version.  You're saying that you changed one word for another, but you didn't... you edited/reverted entire paragraphs; the edits in red are quite obvious. As for my editing the previous editor's work, that's a strawman debate tactic on your part and has nothing to do with 3RR.ShadowTao 15:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Corrected original copy. It is the one at which I state I had completed my edits. That is article edited in the first revert ending ###972.ShadowTao 14:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"prev version" isn't; you have only demonstrated 3R William M. Connolley 15:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Rumpelstiltskin223 reported by User:71.109.183.170 05:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC) (24h for 70...)
Three-revert rule violation on Human penis size.


 * 1st Revert: 04:55, 21 December 2006
 * 2nd Revert: 04:57, 21 December 2006
 * 3rd Revert: 05:13, 21 December 2006
 * 4th Revert: 05:26, 21 December 2006


 * Original:

This user has been wikistalking me, and is going through and rolling back every edit I made. I made the edits on this page in good faith, and he continuously reverts them. He did the same on other page I made corrections on. I made a crude comment on a chat page which I apologized multiple times for. Regardless, I made edits in good faith and multiple times I asked that this user DISCUSS them before rolling them back ad nauseum.. sorry for the trouble. 71.109.183.170 05:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This user has been vandalizing sourced content on many articles and making racist comments against Indians across many articles. He was using another ip previously and got blocked. Now he is reincarnated as a new ip and persistently vandalizes article after article. I have complained about him here . I post details below:

Dear Sir, I approach you upon the advice of another editor. It seems that an ip address has been making disruptive edits and trolling with racist comments on several pages. The ip address is 71.106.173.12 contribs. He got blocked but is presently using another ip address,71.109.183.170 (contribs) to work around it. He made one good edit to List of countries by size of armed forces, which I reverted by mistake (see the first link where the ip scolded me for it). He pointed it out and I said sorryhere and let the matter go. However, he then proceeded to blank content from Human penis size and keeps doing it. Can you intervene?Rumpelstiltskin223 05:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The ip's racist remarks are below:

 []
 * How are these racism. I posted an article that is published by the Indian Gov't.  Yes, I admit it was in poor taste and I apologized, but your general use of calling people racist is disturbing.  Regardless, this is besides the point and was THE PAST before your 3RR. 71.109.183.170 06:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thus, it is clear that his edits to Human penis size were blanking of sourced content and vandalism so 3 revert rule does not apply. If administrator disagrees then please report to my talk page immediately. Rumpelstiltskin223 05:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * HOW IS IT CLEAR IT IS VANDALISM?? That is what I tried to ask you many times, look at my edits.  I took out sections that did not even fit in the subsection and made formatting corrections.  Just because you do not agree with an edit does not deem it as vandalism.  You indeed were doing vandalism by reverting...  why can't you see that your way is not the only way? 71.109.183.170 06:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The page is a target for vandals. Every race has their own cruft and defamation to add to the page. Studies in measurement, are far outside the norm (most doctors would do real medicine like deakling with cancer, AIDS, etc.). Rumpel was correct in reverting unreliable edits.71.97.245.142 05:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you his friend trying to back up "Rumpel"? Or "Rumpel" using another account?  If you note, I REMOVED what was unreliable information and basically chatting.  So you are accussing me of making unreliable edits, when I "in good faith" removed unreliable edits?  Oh, please... Those BBC articles have really gotten your panties into a twist. *rolls eyes* 71.109.183.170 06:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * More insulting remarks. BTW the other anon poster is not me.Rumpelstiltskin223 06:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OH REALLY? MAYBE WE NEED TO DO A SOCKPUPPET CHECK ON YOU TOO "Rumpel".
 * Everything is an insult or racism to you. See a doctor; I mean it, for your own good! 71.109.183.170 06:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You have been wikistalking me and making it a point to disrupt my edits. Perhaps you are an Indian who now makes this into a vendetta because of my crude poking of fun before.  Going off and making accusations of racism and trolling is out of line.  I did not change IPs to work around anything, I turned off my computer and my IP is dynamic.  Perhaps you should also take some time away from your computer, eh now?!  I made a poor choice in some jokes before, obviously some people have very thin skin.  Regardless, ALL OF MY subsequent edits were valid and done in good faith.  I'm not blanking human penis size, I made edits which I thought were valid talking out sections which were unencyclopedic or did not even fit in the sections they did; that and basic formatting.  I asked you many times to TALK about the changes I made, instead you just automatically roll back all the edits.  That is 3RR and not assuming good faith.. not to mention, just being pretty darn blind. 71.109.183.170 05:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see this response regarding this disruptive (clearly from his post above) user from another good wikipedian . Also, he made another incivil insult to me .Rumpelstiltskin223 06:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I FEEL SORRY FOR YOU. take it as an insult or not, I don't care, I've had enough of hypersensitive idiots.  You can't seem to fathom what you've done is also wrong.  good riddens, do indeed feel sorry for you. 71.109.183.170 06:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This user also made another personal attack against me .Rumpelstiltskin223 06:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Bit of a mess, but I've given the anon 24h for 3RR and incivility. Rumpel gets a warning for breaking 3RR against not-quite-clear vandalism William M. Connolley 12:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just curious, but you are banning someone for 24h who didn't commit 3RR, but then only warning someone who did clearly break 3RR and is well aware of these rules? Not to mention that Rumpel can be shown to have followed this user around reverting valid edits, or at least edits that are "not-quite-clear vandalism"?  This together with Rumpel making accusations of vandalism and racism (his log shows he does sure like to scream racism A LOT, by the way), which are clearly personal attacks and equally incivil as well.  I can imagine the Anon user becoming uncivil when he is being hounded by another user who has taken it upon himself to hunt the other.  Well, I guess this decision all makes sense..............  :-)

User:Icecold1 reported by User:Yomangani (Result: 24h)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:24, 20 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 00.54, 21 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 04.24, 21 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 07:48, 21 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 09:26, 21 December 2006
 * 5th revert: 09:51, 21 December 2006 - reverted themselves almost instanteously
 * 6th revert: 10:14, 21 December 2006 - POV pushing edit added as well

 Comments: I got involved with this article by removing some uncited POV, but thinking the editor was acting in good faith tidied up the article to included some of their additions and give a more balanced view from the previous anti-finning argument. Since then the user has insisted on adding a line to the end of the article, despite being the only supporter of the POV, arguments to contrary on their talk page (which they later blanked), reversions by several editors, and vandalism warnings on their talk page. I was hoping they would get bored, but they've reverted at least 6 times in the past 24 hours. Unfortunately, unless you regard my reversions as vandal fighting it appears I've breached the 3 revert rule too (missed one I did yesterday). Ho hum. Yomangani talk 10:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

24h. I'll leave you unblocked for now William M. Connolley 12:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User:207.236.219.129 reported by User:Oden (Result: 24 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

 Comments: 3RR warning diff


 * Some of the links show vandalism, Oden, so a 3RR report isn't needed. 24 hours. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 17:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User:CltFn reported by User:Netscott (Result: 48)
Three-revert rule violation on 13:04, 20 December 2006 initial version saying Bat Ye'or is a "historian".


 * rv1: 13:13, 21 December 2006 Bat Ye'or is a "historian".
 * rv2: 13:28, 21 December 2006 John Esposito is funded by Saudis.
 * rv3: 15:40, 21 December 2006 Bat Ye'or is a "historian".
 * rv4: 15:46, 21 December 2006 John Esposito is funded by Saudis.
 * rv5: 16:45, 21 December 2006 Bat Ye'or is a "historian".
 * rv6: 17:37, 21 December 2006 Restored previously removed Robert Spencer text.
 * rv7: 17:57, 21 December 2006 Restored previously removed Robert Spencer text.
 * rv8: 18:07, 21 December 2006 Restored previously removed Robert Spencer text.
 * rv9: 18:45, 21 December 2006 Restored previously remove Robert Spencer text.

Time report made: 19:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user has an extensive block record for 3RR and other violations a very long block time looks warranted in this instance of his further disruption. 19:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * PLEASE EXAMINE THOSE EDITS ABOVE CAREFULLY Those are not reverts, those are edits. I am not reverting anything. I have added sources, or changed sources as discussed in the edit summary. There is not a single instance of 3RR in the list above. In some cases I was fixing my own bad text formatting. Also note that has prior history of conflicts with my edits and he may be acting in bad faith--CltFn 19:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * They were indeed reverts and for highly dubious content (for example, replacing a neutral fact about academic qualifications with original research: information that implied the person was in the pay of lobbyists). --Lee Hunter 19:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What you just said is not a revert, that is an edit .Show us the actual 3RRs as opposed to edits. There are none.--CltFn 19:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

They most certainly are reverts, and there are at least 4 of them. 48h William M. Connolley 20:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Was his track record considered when determining the length? --Striver 20:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes William M. Connolley 21:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Codex_Sinaiticus reported by User:JDG (Result: user warned)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 10:47
 * 2nd revert: 12:11
 * 3rd revert: 14:42
 * 4th revert: 14:49

 Comments: This user, Codex Sinaiticus, is destroying a balance in the first paragraph of Shroud of Turin that took many weeks to work out back when the article was elevated to FA. He is doing this by inserting unproven/unprovable statements about the exact nature of image formation on the Shroud: that is, he insists it is a literal photographic negative process. Debate about the "negativeness" of the image is handled very well and in detail in the body of the article. Repeatedly inserting one-sided material on it in the intro paragraph is having an extremely destructive effect on the piece as a whole. JDG 20:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This 3RR "violation" should be retracted, since the so-called "4th revert" above was not a revert at all, but the placement of a NPOV tag, since I am disputing the NPOV of the article. And while completely irrelevant to this page, the above is a total mischaracterization of my position; I am insisting nothing of the sort, only that this is one of the positions that should be represented, not suppressed. Thanks ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

rv 4 is the placement of an NPOV tag. To my surprise, this tag hasn't been warred over recently - unless you can show it has been within, say, a month, then its only 3R William M. Connolley 21:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, the tag really is part of the same dispute, but I'll let it pass. William-- perhaps you could help us with informal mediation on Codex's proposed changes to intro paragraph? They lower the quality from many angles, especially in the simple matter of truth. Even believers in the Shroud's mystic origins do not insist it is a literal photographic negative. And here we have Wikipedia flat-out stating that is the case. JDG 07:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I just noticed part of the problem... I hadn't noticed this before, but on 11 Dec., user Brandmeister changed the wording subtly so that instead of stating that there are those who "believe" the Shroud is photographic in nature (true), it rather stated simply that the Shroud "is" photographic in nature, which I agree is too much for neutrality. I hadn't paid attention to that minor change when I was reverting, but it seems that is what you were looking at and removing.  What I actually want it to say is the wording just before Brandmeister changed it on Dec. 11, that some believers consider it photographic. Would you acceptthat as a compromise? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The user has now been warned per 3RR not to let this happen again. alphachimp  21:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Er... not to let what happen again? I certainly did not break 3RR here. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 4:22 21 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 4:30 21 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:36 21 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:54 21 December 2006
 * 5th revert: 18:57 21 December 2006

 Comments: This user continues to revert to his version of a WP:BLP article, inserting unsourced, POV information in violation of WP:V, WP:BLP and others. When it is removed, he reinstates it, calling the removal "vandalism". He violated yesterday and was not reported. At least 5 editors, including two admins have attempted to explain what is wrong with his edits, but it has become clear he is just being obstinate. He has been warned at least three times by two different admins, both on his talk page and on the talk page of the article yet he continues to revert over 5 times just today.--WilliamThweatt 21:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1st 3RR Warning
 * 2nd 3RR Warning (by an admin)

24h William M. Connolley 09:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

User:67.80.238.244 reported by User:Bdve (Result: 48 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 17:35


 * 1st revert: 18:17
 * 2nd revert: 18:23
 * 3rd revert: 18:30
 * 4th revert: 18:38

 Comments: I see that this is an anon user and probably doesn't know the rules, but I started a discussion for the (minor) change on the talk page and directed people in there in an edit summary, then dropped a note on the IPs talk page. Since their last edit was from that same IP they should have seen it.
 * Ok, just a comment myself. I read (did you?) the first paragraph which says, "If you find yourself in a revert war, it is a good idea to ensure that the "other side" is aware of the 3RR, especially if they are new, by leaving a warning about WP:3RR on their talk page. Administrators are unlikely to block a user who has never been warned. If you report a 3RR violation here it is good form to inform the person you are reporting of this on their talk page and provide a link to this page WP:AN/3RR."  Why even make this report when you haven't explained to them the WP:3RR rule yet, nor told them that you have made this report??

2006-12-21T23:41:12 Zoe (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "67.80.238.244 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (multiple vandalisms to Team-RKO) William M. Connolley 10:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 21:44, 18 December 2006 for first three and 00:55, 22 December 2006 for the last one.


 * 1st revert: 15:24, 21 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:51, 21 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:48, 21 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 01:13, 22 December 2006

I've warned him on 00:30, 22 December 2006 about the three reverts rule. He was also warned previously on 21:21, 26 October 2006 by User:FunkyFly. He was previously blocked for violating the rule, as stated on his talk page.

 Comments: He preferred reverting to discussing these changes on the talk page. Also, his last revert is of a different section, but on the same issue. The recording has, in Romanian, Ion Iliescu saying (as mentioned by me on the commit): "Thanks for answering our call again", "The delegation of miners, lead by Miron Cosma, will head towards the University Square, which we want you to re-occupy", "I thank you all [...] people you can count on, for good and especially for worse". Also, the French bit states "Iliescu appealed to the miners to re-establish order".


 * Gcbirzan was also in violation of 3RR. He should be blocked as well, correct? Or am I missing something? :) --Woohookitty(meow) 12:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Forgot to note: 24h. As to Gcb... probably, though I haven't checked. Feel free William M. Connolley 12:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hum. While I admit I was close to it, I haven't (I think, might be wrong.). The 00:55, 22 December 2006 wasn't a revert. I cited sources. (Albeit unnecessarily, in my opinion...) gcbirzantalk 15:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

User:A4 reported by User:Grafikm_fr (Result: 24 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 11:24, 21 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 20:33, 21 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 22:43, 21 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:37, 22 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:08, 22 December 2006

 Comments: User has been pushing a heavy POV agenda on this article for quite some time now (with offensive summaries like "remove trolling") and broke the 3RR rule, therefore a block is in order. Incidentally, user is known for 3RR violations, so a little longer one might be in order. -- Grafikm  <sup style="color:red;">(AutoGRAF)  18:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked by (aeropagitica) for 24 hours per WP:3RR. alphachimp  21:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 25 November


 * 1st revert: 05:39 22 December
 * 2nd revert: 09:47 22 December
 * 3rd revert: 19:56 22 Dember
 * 4th revert: 20:24 22 December

 Comments: four exact reversions, of two different versions, by two different editors; the edit summaries should make clear this is a substantive editing disagreement. The text reverted to, despite the lapse of time, is just before the first reverted edit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for 48 hours per WP:3RR. alphachimp  21:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Jordanmills reported by User:Hbdragon88 (Result: user warned)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 13:24, 22 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 18:43, 22 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:36, 22 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 21:55, 22 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 22:46, 22 December 2006

 Comments: Also note Mechagrover, which uses the same exact edit summary ("rv repeated vandalism") and happened to come up at just the same time as Jordanmills did. Hbdragon88 23:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Jackman333 also performed the same revert and also blanked the talk page when someone warned him about his/her revert. Hbdragon88 23:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Jackman added nonsense, but he didn't revert, sorry about that. Hbdragon88 02:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The user has now been warned per 3RR not to let this happen again. alphachimp  21:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

User:ZakuSage reported by User:Hbdragon88 (Result: user warned)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:11, 22 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 19:55, 22 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 23:53, 22 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 00:01, 23 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 00:08, 23 December 2006
 * 5th revert: 00:26, 23 December 2006

 Comments: Ridiculous edit war. Filing a RFPP afer this 3RR report.
 * In my admittedly feeble defense, I was trying to bring the page back to pre-dispute status in order to get a proper discussion going of the proposed edits. Additionally, even though it really wouldn't matter after the third, the 4th listed is not a revert. - ZakuSage


 * The user has now been warned per 3RR not to let this happen again. alphachimp  21:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Josquius reported by User:Hbdragon88 (Result: user warned)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 09:15, 22 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 19:38, 22 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 23:41, 22 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 00:00, 23 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 00:13, 23 December 2006

 Comments: Ridiculous edit war. Filing a RFPP afer this 3RR report. Hbdragon88 03:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The user has now been warned per 3RR not to let this happen again. alphachimp  21:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

User:195.29.133.237 reported by User:Samboy (Result: 24 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

 Comments: I feel it is fair to revert to the other version because "removal of unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living people is an excepted from the [3RR] rule". Also note that this IP is going against both my wishes and the wishes of another editor. Samboy 06:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * warning (first edit to page)


 * Royalguard11 blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. alphachimp  21:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Samboy reported by User:195.29.133.237 (Result:User:195.29.133.237 blocked for 24h for 4RR)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


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

 Comments: The user abuses the 3RR rule to repetedly revert the page without having contributed to content AT ALL or discussing my edits. The reverted version also contains proven errors and unsubstantiated claims, which both he and another user refuse to address (see last section of talk page).
 * I have blocked User:195.29.133.237 for 3RR violation for 24 hours. Samboy only had 3 reverts in the last 24. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 06:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Somethingoranother reported by User:Dppowell (Result:)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

 Comments: The last 48 hours of this user's edit history and Talk:Ireland more or less speak for themselves on this. Please note that the user also blanked his talk page in an apparent attempt to obscure previous warnings. Dppowell 20:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but the edit war on the article Ireland has came to an end as a general consensus has been agreed upon and implemented. I'll kindly ask you to refrain from reporting me to Administrators simply as a way to try and get your own back on me because I disagreed with your views in the past. Regards Somethingoranother 20:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Previous version reverted to: 00:08, December 19, 2006


 * 1st revert: 17:30, December 22, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 05:14, December 23, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 08:44, December 23, 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:29, December 23, 2006
 * Bonus revert #1: 16:55, December 22, 2006 Previous version: 03:49, December 22, 2006
 * Bonus revert #2: 02:11, December 23, 2006 Previous version: 00:23, December 21, 2006

 Comments: Removed the same passage 4x, as well as two other reverts that are part of a slow edit war, all in 24h. User has been previously blocked for 3RR, on Lamest edit wars, no less. —Trevyn 01:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 31 hours. Tom Harrison Talk 13:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

User:72.184.244.25 reported by User:Coelacan (Result:24 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 20:26, 23 December 2006
 * 1st revert: 02:07, 24 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 02:10, 24 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 02:23, 24 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 02:36, 24 December 2006

 Comments: Here is the 3RR warning:. Not all of these reverts are exactly the same, but the theme is the removal of religious motivations for these groups and replacing them all with racist motivations. This is probably preparatory work for user's stated intention to have the article deleted:.


 * Blocked for 24 hours. Tom Harrison Talk 13:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Lance6968 reported by User:CJCurrie (Result: user warned)
Please note: This request is now "null and void". The matter has been corrected on the article page, and no remedial action need be taken. CJCurrie 01:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Three-revert rule violation on . :

This one's a bit complicated, so bear with me.


 * 1st revert: 08:57, 23 December 2006
 * Previous version reverted to: 08:37, 23 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 09:49 December 2006
 * Previous version reverted to: 09:26, 23 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 10:15, 23 December 2006
 * Previous version reverted to: Same as 2nd revert
 * 4th revert: 02:49, 24 December 2006
 * This is a partial revert of this edit, from 01:25, 24 December 2006
 * 5th revert: 03:59, 24 December 2006
 * Previous version partially reverted to: 03:54, 23 December 2006

Comment: During the time that Lance made these reverts, a discussion concerning the 3RR was taking place on the talk page. In the course of this discussion, I was wrongly accused of breaking the 3RR, and accused of "gaming the system" (a charge I've also denied). The person who made these complaints was silent about Lance's edits. CJCurrie 05:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * CJCurrie's reverts were 49 minutes outside the 3RR "limit" &mdash; diffs here &mdash; which is why I was "silent" about reporting Lance's reverts. It seems a little unfair to report one series of complex, partial reverts and ignore the other for the sake of 49 minutes. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 05:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin is mistaken. I self-reverted one of my prior reverts (the one from 01:00, 23 December 2006), and so did not even come close to violating the 3RR.  More generally, I will note that SlimVirgin has spent extensive time criticizing me for my non-violation, and has been silent on Lance's actual violation (here, and on the talk page).  Methinks a double standard is being imposed, and I can't help but wonder if the complaints against me constitute a form of harrassment.


 * None of this has anything to do with Lance's situation, of course. CJCurrie 05:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is typical of the way you system game, to be honest, and I want to have nothing more to do with it. You had not self-reverted by the time I posted the diffs showing you'd violated 3RR. You were deliberately engaged in making it hard to see what you were doing, because of the reverting, self-reverting, then more reverting. Anyway, as I said, I've had enough. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 05:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I self-reverted at 2:28, 23 December 2006. You posted the diffs at 9:43, 23 December 2006.  So, I can understand why you might not want to discuss this further.  Anyway, I'm getting tired of your ad hominem attacks against me, and your seeming inability to admit having made any mistakes yourself.  CJCurrie 05:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I believe it's considered bad form to remove someone else's disputed template mere minutes after it's first posted. CJCurrie 05:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking the history, you didn't self-revert your addition of the tag. All that happened was you later took the tag down because someone had removed the material you didn't like. That's not what's meant by "self-revert," and this is exactly what I mean about system-gaming and rules-lawyering. This is my last comment, I hope. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 05:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it was still a self-revert. You also left something out: right after I removed the tag, you restored the disputed information without restoring the tag as well.  You also made a series of edits between 07:24 and 08:37, despite having made three reverts a few hours earlier: the very definition of a borderline 3RR violation, unless I'm quite mistaken.  Who exactly was system gaming, here?  CJCurrie 05:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * God, what a mess. I'd like to apologize to everyone for letting this dispute get out of hand.  I realize this isn't the place for it, and I'll endeavour not to let this happen again.  CJCurrie 06:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not interested in CJCurrie's petty edit war. His complaint is childish; and I wish he would leave me be. If necessary, I will self-revert to respect the 3RR rule.--Lance talk 06:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dispute appears to have been resolved amicably, users understand 3RR and have agreed not to violate. I'm officially closing this discussion with a warning. alphachimp  02:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Uifan reported by User:Revragnarok (Result:Indefinite block)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 19:46, 26 November 2006

 Comments: This is the second time - a 3RR was filed before (actually 6RR,archived here). sprotected, the anon IPs (which all use the same broken English revert message) then stopped. A new user Uifan appears and does the same edits. FayssalF has also warned them on their talk page to no avail. This has been going on since early November (the entire article discussion page is all about this one person, and most of the article history). &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 14:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ... took care of it. &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 01:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Halaqah reported by SlimVirgin (Result:31 hours)
3RR on by


 * Version reverted to 12:38 Dec 24, removes from the lead that Ahmadinejad said Israel should be wiped off the map and has made statements denying the Holocaust.
 * 1st revert 12:24 Dec 24, same as above
 * 2nd revert 12:50 Dec 24, same as above
 * 3rd revert 13:01 Dec 24, same as above
 * Version reverted to: 13:57 Dec 24, adds worldwideview and neutrality tags
 * 4th revert 14:20 Dec 24, same as above
 * 5th revert 14:22 Dec 24, removes wiping Israel off the map, Holocaust denial, and other issues from the lead for the 4th time, this time moving it to a new section called "Western Perception."
 * 6th revert 15:00 Dec 24, same as above

He was blocked for 3RR on December 14. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 15:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments


 * Blocked 31 hours. -Will Beback · † · 19:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Calton reported by User:Justin322 (Result: no violation)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 06:59, 4 December 2006


 * 1st revert: 01:16, 24 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 11:47, 24 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:47, 24 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:43, 24 December 2006

 Comments: Article is unsourced and should be merged into Lincoln County, Nevada.--Justin322 20:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're kidding me. You seem quite determined to delete or remove the article for Panaca,_Nevada. We've got a precedent for having articles about small towns. His edits seem like vandalism reverts. alphachimp  21:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Godfroi reported by User:Satori Son (Result: 24 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: 18:02, 23 December 2006
 * 2nd revert: 00:07, 24 December 2006
 * 3rd revert: 01:55, 24 December 2006
 * 4th revert: 05:38, 24 December 2006
 * 5th revert: 13:24, 24 December 2006
 * 6th revert: 13:50, 24 December 2006
 * 7th revert: 16:59, 24 December 2006

A diff of 3RR warning before this report was filed here: Warned at 14:12, 24 December 2006


 * I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. alphachimp  21:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Hipocrite reported by User:THB (result: No violation)
Three-revert rule violation on page .




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

His last revert needs to be reverted. Hipocrite should not be deleting a petition from another user's talk page. It is a valid petition, he even signed it himself. He is acting as a rogue editor in knowing violation of the rules.

-THB 21:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I also have just noticed this apparent violation of 3RR. on User talk:Friday--Light current 23:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Note parallel discussion at ANI here and here; suggest deferring this report to the broader scope of that forum. Newyorkbrad 23:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes but shouldnt the 3RR be dealt with here?--Light current 23:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's up to the reviewing administrator, but the more information he or she has, the better informed a decision can be made. In any event, the 3RR prohibits making more than three reverts in 24 hours, and the report only identifies three, so it's meritless anyway. Newyorkbrad 23:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No Violation 3RR requires 4 reverts, onl 3 have been provided. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    On Belay!  00:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Omido reported by User:Fire Star 火星 (Result: 24 hours)
Three-revert rule violation on . :


 * Previous version reverted to: 14:09 23 December (there have been some few minor, undiscussed edits from other editors since, but this was the version that started things off)


 * 1st revert: 12:10 24 December
 * 2nd revert: 15:54 24 December
 * 3rd revert: 20:32 24 December
 * 4th revert: 20:45 24 December


 * blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. alphachimp  02:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)