Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive20

User:MarshallBagramyan reported by User:Kültigin ^(talk)

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 03:17, 28 June 2006
• 1st revert: 19:28, 28 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 00:17, 29 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 00:20, 29 June 2006
• 4th revert: 18:42, 29 June 2006

Time report made: 19:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Removes cited content from the article. Note that the article is about an Armenian terrorist organization and the user is Armenian, in complete lack of good-faith and NPOV.

User:TPIRFanSteve reported by User:Buckner 1986 (no violation)

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime
• 1st revert: 21:48, 22:04, 20 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 22:04, 21 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 03:42, 24 June 2006
• 4th revert: 21:48, 25 June 2006

Time report made: 23:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Acts like he "owns" the article, removed information that mentions the source. He also left me some angry messages on my user talk page. This user's action has already driven one user off of Wikipedia - Cheesehead 1980 and seems to be a problem user. Buckner 1986 23:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do not understand how this is even still an issue. I provided links to summaries of five differrent episodes where

Pathfinder was played perfectly on said article's talk page, and Mr. Buckner's response was basically, "I'm right and you're wrong." I honestly have no idea how to deal with this. -TPIRFanSteve

23:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This user is very abusive and seems to have made veiled threats. Please deal with him accordingly. Buckner 1986 00:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to tell me where I've done this? 'Cause to be perfectly honest, you've completely lost me at this point. (And if your Talk page is any indication, you've also pretty much flat-out said that you're never going to admit that you're wrong no matter how much evidence I give you short of actually showing you clips of the episodes in question -- which I obviously can't do.) -TPIRFanSteve 00:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No violation, the reverts must be in 24hr span.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Ferick reported by User:TSO1D

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 15:53 Jun 29
• 1st revert: 23:12, 29 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 02:06, 30 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 17:04, 30 June 2006
• 4th revert: 18:03, 30 June 2006

Time report made: 19:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user has continuously removed the Serbian topics template from the article, in my view not because it is not relevant there but because of ideological reasons. TSO1D 19:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

User:TPIRFanSteve reported by User:CobaltBlueTony

):

• 1st revert: 11:06, June 20, 2006
• 2nd revert: 17:16, June 20, 2006
• 3rd revert: 20:40, June 20, 2006

Time report made: 02:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:Cheesehead 1980 seems to be refraining, based on his comments to me here. Should also look at [[1]]. - CobaltBlueTony 02:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you count to 4? William M. Connolley 08:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Tramsvik reported by User:Attilios

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [2]
• 1st revert: [3]
• 2nd revert: [4]
• 3rd revert: [5]
• 4th revert: [6]

Comments: in his different incarnations, user:Tramsvik, user:81.62.140.67 and User:137.138.30.181, this guy edits only Cannalonga. He insists to revert to a version which is clearly bad styled and adopting a non-standard infobox (see almost ALL other articles on Italian communes for comparison) written by him.

User:Pecher reported by User:Netscott (Result: no block)

):

• Continuing pattern of reverts primarily in a war with
  User:Ibrahimfaisal
  .
• 1st revert: 15:05, 20 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 18:27, 20 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 11:13, 21 June 2006
• 4th revert: 11:43, 21 June 2006
• 5th revert: 12:22, 21 June 2006 this revert even after making a conditional promise (12:14, 21 June 2006) not to edit the article in question for the next 24 hours.

Time report made: 12:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: While it's true the original four reverts weren't all across the same content, this report is being filed due to an ongoing edit war primarily between

12:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Pecher has been notified of this report. Netscott 12:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As admitted above, revert #3 was actually a revert of simple vandalism because insertion of SAW honorifics obviously qualifies as such, and I have restored the good faith (and correct) change of 10 to 8 years. Please also note that the other reverts were also restorations of sourced material. However, if an admin finds that I have violated the 3RR, I will promise not to edit the article in question for the next 24 hours. The glaring inaccuracy in the above report is the claim that the edit war on

User:Ibrahimfaisal. In fact, these are users Ibrahimfaisal and Mystic who are attempting to remove sourced material that they dislike, their edits being reverted by User:Tom harrison, User:Aiden, User:Tickle me, and myself. Singling me out here as an edit warrior "to strengthen the case" is plainly inappropriate. Pecher ^Talk

12:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The "fifth revert" reported by Netscott was actually a self-revert linked above. Pecher ^Talk 12:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As the 3rd edit was a reversion of vandalism and the 5th edit was a self revert of any other changes made in the 3rd there is no block. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• The recent editing history there is complicated by some possibly well-intended honorifics that were added by an anonymous editor. As I understand it, these are inconsistent with the style guide, and were removed by Luna Santin and Irishpunktom, as well as by Pecher. Other than the removal of these added honorifics, and possibly a correction changing "10" to "8", there has been no change to the article since Irishpunktom's version of 05:24, 21 June 2006. There was a brief disagreement on content yesterday, that did not quite become an edit war, and is (I hope) mostly resolved. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• The accuracy in your commentary is appreciated User:Tom harrison. User:Pecher's 3rd revert doesn't count as a revert against vandalism... but style guide does apply. If the 3rd revert hadn't been a blanket one there'd be no report here. Netscott 13:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Had you taken a closer look at the diffs before posting them, there'd be no report here.Timothy Usher 08:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Jefffire reported by User:Aquirata (Result: No block)

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 01:45, 21 June 2006
• 1st revert: 10:57, 21 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 11:08, 21 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 11:47, 21 June 2006
• 4th revert: 12:02, 21 June 2006

Time report made: 12:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

page, but that's where I make most of my edits and so that's where I notice them. He is constantly harrassing other editors by uncivil edits, typically without discussing them first on the Talk page. He has absolutely no knowledge of the subject topic (by his own admission) yet is one of the most frequent editors of the page. He doesn't listen to reason, cannot cooperate, and overrules every other editor by his militaristic attitudes.

It is my view that User:Jefffire needs to be blocked from editing the Astrology page (among others). Aquirata 12:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I must protest. I've made 3 reverts, plus a number of other changes which I don't believe classify as reverts. The first "revert" listed is a helpful deletion which has been uncontested and not a "reversion". By way of honesty, lasy month I did unintentionally violate the 3rr on Objective Validity of Astrology due to an error on my part because I had not read the policy properly. I believe my interpratation is correct, but I have reverted myself none the less as a peace making move. However, I must also point out that User:Aquirata has been engaging in a persistant campainge of personal attacks against me, and has been the subject of an RfC for their behaviour, and has made past false accusations of 3rr violations against me. Jefffire 13:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I must also point out that many of the other accussations made against me are compeltely false. I discuss points thourally on talk pages, I try to be civil at all times, despite Aquirata making numerous personally attacks against me about my "ignorance", "lack of knowledge" and repeatedly pointing out spelling mistakes in my talk page edits. I have never vandalised EVER, and adhere very strongly to WP:V. I find these false accussation to be very distressing. Jefffire 13:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The first revert cited is not identical to the other 3, and they are part of different edit conflicts. Hence no block. Sam Vimes 13:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sam, I don't understand your reasoning.

WP:3RR explicitly states that "an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period."; and "there is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count." Please explain. Aquirata

15:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:KraMuc reported by User:Philosophus ^T

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [7]
• 1st revert: [8]
• 2nd revert: [9]
• 3rd revert: [10]
• 4th revert: [11]
• 5th revert: [12]

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

Comments:

There is considerable evidence supporting the claim that KraMuc is also 82.52.19.192. The IP is in the same block as an IP KraMuc used a few days ago to edit, as seen with whois, editing times are the same, and at least one edit comment is the same. KraMuc has been warned and blocked about 3RR before, if I recall, regarding a previous incarnation of the article at

14:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:SCZenz seems to be handling this already. --Philosophus ^T 14:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Yungmike513 reported by User:Zerida

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 22:50, 20 June 2006
• 1st revert: 23:29, 20 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 23:35, 20 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 23:41, 20 June 2006
• 4th revert: 23:45, 20 June 2006
• 5th revert: 23:53, 20 June 2006

Time report made: 19:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

19:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a note to say that edit warring has been an ongoing problem with this article, with User:Zerida also being a prominent offender. There has been a concerted effort by certain parties to obliterate any reference to a black, African presence (which is considerable) in Egypt. Indeed, it was a struggle to get Zerida to acknowledge that the Egyptian people are not homogeneous. Zerida and, most notably, a contributor Egyegy repeatedly have removed an image of a Fellah girl, substituting one of a less black-looking male, engaging in what looks like tag-team edit warring. I have reinserted the image, hoping to achieve some balance. Anyone interested can read the talk page. I've appealed to the parties involved (including Yungmike) to accommodate this one image of a dark-skinned Fellah, along with other images of lighter-skinned Egyptians. We'll see how it goes. The page bears watching. deeceevoice 21:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Isarig reported by User:Will314159

)

• 1st revert: [17]
• 2nd revert: [18]
• 3rd revert: [19]
• 4th revert: [20]

Time report made: 19:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: .Isarig is a very incosniderate and aggresive reverter. He's stated in the talk pages that he's going to keep on reverting certain stuff regardless. He has been blocked before. I have warned him "Isarig. the 3R rule reflects a policy to avoid endless edit wars. It is not a license to revert three in one day, then punishment on the fourth. (It is the fourth edit supposedly that gets you in trouble). Even one edit a day if done w/ your intent is sufficient from my reading." (I have removed this (and will keep removing it) ...." Take Care! --Will 07:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Take Care! --Will^(talk) 19:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The following is a summary of the reverts by Isarig in case I goofed up the report form " 4th. (cur) (last) 18:23, 21 June 2006 Isarig (→Expertise and professionalism - this is ther "criticism" section, so critics come first) In the fourth, Isarig reversed the order of the opponent and propnent of juan cole's qualifications.(cur) (last) 18:21, 21 June 2006 Isarig (→Expertise and professionalism - Joyner is not currently a professor.) In the third, Isarig unprofessored, Professor Joyner. (cur) (last) 21:33, 20 June 2006 Isarig (your source is not WP:RS thiswas explained in th edit summary and on Talk. Please do not re-add it before reaching consensus on Talk) In the second, Isarig removed Professor Joyner's opinion (cur) (last) 20:19, 20 June 2006 Isarig (blogs are not WP:ES In the first Isarig removed Professor James Joyner's opinion. Will314159 19:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not a 3RR violation, as the logs show. The 4th "revert" is not a revert at all, but addition of material. The 3rd "revert" is again not a revert, but a re-ordering of exiting material. The first two "reverts" are instances where I removed a quote from a non WP:RS source (a blog) which Will added despite this being pointed out to him Isarig 20:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a violation here. Everyone would do well to just let it cool off for a day or two. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, I pulled the wrong refs. It's kind hard to do this stuff. I"ll pull them better next time b/c he reverts every day. Take Care! Will314159 00:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat reported by User:Ned Scott

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime
• 1st revert: [21]
• 2nd revert: [22]
• 3rd revert: [23]
• 4th revert: [24]

Time report made: 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ned Scott 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If he is edit warring, so are you. I've locked the article. Please work out your differences on the talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Negiative time stamp is not within 24 hours. --Cat out 22:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Mywayyy reported by User:Khoikhoi

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 23:36, 21 June 2006
• 1st revert: 23:48, 21 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 23:52, 21 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 23:54, 21 June 2006
• 4th revert: 00:04, 22 June 2006

Comments:

• User warned here. —Khoikhoi 00:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Blocked for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • Back as anon 88.218.46.114 (talk · contribs), continuing to revert the whole group of articles multiple times. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:McKhan reported by User:BhaiSaab

)

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [25]
• 1st revert: 17:34, June 21, 2006
• 2nd revert: 18:51, June 21, 2006
• 3rd revert: 20:15, June 21, 2006
• 4th revert: 20:33, June 21, 2006

Time report made: 00:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

The 1st revert was a partial revert which, I believe, still counts as a revert. BhaiSaab ^talk 00:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

When BhaiSaab does that, it constitues to editing and when McKhan or someone else does that, it tantmounts to 3RR violation. I was simply providing the Contexual Archiving to the Talk:Page. However, BhaiSaab wants ONLY his Archving version to be posted. He is pushing his Shia agenda on most of Wikipedia Islam-related pages. He has record of going after most of the edits of the Wikipedia editors / contributors once challenged. He is in the violation of 3RR and continue to use Wikipedia "Original Search" and "Wikipedia: Verifiable" to pursue his agenda. McKhan

*Oh come on - 3RR on a talk page? Over what? whether to archive or not? Someone be gracious about it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• I have blocked McKhan for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR Violation

User:Doright Has reverted three times in less than 24 hours at Martin Luther. He continues to insist on adding a category to the Martin Luther category list that has been discussed and removed many times. This is a regular pattern of behavior. Invitations to discuss, and other such remedies have not proven successful. Many of the editors on the Martin Luther page are tired of the fact that Doright apparently is allowed, with impunity, to launch personal attacks and revert like this with impunity. Efforts to have admins deal with this have not produced positive change. A ban is in order.Ptmccain 02:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:FunkyFly reported by User:cigor

-

02:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• First of all, Cigor, read the 3RR policy. Its about 4 reverts for 24 hours that are in violaion, not just 3. Second, you have not provided any diffs.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

As I previosly stated FF, did not bother to explain his edits, even after several explicit questions--Cigor 02:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I have attempted to establish dialog several times with FF about this issue, but he consistently refused, or don't care. --Cigor 03:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Cigor reported by User:FunkyFly

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 21:38, 21 June 2006
• 1st revert: 22:12, 21 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 22:17, 21 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 22:34, 21 June 2006
• 4th revert: 22:42, 21 June 2006

Time report made: 02:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• The user was warned. It is his second violation in two days, for the same article.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• I have blocked Cigor for 48h as it is his second violation abakharev 05:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Rastishka (working as a registered user and as an IP User:82.33.32.160) reported by User:abakharev

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime
• 1st revert: 20:08, 21 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 00:22, 22 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 03:56, 22 June 2006
• 4th revert: 05:29, 22 June 2006

Time report made: 05:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User was warned on the talk page abakharev 05:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Liftarn reported by User:Pecher ^Talk

):

• 1st revert: 15:11, June 21, 2006
• 2nd revert: 17:55, June 21, 2006
• 3rd revert: 18:25, June 21, 2006
• 4th revert: 10:35, June 22, 2006

Time report made: 12:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Complex, partial reverts, all relating to the sentence: "In

12:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Re knowledge of rules: he has previously been blocked for 3RR. User is continuing his disruptive POV edits on that article, most recently making a sentence unintelligible.--Mantanmoreland 21:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:DaffyDuck619 reported by User:Lid

):

• 1st revert: 08:41, 22 June 2006 Difference
• 2nd revert: 15:26, 22 June 2006 Difference
• 3rd revert: 16:18, 22 June 2006 Difference
• 4th revert: 19:18, 22 June 2006 Difference
• 5th revert: 19:21, 22 June 2006 Difference
• 6th revert: 20:29, 22 June 2006 Difference
• 7th revert: 09:06, 23 June 2006 Difference

Time report made: 13:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Continous adding of a single detail that has been ruled inconsequential elsewhere results in him reverting several parts of the article to add in his single detail. The first revert reverted from this, although there was a significant ammount of edits inbetwee, while the second reverted from this. The third reverted from this. Reverts four through six all reverted this Edit: forgot to sign Edit 2: the reason the revert dates don't match my signed date is because I live in Australia so all the times are +10 hours Lid 14:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Added urls to compare to show that he keeps adding back in the same two paragraphs about cartoons. --- Lid 19:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And now he's upto seven

• 7th revert: 09:06, 23 June 2006 Difference

with the comment I'M NOT GOING TO STOP ADDING THIS! YOU BETTER STOP DELETING THIS! --- Lid 23:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• • I have blocked him for 24 h abakharev 01:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Perpetual motion machine reported by User:Philosophus ^T

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [29]
• 1st revert: [30]
• 2nd revert: [31]
• 3rd revert: [32]
• 4th revert: [33]

Time report made: 14:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

PPM comes on every few days and makes the same reversions. He has become more persistent about the template however, and reverted it for a fourth time in the last 20 minutes after I warned him about 3RR. Whenever I try to discuss the changes with him, he changes the section title to "Philosophus POV" and says something about his changes being non-negotiable due to

14:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at the edits. This is a lie.

14:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... after discussing this on IRC, this might not be a 3RR violation technically, since the first reversion apparently doesn't count, though PPM seems to be gaming the system here to make the same reversions over and over again every few days, more recently on this template, but also on Cox's timepiece --Philosophus ^T 14:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

IRC? Great, there are hidden forces at work; What about keeping the discussion @ wikipedia?. Perpetual motion machine

• Blocked for 24h abakharev 01:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Imacomp reported by User:Seraphim

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 12:59, June 21, 2006
• 1st revert: 03:52, June 22, 2006
• 2nd revert: 09:18, June 22, 2006
• 3rd revert: 09:23, June 22, 2006
• 4th revert: 09:33, June 22, 2006
• 5th revert: 09:52, June 22, 2006
• 6th revert: 09:57, June 22, 2006

Time report made: 14:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The reverts are the Line 317 change from "perished at the hands of" to "were murdered under". User is using misleading edit summaries, and marking major changes as minor edits to attempt to hide his reverts. The fact is that in all 4 of the above edits, he reverted "perished at the hands of" to "were murdered under". It's a clear 3rr violation. Seraphim 14:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

+2 more reverts, he knows he's going to be banned for 24 hrs, so he keeps reverting attempting to bait someone into reverting him for a 4th time in 24 hrs. Can someone please deal with this quickly before there's a casualty? Seraphim 15:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he's already had 3 24h blocks so I suspect a longer block is in order. -999 (Talk) 15:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine with me :P, he's breaking down worse then Skulls 'n' Femurs did. Seraphim 15:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Too bad I'm not an admin. I'd give him 72h. ;-) -999 (Talk) 15:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked for 72 hours for this and for repeatedly blanking Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Imacomp. A longer block for edit warring (if not a ban) will likely ensue for his behaviour elsewhere. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

3bulletproof16

(result: 72h)

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 07:26, June 22, 2006

• 1st revert: 19:54, June 21, 2006
• 2nd revert: 20:08, June 21, 2006
• 3rh revert: 20:11, June 21, 2006
• 4th revert: 20:21, June 21, 2006
• 5th revert: 07:26, June 22, 2006

Comments:

16:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: There's not much to say that hasn't been said already. He refuses to talk things over with others and lords over the articles he chooses like a would-be admin. Onikage725 17:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I beg your pardon!?! William M. Connolley 19:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I meant no disrespect to admins. I said "would-be," to illustrate that he has delusions of authority. I don't mean to imply that admins behave in this manner. Onikage725 22:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment While Wiki-star is reverting again this probably falls more into

18:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMajin_Buu&diff=59940184&oldid=59939830
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Majin_Buu&diff=prev&oldid=59940646
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMajin_Buu&diff=60007491&oldid=60003026
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMajin_Buu&diff=60018837&oldid=60016720

72h this time might slow him down a bit William M. Connolley 19:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment:

• I have had enough history with Wiki-Star to know that he's trouble. He takes command of the articles and adds an enormous amount of images (approximately 50) to each page. I previously cleaned up the Buu, Piccolo, Gotenks, Vegito, and Vegeta pages on a continuous basis, only to see him come back and revert, and promise to continue doing it with no other basis or consensus in mind except for the fact that he likes the characters. Considering the fact that even more important characters aren't even getting 7 or 8 pictures, it's only obvious that neither of the mentioned deserve 40 odd images on the page to illustrate their history. I am going to agree with everyone else who is on the lookout to find a way of stopping this Wiki-Star fellow. As for the ban amount, I don't think it's going to make a difference. He has promised to continue what he's doing and he has sworn not to care about anyone else's consensus reached. How many times has he already been banned? Approximately 4...or more? It's obvious he won't stop. I also know that he acts as a major sockpuppeteer, but that's besides the point. It's just more reasons to prove that he doesn't really have a tendency of learning from his mistakes. - Zarbon
• Wiki-star: Oh so now you're gonna act all nice and mushy mushy. Ha, the hypocracy is what drives me! Listen to yourself, you're even resenting to a lie to remove a good contributor like myself. I only turn my attention on the Buu article, because that Dragon Ball character is who i am most familiar, and knowledgeable on. The other Articles you have mention, i haven't touch in over 1 month now! Hahahahahaaaaaa.... man! This is funny. Oh well, i'll be in a better place when and if i'm banned! Take care folks Wiki-star 02:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Wladimir reported by User:Joy [shallot] (result: 3h)

):

Left this comment telling me doesn't "have time arguing with you" on 19:39, 20 June 2006. Then he proceeded to revert:

• 1st revert: 21:07, 21 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 22:37, 21 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 17:04, 22 June 2006
• 4th revert: 18:11, 22 June 2006

Time report made: 17:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

I'm not banning him myself because I've undone most of his damage. He also made further damage prior to that comment, see the article history and talk page. --Joy [shallot] 17:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

3h first offence no warning William M. Connolley 19:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:HOTR reported by User:Zeq

):

1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boycott_of_Israel&diff=59995552&oldid=59995060 13:48, 22 June 2006 (removing info was a revert while he also added new info in the same edit. Edit summary only say: added info)

2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boycott_of_Israel&diff=59991291&oldid=59943879 13:14, 22 June 2006 (revert is by commenting-out a section, some words were added as part of the same edit)

3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boycott_of_Israel&diff=60004644&oldid=60001827 14:57, 22 June 2006 (revert is by commenting-out a section)

4th revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boycott_of_Israel&diff=60028583&oldid=60025540 17:39, 22 June 2006 (revert is by commenting-out a section)

comments: Complex reverts since some of them include an addition and not just the revert but a look at the history page will show a very simple pattern: HOTR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started the article. Every (different) edit I made to the article he reverted (with a small exception of a quote by A Palestinian that he kept and qualified) User is well aware of 3RR on all the little details of the rule so he should 'know better' this is not his 1st or 2nd violation of the rule in similar circumstances let's see how he explain it this time. I am sure he has an explanation. Zeq 19:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• It is important to note that previous articles that started this way ended up being protected for weeks (still are) . Zeq 20:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• • This is a bad faith complaint by Zeq. My edits were an attempt to make Zeq's contributions intelligible as they were submitted replete with spelling, grammatical and logical errors. In some cases I made an effort to bring his contributions up to standard, in others I commented them out with a request that he fix them and properly source them. If editing Zeq for his poor spelling and grammar or for not providing proper citations is now to be counted as a 3RR violation then no one who edits any of the articles he contributes to is safe as he seems unable or unwilling to spell and grammar check. The complaint is frivolous. Homey 21:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of a revert war - it's a matter of trying to bring substandard edits up to standard. I submit the text of various of Zeq's edits and my responses:

This was Zeq's first contribution:

• [34]

The ban was resinded few days later, after arguments where made that the vote was by a small group which was able to get a majority when the number of voters was not high. Similar events led to the ban being reinstated in June 2006 and resinded again only four days later

The above was unsourced so I commented it out and asked for a source[35] - I also corrected the spelling of "resinded" (sic).

Zeq's second attempt was little better:

• [36]

despite Palestinian university president who argued against it[http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/727899.html], [http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3264160,00.html]. The ban was rescinded few days later, after arguments where made that the vote was by a small group which was able to get a majority when the number of voters was not high. Similar events led to the ban being reinstated in June 2006 and rescinded again only four days later [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/725533.html],[http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1148482061684&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull],[http://www.divestmentwatch.com/NewsStories/abi-20060521.htm],[http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000112.html]

I attempted to develop the first part by rewriting it as[37]: A prominent Palestinian academic,

.

As for the second, I commented out the following: <!-- this makes no sesne this the ban was only implemented a few weeks ago -- Similar events led to the ban being reinstated in June 2006 and rescinded again only four days later--> ie The sentence made no sense - I asked Zeq to rewrite it.

Zeq tried to rewrite it as such:

a similar ban was overturned a year later after claimes were made that initial vote was at a very narrow margin (96:92) [40],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45] </nmowiki>[46]

The problem is he added something that had to do with a compeltely different item and it didn't really make any sense.

I commented this out and added the following suggestion (emphasis added to my comments)[47]: <!-- you're talking about something completely different here - please don't confuse things by putting it in the same paragraph and please actually explain what this refers to (ie the name of the union, what the resolution actually was, when it was passed etc) - you are being too vague, I don't want to have to keep rewriting your additions for clarity, please do it yourself -- a similar ban was overturned a year later after claims were made that initial vote was at a very narrow margin (96:92)[48],[49],[50],[51],[52],[53]

He has yet to fix the above.

He then added something completely new:

• [54]

On June 21, 2006 the

However, the source he gives says nothing about the IRC issue being related to the Israeli boycott and so I commented it out with the edit comment "source does not assert IRC was part of boycott"[56] In the commented out part I also referred to Zeq's poor writing.

Again, this isn't a "revert war" and has nothing to do with 3RR, it's a matter of trying to improve the largely unintelligible, grammatically incorrect contributions of an editor who can't be bothered to spell or grammar check. Homey 22:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... What part of ""Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word. Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting." don't you understand? Blocked for 3RR and once again trying to game the 3RR system and being a chronic 3RR offender. FeloniousMonk 23:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Elfguy reported by User:Mmx1

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 10:18, 19 June 2006
• 1st revert: 12:00, 21 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 12:09, 21 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 12:17, 21 June 2006
• 4th revert: 11:51, 22 June 2006

In addition, the user continued to revert, making it 6 times of this particular revert in 25 hours:

• 5th revert: 13:07, 22 June 2006
• 6th revert: 13:21, 22 June 2006

Also, the user made the following reversion in the initial 24 hour span: To version 12:58, 21 June 2006. Reversion #1:11:46, 22 June 2006

User was warned after the third revert: 12:58, 21 June 2006, and responded that he was well familiar with the 3rr policy [57]. This revert is not as clear, but it's a reinsertion of the words presumed, removed by editor

The timing of the reverts appears to be a failed attempt to game the 3rr rule - 6 reverts in 2 days, separated by just under 24 hours.

Time report made: 19:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours.--MONGO 03:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Winknnudge reported by User:William M. Connolley

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [58]
• 1st revert: 2006-06-21 23:15:09
• 2nd revert: 2006-06-21 23:26:35
• 3rd revert: 2006-06-21 23:37:17
• 4th revert: 2006-06-22 19:16:37

Time report made: 19:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User keeps re-inserting inappropriate link with implausible claims of vandalism against page consensus. Previously warned William M. Connolley 19:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Second Vienna Award

User:Zsakos reported by User:Tēlex

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 11:13, 22 June 2006
• 1st revert: 16:45, 17:35, 22 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 18:46, 22 June 2006
• 3th revert: 19:22, 22 June 2006
• 4th revert: 19:38, 22 June 2006

Time report made: 19:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• Probably the is the same person as the anon below - he keeps deleting a quote. Was warned. --Tēlex 19:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:84.2.138.222 reported by User:Tēlex (result: 24h)

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 11:13, 22 June 2006
• 1st revert: 16:42, 22 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 18:06, 22 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 18:34, 22 June 2006
• 4th revert: 19:02, 22 June 2006

Time report made: 19:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• Probably the is the same person as the user above - he keeps deleting a quote. Was warned. --Tēlex 19:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 21:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:204.56.7.1 reported by User:William M. Connolley

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [59]
• 1st revert: [60]
• 2nd revert: [61]
• 3rd revert: [62]
• 4th revert: [63]

Time report made: 20:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

In a clear abuse of process I've blocked 204. (who is probably Reddi) since I've also edited that template. Sorry. However the 3RR is clear enough that I hope I can be forgiven. Please review William M. Connolley 20:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Reddi, or Perpetual motion machine? Or are they all the same? It also appears that 204 and 134.193.168.107 are the same person - they both resolve to a Kansas City university, and the claims made in the edits are so unique that I doubt more than one person holds them. This is also going on at Cox's timepiece. --Philosophus ^T 20:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:134.193.168.237 reported by User:Femto

Aw too late. See report above. Femto 20:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC) (duplicates removed)

Or maybe not: 134.193.168.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues the same edit.

).

1. 20:12, 22 June 2006
2. 20:12, 22 June 2006
3. 20:13, 22 June 2006

Time report made: 20:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

134.193.* IPs registered to University of Missouri - Kansas City and used by a known Free Energy POV pusher. Same IPs and User:Perpetual motion machine also involved in edit war at Cox's timepiece. Femto 20:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not him. But

20:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Appleby reported by User:Chris 73

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 6:48, June 22, 2006
• 1st revert: 07:02, June 22, 2006
• 2nd revert: 20:22, June 22, 2006
• 3rd revert: 20:25, June 22, 2006
• 4th revert: 20:27, June 22, 2006 (

Time report made: 20:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user is aware of the 3RR and has engaged in previous edit warring, resulting in numerous blocks up to 72 hours -- Chris 73 | Talk 20:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Version reverted to is wrong: is 1st a revert or not? William M. Connolley 21:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Is removal/change of information and text added by others a revert? -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:DjSamwise reported by User:FT2

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 16:50, June 15, 2006

• 1st revert: 08:21, June 22, 2006
• 2nd revert: 16:56, June 22, 2006
• 3rd revert: 18:17, June 22, 2006
• 4th revert: 19:07, June 22, 2006 (rvt to diff version due to intervening edit in another section)
• 5th revert: 21:08, June 22, 2006

Time report made: 21:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Warned by :

• Myself (
  WP:NPOV): 17:04, June 22, 2006

• Responded 18:32, June 22, 2006

• WP:3RR) 19:11, June 22, 2006

User:Deucalionite reported by User:Fut.Perf. ☼

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 30 May, 21:18
• 1st revert: 22 June, 00:47
• 2nd revert: 22 June, 14:46
• 3rd revert: 22 June, 15:03
• 4th revert: 22 June, 20:36

Time report made: 21:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• User was previously blocked for 3RR. This revert war is accompanied with personal attacks on talk page: "anal-retentive", "narrow-minded and dishonest" ([64]). Continuing a pattern of similar earlier attacks here: "dishonorable" (in edit summary): [65], "short-sighted imbeciles" ([66]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked for twenty-four hours by me. I'll note, however, that I'm not thrilled by what looks like tag-teaming between the reporter and another user who "reverted on principle" once. On the other hand, one
  edit warring in the future. Plagiarism problems can be brought to admin attention on the first occurance. Jkelly
  21:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: the other "tag-teaming" user (

User:FrancisTyers) is an admin, and admin attention was just what I had sought from him there. Fut.Perf. ☼

22:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:70.48.250.17 and User:70.49.110.207 reported by User:—chair lunch dinner™ ^talk

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 15:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• 1st revert: 15:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• 2nd revert: 16:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• 3rd revert: 18:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• 4th revert: 19:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Time report made: 01:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Apparent sockpuppets of User:70.48.250.87, who was previously banned for 3RR on this article.

• I have semiprotected the article. I do not see the point in blocking the IPs abakharev 04:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Alienus reported by User:RJII

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 2006-06-21 19:34:20
• 1st revert: 21:31, 21 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 18:44, 22 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 21:08, 22 June 2006
• 4th revert: 21:34, 22 June 2006

Time report made: 03:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: So, he made it by 3 minutes, but he engages in a lot of edit warring. RJII 03:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Two of the reverts #3 and #4 are revertions of simple vandalism (unrelated to 1 and 2). I do not see 3RR here abakharev 03:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You're right. I should have looked closer. Sorry. RJII 04:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

But

Sophia

15:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

My recent block of Alienus is not based on the above report, but on two separate instances of egregious edit warring. I would ask SOPHIA to be more civil--it is simply wrong to suggest that my recent interactions with Alienus have been for any other reason than to try to dissuade him from persistent edit warring. --Tony Sidaway 13:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Precis reported by Will314159:Will314159

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime
• 1st revert: [67]
• 2nd revert: [68]

Time report made: 14:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The 3RR is just not about punishing people who make 4 reverts in 24 hours. It is also about sensless reverts even though it is only One. In this case TWO sensless deletions qualify for blockage. Precis has engaged in two sensless acts of vandalism just like a teenager would. In fact, I suspect he is a teenager on a lark! Briefly the background is, I introduced a quote from

who has been on vacation shows up and makes the following two deletes accompanied by the following comments in the edit histories

1. (cur) (last) 10:14, 23 June 2006 Precis (→Expertise and professionalism - because he has more education, therefore "polemnical" is a word? and no, I'm reverting for a npov, alloting equal numbers of blogs on both sides)
2. (cur) (last) 09:56, 23 June 2006 Will314159 (→Expertise and professionalism - Precis Write a letter to Joyner tellilng him polemnical is not a word, I think he has more education than you do. Or put a sic to it. u r reverting per Lobby POV)
3. (cur) (last) 07:39, 23 June 2006 Precis (→Expertise and professionalism - "polemnical" is not a word)

Therefore, I am asking that he be blocked for a considerable amount of time not for making for 4 reverts in 24 hours but for making two egregious acts of outstanding bad faith vandalism. The WP Juan Cole Article is of some controversy having been blocked for a period of two weeks and having had attracted the attention of Jimbo Wales and mentioned in national blogs. Take Care! --Will^(talk) 14:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Adam Carr reported by User:Stemonitis

):

• 1st change: 12:50
• 2nd revert: 13:31-13:32 (in two edits)
• 3rd revert: 14:04

Time report made: 14:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: In an attempt to stop a petty squabble over whether a letter should be upper-case or lower-case after a hyphen, I moved

14:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Adam Carr clearly enjoys having articles at misspelled titles and will gleefully edit war to keep articles he's written where he likes them.

User:Angr

09:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

_(poll)

):

• 1st revert: Jun 22nd @ 18:50
• 2nd revert: Jun 23rd @ 5:12
• 3rd revert: Jun 23rd @ 8:04
• 4th revert: Jun 23rd @ 8:20

Time report made: 15:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Having persistent problems with an anon IP (205.188.116.201) that comes from a cafeteria in Iowa. Refuses to let any edits but their own persist in the article, refuses to sign in, and refuses to discuss changes on the talk page.

User:Matthead reported by User:Molobo

):

• 1st revert: 02:01, 23 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 11:33, 23 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 14:53, 23 June 2006
• 4th revert: 15:43, 23 June 2006)

Time report made: 16:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Removes Polish diacritics from original Polish names. The user had violated 3RR before but no punishment was made as it was his first violation[72]. He was warned about the consequences of violating 3RR[73] --Molobo 16:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I am well aware of my edits and that Molobo will try to take advantage of 3RR policy, as he had often called other

Talk:Gdansk/Vote. --Matthead

17:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If I was blocked or not is irrelevant to the issue of your violation of 3RR rule, which I may add was done during your revert war with Szopen and Biruitorul, not me. If you believe I am their sockpuppet, feel free to ask for sockpuppet check.--Molobo 17:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

To beat the (by now) dead horse and just for the record, the list above itself contradicts this claim (4th revert).--Matthead 15:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours.

03:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

User:69.232.73.33 reported by User:Neil916

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 09:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC-7)
• 1st revert: 16:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC-7)
• 2nd revert: 07:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC-7)
• 3rd revert: 08:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC-7)
• 4th revert: 09:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC-7)

Time report made: 16:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Might also be actionable as a simple vandalism issue. I and another user have treated it as a content dispute, but the user has not attempted to justify his/her actions despite attempts at communication on the user's talk page.

• Blocked for 24 hours. Wikibofh_(talk) 16:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Will314159 reported by User:Isarig

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 18:47, 22 June 2006
• 1st revert: 22:48, 22 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 23:16, 22 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 09:56, 23 June 2006
• 4th revert: 16:48, 23 June 2006

Time report made: 17:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

17:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Hd8888 reported by User:John Smith's

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 01:25, 23 June 2006
• 1st revert: 16:23, 23 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 16:36, 23 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 16:48, 23 June 2006
• 4th revert: 17:13, 23 June 2006

Time report made: 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Hd8888 is obsessed with removing comments which are truthful just because he thinks they're NPOV. The issue has been discussed on the talk page, and I even pointed out that similar comments on related pages (e.g.

) have been agreed to be satisfactory by most users. Yet he has repeatedly reverted even when other users have restored his changes. He has made slight changes to the page, but each time kept removing the content he didn't like. He has shown a clear bias against Japan and won't listen to restrained debate - he labels people that disagree with him as "pro-Japanese vandals".

• Warned, for both 3RR and personnal attack. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• • And now blocked for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Der alte Hexenmeister reported by User:EMS | Talk

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 07:04, June 22, 2006
• 1st revert: 16:40, June 22, 2006
• 2nd revert: 21:35, June 22, 2006
• 3rd revert: 08:52, June 23, 2006
• 4th revert: 15:23, June 23, 2006

Time report made: 20:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I will admit that the third and fourth edits were not mere reverts, with the third one being to add an illustration intended to make the same point, and the fourth "revert" being a blanking vandalism. None the less the effect is to disrupt the page, and to require someone else to revert the edit. BTW - A look at this page's edit history will how that Der alte Hexenmeister has been bothering this page for some time now. Der alte Hexenmeister has also been repeatedly asked to stop, as shown at user talk:Der alte Hexenmeister.

Doesn't look like 3RR but does look like blockable vandalism, so I have William M. Connolley 22:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian G

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 07:23, 21 June 2006

• 1st revert: 10:12, 21 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 05:45, 23 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 14:01, 23 June 2006
• 4th revert: 19:11, 23 June 2006

Time report made: 00:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I have never posted on 3RR before, so I apologize if I did not follow the instructions correctly. I realize that the earliest edit is before the 24 hour window, but you should please note that this user has only ever made 10 edits and all have been to this article; in my opinion, most of these edits have been disruptive. Please also note that this user has been warned twice at

00:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

User:64.110.251.69 reported by User:CJCurrie

):

• 1st revert: 18:40 23 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 23:09 23 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 01:52 24 June 2006
• 4th revert: 02:12 24 June 2006
• 5th revert: 02:17 24 June 2006

Time report made: 02:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Anonymous user has written several extremely biased edits on the Saskatchewan Party page, and has described attempts to remove the same as "vandalism". User specifically and knowingly ignored a 3RR warning, and then left an abusive note on my talk page. I would usually recommend restraint against new users, but this seems to be a particularly egregious violation. Recommend 24 hour block. CJCurrie 02:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment from 64.110.251.69: CJCurrie has been constantly reverting the article, "Saskatchewan Party", doing a blanket revert of significant new information added when he disagrees with one or two points, to an old version. This is vandalism by any measure possible. The note left on his talk page was not abusive, and asked CJCurrie to discuss his blanket reverts on Talk:Saskatchewan_Party's page. CJCurrie's allegations lack credibility, and no violation of the 3RR should be sustained for cleaning up his/her petty vandalism.

64.110.251.69 02:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• My edits were not petty vandalism, and I explained my actions on the article talk page. CJCurrie 02:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• 64.*'s disputed edits were
  WP:NPOV violations, such as describing and the article subject as "sensible", "fresh" and "dynamic" in contrast to the opposing political party being described as "dishonest" and "misleading". Reverting an NPOV violation is not vandalism. Bearcat
  09:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

User:KickahaOta reported by User:Kickaha Ota (no violation)

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 2006-06-23 14:03:25
• 1st revert: 2006-06-23 15:52:59
• 2nd revert: 2006-06-24 05:37:09
• 3rd revert: 2006-06-24 07:52:52
• 4th revert: 2006-06-24 08:27:37

Time report made: 16:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I am self-reporting a 3RR violation. I can't believe I did that; I thought it was only my third revert, but I was only looking at the version history from today and didn't see yesterday's. The fourth revert was to correct another violation of 3RR, but I don't believe that's an excuse. I would ask for a brief block, since I think all violations of 3RR are serious. 16:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• It would probably be a good idea for you not to murder anyone. Astrotrain 16:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Because I'd promptly go down to the police station and self-report? :) Kickaha Ota 16:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• If I may add my $0.02 here, I believe Kickaha Ota's reverts were to remove simple vandalism, in the form of spam (an inappropriate external link for a site the spammer seemed intent on promoting), and thus not subject to 3RR (full disclosure: I was the original editor involved in the dispute with the spammer when Kickaha Ota offered a
  ^(talk)
  22:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If I had said to myself "Self, that's spam vandalism, and therefore 3RR does not apply", I might agree. But I didn't do the fourth revert on that basis; I did the fourth revert because I was a yogurthead. Kickaha Ota 22:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing spam is not a 3RR violation. and the link is clearly that. If another admin disagrees and blocks, I won't contest it, but this is my analysis of the situation. Blocks are preventative, not punitive and the user realises the issue. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Dragon Emperor reported by User:SynergeticMaggot

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: this or this was the original.
• 1st revert: [77]
• 2nd revert: [78]
• 3rd revert: [79]
• 4th revert: [80]
• 5th revert: [81] Zos 17:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Time report made: 17:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This is my first actual report. I may not have done this right, but the user has attempted this 4 times now, and if you look at his talk page, you can see this isnt the first time the user has ignored this rule. Zos 17:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Notice now that the user had just made another revert. I've reached my 3 limit, but I believe that I can revert it back once the user is blocked (is that right?). Zos 17:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that's correct. You can ignore 3RR while reverting edits made by blocked/banned editors, but that only applies to edits made while the editor is banned or blocked. A ban/block doesn't allow you to go 'back in time' and revert edits made before the user was banned or blocked. In order to avoid any 3RR problems yourself, you should find another editor to revert the 4th edit. (I won't do it because I'm already in the doghouse. :) ) Kickaha Ota 17:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Righto. I warned him and then blocked him. What's he up to, anyway? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

User:150.101.102.188 reported by User: Holy Ganga ^talk

):

• 1st revert: [82]
• 2nd revert: [83]
• 3rd revert: [84]
• 4th revert: [85]

Time report made: 17:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This anon User is continuously removing picture from India article and has begun a unnecessary revert war. I have already made him aware of the 3RR rule after his 3rd edit but i think he is not interested in 3RR. Thanks, - Holy Ganga ^talk 17:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The anon has removed a Fair use image from the India page. Fair use images on WP should be kept to a minimum, so I believe that the anon has done the right thing by removing the copyrighted magazine cover. I stand by his removal of the image. Also, the user must be warned about the 3RR violation before reporting him, which has not been done. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

He was warned before reporting .i.e after his 3rd edit. Also, Image is a Time magazine cover with proper licencing. - Holy Ganga ^talk 17:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Warned, Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

User:HawkerTyphoon reported by User: (aeropagitica)  (talk) 

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime
• 1st revert: 1940 June 24 2006
• 2nd revert: 2049 June 24 2006
• 3rd revert: 2055 June 24 2006
• 4th revert: 2108 June 24 2006
• 5th revert: 2112 June 24 2006

Time report made: 22:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

22:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps just a warning in this case. But tags are not immune from 3RR and this wasn't vandalism William M. Connolley 09:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Isarig reported by User:Will314159

)

• 1st revert: 2:34 22 June 2006 No Joyner not professor there

[86]

• 2nd revert: 18:26 22 June 2006 Joyner is most well knows as a blogger

[87]

• 3rd revert: 21:58 22 Jun 2006 Landis home page irrelevant

[88]

• 4th revert: 22:00 22 June 2006 no need for landis home page

[89]

• 5th revert 22:56 22 Jun2 2006 Joyner removed no blogs consensus

[90]

Time report made: 23:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: .Isarig is a very inconsiderate and aggresive reverter. He's stated in the talk pages that he's going to keep on reverting certain stuff regardless. He has been blocked before but not on my report. I have warned him "Isarig. the 3R rule reflects a policy to avoid endless edit wars. It is not a license to revert three in one day, then punishment on the fourth. (It is the fourth edit supposedly that gets you in trouble). Even one edit a day if done w/ your intent is sufficient from my reading." (I have removed this (and will keep removing it)” is his retort. He removed the [James Joyner] quote from the outset wthin minutes of my edit.

Briefly the background is, I introduced a quote from

who works with Isarig makes two more deletes. I undo the Precis vandalism, report him for two deletes which are nevertheless so egregious to be against the spirit of 3RR and get blocked for 24 hours (prior to any action on Precis’s report) compared to Isarig’s previous block for 8 hours.

Isarig misrepresents the history when he says blogs were removed by consensus. It was a consensus of two, yes two. The Landis site was double referenced because the quote appeared twice. Once in the Nation article and then again on Landis’s academic syriacomment.com site. I discussed that in the talk page.

This report is late b/c I have been in WP jail b/c of alleged 3RR violation restoring Isarig’s and Precis vandalism regarding the Joyner quote. It still sticks in my craw how you can get blocked for restoring a vandalized legitimate edit. I guess it's easy when you're double teamed, a prior report is overlooked, and Isarig beats you to the report.

Take Care! --Will^(talk) 23:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Hmm, a 3 day old report, following 3 days in which I have not been editing this article. This is Will's 3rd bad faith 3RR report in as many days, the first one against me reviewed and dismissed, the second one against Precis ignored, as it included only 2 documented reverts, and now this, in which one of the 5 "reverts" is not by me, and 2 additional ones are removal of a spam link to the home page of Landis which is not where the Landis quote was on. This is a "revenge" 3RR report, made in bad faith, yet agian, by a disruptive editor Isarig 01:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I note that you didn't say which revert was not yours. Thanks for the revert lesson. I've learned how to fill out the form now. As previously indicated, you escaped the first report b/c I referenced the report incorrectly. Come on, be a man Isarig, don't sugar coat it or gloss it over, just admit how many time you have deleted or messed around with the Joyner quote b/c it's devastating to your POV and cause. Take Care! --Will^(talk) 01:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Now this is the pace of action on Isarig’s report on my alleged 3RR violation responding to his and Precis’s vandalism on my Joyner quote. I never had any time to respond.

“Time report made: 17:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Blocked for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison Talk 17:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC).” What gives? Take Care! Will314159 22:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• I WON'T HOLD MY BREATH WAINTING FOR ACTION ANY MORE. OBVIOUSLY, ISARIG IS BEING LOOSED TO AGAIN PARTICIPATE IN ENDLESS REVERT AND WHEEL WARS. NO NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT TO HIS BEHAVIOR TO BE APPLIED HERE. THERE IS A SELECTIVE FORUM OR AS THEY SAY "FAIR AND BALANECD" AT FOX NEWS. BEST WISHES. Will314159 09:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User:71.124.114.26 reported by User:RevolverOcelotX

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 00:14, 25 June 2006
• 1st revert: 00:18, 25 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 00:20, 25 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 00:21, 25 June 2006
• 4th revert: 00:27, 25 June 2006

Time report made: 00:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:71.124.114.26 keeps removing his vandalism warnings on his talk page AFTER the final warning which resulted in User:71.124.114.26's talk page being protected and User:71.124.114.26 breaking the 3RR.

User:71.124.114.26 has also been revert warring on the Bruce Lee article and other articles, blanking other editor's comments on Talk:Bruce Lee, and making many personal attacks towards myself and other editors. In doing so, User:71.124.114.26 has clearly broken the 3RR and should be blocked for such. Please see the report below for User:71.124.114.26's second 3RR violation. --RevolverOcelotX 07:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• No block, per discussion on my talk page.
  Petros471
  19:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Daniel575 reported by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable:09:08, 23 June 2006 [91]
• 1st revert: 11:06, 23 June 2006 [92]
• 2nd revert: 18:07, 24 June 2006 [93]
• 3rd revert: 23:35, 24 June 2006 [94]
• 4th revert: 00:12, 25 June 2006 [95]
• 5th revert: 00:47, 25 June 2006 [96]

Time report made: 01:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:Daniel575 is repeatedly removing valid sources from the external links section and replacing them with a website that clearly does not meet any criteria for WP:RS. Many users including myself have attempted to reason with him on the article's talk page but he is just as uncompromising and recalcitrant there as well. When I notified him that he had violated the 3RR and gave him the opportunity to revert himself [97], he basically notified me that he was going to keep reverting, and that I should "deal with it".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User:King_Vegita reported by User:SynergeticMaggot

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: here
• 1st revert: [98]
• 2nd revert: [99]
• 3rd revert: [100]
• 4th revert: [101]

Time report made: 06:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I believe this falls under more than 3 revisions in a 24 hours period. I made a mistake in there of removing the source from which both mine and King Vegita's citations were coming from. Also, he wont discuss it on the talk page at all. He says we cant use citations like I was using them, but leaves some citation in his revisions the exact way he doesnt want me to use it. I believe he has two citations in there, from reviewing the history. The rest were mine. Zos 06:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

So is this a violation or am I mistaken? Zos 16:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

How could it be? Please fill out these entries correctly, and it will be easier to evaluate them. First of all, you've got the article name wrong in the heading; the edit war you are engaged in is in Mental Gender, not [[Kybalion]. Secondly, if you look at all the other 3RR reports, the properly formed ones list dates and times, not just blind links. Thirdly, there aren't more than three reversions, as far as I can tell. You're as much at fault as KV might be here. The point of 3RR is to stop edit wars; the proper way to stop this edit war would be to block both of you (since it's impossible for one person to edit war.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If blocking both of us it what it will take to get my citations back into the article, then please block me (for however long you think is warrented). Zos 16:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR isn't for the purpose of getting anyone's favored edit into place. Anyway, if you can provide a proper report, showing four reversions, then action may be taken. Not before then. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Just so we're clear on this: Its not a prefered edit. He removed citations. Zos 19:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User:69.232.73.33 (plus sockpuppet?) reported by User:Neil916 (again) (result: 24h)

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 09:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC-7)
• 1st revert: 16:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC-7)
• 2nd revert: 07:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC-7)
• 3rd revert: 08:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC-7)
• 4th revert: 09:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC-7)

• User was blocked for 24 hours by
  on this page
  at 16:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• 5th revert: 11:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC-7)
• 6th revert: 13:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC-7)
• 7th revert: 13:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC-7)
• 8th revert: 17:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC-7)
• 9th revert: 18:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC-7)
• 10th revert?: 19:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC-7) (created new account?)

Comments: User has been trying to add an inappropriate commentary about an external website listed in the "see also" section of this article. He was blocked for

06:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Does seem a bit obsessed. Another 24h I guess William M. Connolley 18:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Any suggestions on what to do when this next ban expires? I'm under no delusions that this is going to stop after tomorrow. Especially since it appears the user has created a new registered account, probably in an attempt to sidestep the 3rr blocks. I'm not sure why, since the user clearly has spent some constructive time on the article in his other edits. Perhaps asking for semi-protection of the article for a week or two should be my next step?

Also, were my links in the report wrong? Should I be showing the DIFF instead of the AS-IS version? Neil916 21:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User:150.101.102.188 reported by User: Holy Ganga ^talk

):

• 1st revert: [102]
• 2nd revert: [103]
• 3rd revert: [104]
• 4th revert: [105]

• User was made aware of 3RR after his 3rd revert and was also warned after 4th revert.[106]

• 5th revert: [107]
• 6th revert: [108]

Time report made: 13:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: He has totally ignored 3RR and warning and again started a revert war. - Holy Ganga ^talk 13:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Is there a problem with this image as fair-use? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussions ([109] and [110]) on talk page but this user have never took part in it. - Holy Ganga ^talk 14:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Francis Schonken reported by User:Jayjg ^(talk) (Result: 31 hours)

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 13:27, 23 June 2006
• 1st revert: 00:02, 25 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 00:09, 25 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 00:25, 25 June 2006
• 4th revert: 06:47, 25 June 2006
• 5th revert: 07:57, 25 June 2006

Time report made: 14:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• Editor keeps adding

{{details|Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources}}<ref name="decent">According to Jimbo Wales, "[[WP:LIVING]] is a decent start, although it needs some attention I think so that we can bring it up to the standard of a full policy." [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/045578.html ''WikiEN-l'' mailing list, May 7 19:44:05 UTC 2006]</ref>

• to start of "Biographies of living persons" section. Is also playing 3RR games, constantly removing "Biography of living persons" material from the policy in slightly different ways. Francis a longtime editor who has been blocked for 3RR before, and who has warned another editor about potential 3RR violations in this very matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. 2cd violation. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Burgas00 reported by User:XGustaX

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime
• 1st revert: [111]
• 2nd revert: [112]
• 3rd revert: [113]
• 4th revert: [114]

Time report made: 14:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Has violated the 3RR rule and refused to stop. He as also cleared my entire on the talk page.

</nowiki>

I've protected the page William M. Connolley 18:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User:WickedWanda reported by User:Infinity0

):

• 1 | cf prev
• 2 | cf prev
• 3 | cf prev
• 4 | cf prev

Time report made: 22:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Repeated insertion of deleted information (3rd revert is slightly obfuscated but it is a revert). Possible sockpuppet of blocked User:Hogeye

User:Mknight1971 reported by User:Ardenn

):

• 1st revert: [115]
• 2nd revert: [116]
• 3rd revert: [117]
• 4th revert: [118]
• 5th revert: [119]

Time report made: 01:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• Won't discuss edits. Ardenn 01:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Acually very willing to discuss edits. Except legit edits on the topic are being delete by Ardenn. Who will not go to the talk page to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mknight1971 (talk • contribs)

• I've protected the page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • He still violated 3RR. Ardenn 01:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• It's preventative, not punitive, and it looks like you may have violated it as well. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't violate it at all. My fourth edit was adding POV and fact tags. Ardenn 01:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User:HOTR reported by User:Zeq (result: no block)

Note: User:JDoorjam has agreed to investigate this 3RR complaint after he's finished investigating Zeq's alleged violation of my privacy by opening a wikipedia article on me. As this 3RR complaint may be part of a pattern of harassment by Zeq I would ask admins to leave it be until JDoorjam has completed his investigation. Thank you. Homey 17:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Since the 3RR complaint has been rejected I am removing this request as unnecessary. Homey 19:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • So the cat is out of the bag. This so-called privacy issue that Homey suddenly remebered 3 weeks after it ended is just something Homey use to let the time pass and evade the 3RR violation be reviewed on time. Zeq 18:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • • The privacy issue is part of a broader harassment issue. And it was you who first mentioned the 3RR to JDoorjam, not me. I simply asked him to look into it and he agreed to, after he's finished with the issue of your violating my privacy. Homey 18:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• note about this report: Homey has interjected his edits (some in bold yellings) into my report below without signing his name into his additions.
• I am sure who ever read this report will see the facts, even with Homey's unsigned interruption to the report. Zeq 06:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

):

HOTR has just finished his 48 block for violation when he started to edit war again in an article that in the past lead to his blocks. For timly report I am pointing out now just the obvious reverts he made. He is sophisticated and make numerous changes to the article, in some it is harder to see the reverts so here are just the highlights:

1st Revert: 01:42, 25 June 2006 -this is a removal of the section describing who use the term by JewWatch (this revert is a revert of an edit made by user:SlimVirgin few hours before: [120] ) takes place more than 24 hours after the final edit

2nd Revert: Homey repeated this edit for the 2nd time one hour later: 03:18, 25 June 2006

3rd revert: Homey again edit war to remove this section [121] just few minutes later on 03:45, 25 June 2006

and then, 23 1/2 hours later 4th Revert: Homey again edit war to remove it on 03:14, 26 June 2006 [122]

5th Revert: (partial revert): 03:14, 26 June 2006

6th Revert: again on 03:17 [123]

these edits take place immediately after each other with no intervening edits (let alone reverts) by another editor - they are sequential edits - they take between 23hours and 56 minutes and 23 hours and 59 minutes after the second edit' - each is a revert of previous edits by other editors (see these below in the edit war section) .

7th revert in the same article is not related to the same paragrpah but it is a revert of this edit by Jayjg: [124] Homey's revert is: 21:02 , 26 June 2006

Time report made: 03:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Zeq 05:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• By my count, 03:14 26 June is 25 and 1/2 hours after 01:42 25 June. 3RR refers to a 24 hour period. As for my 3:17 26 June edit, there is no intervening edit by another editor between it and my edit three minutes earlier. This accusation is specious andbad faith. Homey 03:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Homey shows here again his wilfull intent on gaming the 3RR system.

1. Even if the 1st revert is ingored there are still in this report at least 4 in a 24 hour span
2. Homey made more massive changes to the article, in most cases he added material but there was one place he could not just add, he needed to fix the lead paragrpah in doing so he undid the work of several other editors. This is a revert, even if it is a sophisicted edit which included partial reverts: [125]
3. The spirit of the law is not to allow 3 reverts per each 24 hours window. Homey should know better not to edit war. Zeq 04:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said, there are no edits by anyone else between the last three edits you cite so that is not 3 reverts. I know you're obsessed with me Zeq but that's no excuse for not being able to tell time. I haven't even bothered to look at your other edits but given your sloppiness and your desperation to file complaints about me I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't all reverts. Zeq, you are acting in bad faith. Homey 04:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Homey edit war and violation of
  WP:Point#Gaming_the_system specifically prohibits exactly what Homey has been doing. Zeq
  04:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

And Zeq is violating Wikipedia:Don't be a dick by using one edit that takes place 23 hours and 59 minutes after an initial edit. Homey 04:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Homey made 3 clear reverts of this paragpah ( he did not count the first one as revert but as edit). he then made many many more edits to the article not touching the specific paragarph (only his associates tried to continue the editwar but each of them reverted once).
• Then, just as the 24 window is about to end, Homey remove the paragrpah again in a series of edit the 1st one of them is indeed 23:59 afater (what he counted) as his 1st revert. Clearly he was trying to be carefull but miscalculated by one minute. In any case
  WP:Point#Gaming_the_system address exactly what Homey did. Zeq
  05:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

And there's no bloody edit war except in Zeq's imagination. Zeq is bitter at being banned from the article and is acting in a vindictive and vexatious manner. Looking over the article in the past 24 hours it has been expanded and improved. Homey 04:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR is preventative there is no edit war going on so there is nothing to prevent. Zeq is just being vindictive.

This is nutty. Since I made seven smaller edits in a row (with no intervening edits by anoyne else) instead of one big edit Zeq can claim I made several reverts when really it's just one and it was just short of 24 hours after the previous edit. Moreover, the edits from today on neo-nazis that Zeq claims as partial reverts have not been challenged by anyone so they can hardly be said to be part of an edit war. There is no edit war going on, Zeq cannot edit the article so there is certainly no edit war going on with him. He's mad at me because I've had him banned from several articles so now he wikistalks me and makes questionable 3RR complaints over articles he is not involved with. If there was an edit war then certainly one of the other editors involved would have made a complaint. But there is no edit war and no complaint from anyone who is editing the article, only Zeq poring through more than a days worth of edits - dozens of them - looking for any changes that he can claim as reverts. If anyone is gaming the system, it's Zeq who is abusing the complaints procedure in order to get revenge on me for having made a complaint that got him banned. Homey 05:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"I am not being "vindictive". see proof on edit war below. Zeq 05:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, if you are not being vindictive then why are you, an editor who has been banned from editing

05:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This edit by homey (as well as this note left on my talk page [126] are just a Personal attack. In the same time Homey was also able to accuse me of using sockppupet(I did not), appologize for it [127] and revert his appology and acuse me again [128] - it seems reverting is something he does a lot, even on my talk page...:-)

05:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Proof of edit war

1. Homey remove one occurance: [129]
2. Homey remove 2nd occurance: [130]
3. 6SJ7 restore: [131], [132]
4. Homey remove: [133]
5. Humus restore: [134] (edit summary: reinstated important text removed by Homey (diff=60438359&oldid=60437734 )
6. Homey's associate CJCurrie remove: [135]
7. Humus restore: [136]
8. CJCurrie remove: [137]
9. SlimVirgin restore: [138]
10. Homey makes many more edit but does not touch the specifc section. he does remove the tag (which is a revert): [139] and waits for the 24 hours window to pass. mean while he makes this edit which reverts the work of many editors: [140] But homey does not change the Jew-watch and Dvaid Duke refrence. (homey makes one more unrelated revert: [141] restoring the Shulamit Aloni refrence that was removed before.

The 24 hours window almost pass (mean while Jayjg restore the tag:[142]) and.... near the end of the 24 hours window (counting from his 2nd revert) Homey is back removing the part he does not like:

[143], [144], [145]. (this is just 3 hours ago)

If this is not edit war than there must be no such thing as edir war. Zeq 05:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, the Shulamit Aloni reference was restored after almost a month and in a different form. For you to call that a revert is at best misleading, at worst, dishonest.

• Homey, what you called restored means you just admited to it being a revert (within the 24 hours window). The article was locked(protected) for almost a month. If you wanted to change it You had a whole month to discuss it on talk page. Instead you choose to edit war Zeq 07:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, the Aloni quote was removed, by you I believe, several weeks ago. I put it back using a different source and putting it in context several weeks later. I don't think you understand what "24 hour window" means. Putting a quote in that was removed several weeks ago falls far, far, outside of the 24 hour window. 24 day window, maybe, but not 24 hours. In your attempt to prove something, anything, your reach is far exceeding your grasp. Homey 13:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the rest of it, let one of the participants in the so-called edit war complain. As you note "the 24 hour window pass" which is the crucial flaw in your specious and vindictive 3RR claim. Homey 06:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • I suggest you first check the definition of revert - you seem to misunderstood it again and again.
    • Next, when You understand "what revert is" avoid making more than 3 in any 24 hours span.
    • You did 7 such reverts in 25.5 hours at least 4 of them in 24 hours.
    • This is what this violation report is all about. Zeq 14:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No. The "window" is how you calculated it (and you missed by a minute) but there were several others reverts (not of the specific paragrpah) that you did not counted. All together at least 4 in 24 hours. Don't "game the system". Zeq 06:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Without prejudice to whoever else may be looking, this doesn't look like 3RR to me. Rvs 4,5,6 are part of a connected block and thus count as one. Rv 1 isn't a clear rv, certainly not of the edit proposed. And 2,"7" are out of time.

I've rm'd the stalking stuff: thats not for the 3RR page William M. Connolley 19:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Danny Lilithborne

(result: 12h each)

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [146]
• 1st revert: [147]
• 2nd revert: [148]
• 3rd revert: [149]
• 4th revert: [150]

Time report made: 06:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This page was previously semi-protected because this anonymous user repeatedly added speculation and copyvio material (quoting the manga, in this case) and accused User:Geg of vandalism when he removed it. User:Samir (The Scope) semi-protected the page at my request, and I left a message telling the user that he was the one who was vandalising the page. Now that the time has elapsed, he's at it again, just as rude as ever.

Well you have (obviously) both broken 3RR so can have 12h each William M. Connolley 07:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Mywayyy reported by User:Fut.Perf. ☼

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 26 June, 04:38 by User:Khoikhoi
• 1st revert: June 26, 06:09
• 2nd revert: June 26, 06:34
• 3rd revert: June 26, 07:06 (as 88.218.40.21 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)))
• 4th revert: June 26, 07:28 (as 88.218.40.21 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)))
• 5th revert: June 26, 07:35] (as 88.218.40.21 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)))

Time report made: 07:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Rapid edit war by Mywayyy (talk · contribs) (alias IP 88.218.*.*) and SotirisVa (talk · contribs) (see next report). Repeat offender. The 88.218.*.* range is known to be used by User:Mywayyy, who has frequently used it for block evasion earlier ([151])I In the light of the previous histor, I suggest an extended block on Mywayyy and a short-term range block on his IPs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: I didn't notice at first that there was a claim by User:Khoikhoi that the version by SotirisVa was a copyvio ([152]). Doesn't really make Mywayyy's counter-reverts legitimate according to the rule (not "simple vandalism"), but may have to be taken into account. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked both for 24h. -

·

08:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Again block-evading through anon IP, and continuing a reverting spree across multiple articles as if nothing had happened: 88.218.38.182 (talk · contribs) PLEEEEAASE can we have a range block now, this is unbearable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User:SotirisVa reported by User:Fut.Perf. ☼

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 26 June, 04:21 by 69.174.69.11 (talk · contribs) (possibly himself)
• 1st revert: June 26, 05:00
• 2nd revert: June 26, 06:12
• 3rd revert: June 26, 06:35
• 4th revert: June 26, 07:19
• 5th revert: June 26, 07:29
• 6th revert: June 26, 08:22 (after being warned about 3RR on his talk page) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Time report made: 07:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Rapid edit war by SotirisVa (talk · contribs) and Mywayyy (talk · contribs) (alias IP 88.218.*.*). See also last report above. New user.

Blocked for 24h. -

·

08:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Infinity0 reported by User:-- Vision Thing -- (result: 24h)

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 21:34, 25 June 2006

• 1st revert: 22:12, 25 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 22:47, 25 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 10:50, 26 June 2006
• 4th revert: 12:36, 26 June 2006
• 5th revert: 14:10, 26 June 2006

Time report made: 16:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Some edits differ, but in all of them he is making same kind of changes in "Anarcho-capitalism" section. -- Vision Thing -- 16:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, looks valid to me: 24h William M. Connolley 17:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User:CB_Brooklyn reporter by User:Hipocrite - NO BLOCK PLEASE

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 04:28, 26 June 2006

• 1st revert: 15:55, 26 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 16:02, 26 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 16:14, 26 June 2006
• 4th revert: 16:22, 26 June 2006

Time report made: 16:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I do not believe a block would be helpful in this case, but would apppreciate intervention to make user discuss changes on article talk page. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Note: The long-diff [153] shows that two things have infact been kept - the removal of the terrible letter link, and the removal of one sentance regarding peer review. The first shows admirable good faith, the second I have asked user about on his talk page, and I assume nothing. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I already blocked, without seeing this, so it might be a little late... Prodego ^talk 16:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User:195.93.21.101 reported by User:Localzuk ^(talk) (result: 15 mins)

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 17:23 26 June 2006
• 1st revert: 17:46
• 2nd revert: 18:10
• 3rd revert: 18:18
• 4th revert: 18:29

Time report made: 18:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I have warned the user [154] to no avail. I have attempted to discuss the users issue by providing information pertinent to the case but he has ignored it. I am aware it is an AOL IP so I don't know how well a block would work.

Indeed its AOL, so gets 15 mins :-( I suppose the page can be semi'd if really necessary William M. Connolley 19:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

·

(result: 1 week)

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 07:52, 26 June 2006
• 1st revert: 07:58, 26 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 17:20, 26 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 18:18, 26 June 2006
• 4th revert: 18:34, 26 June 2006

Time report made: 19:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

I could have blocked, but as I've been a party in this dispute I thought it pertinent to bring it here first. As a note, this IP user is undoubtedly a sockpuppet of banned

19:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Note — the 'revert' consists of continually removing the disputed notice from Anarcho-capitalism. -

·

19:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, definitely 3RR. AS you seem to be correct about the sock stuff, I made it a week William M. Connolley 19:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you reckon this is worth bringing up at

·

19:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User:71.124.114.26 reported by User:RevolverOcelotX (result: 12h)

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 02:29, 26 June 2006
• 1st revert: 17:24, 26 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 17:28, 26 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 17:31, 26 June 2006
• 4th revert: 17:36, 26 June 2006

Comments: This is the second time User:71.124.114.26 broke the 3RR. Please see the above report for User:71.124.114.26 first 3RR violation, which he still has not been blocked for. User:71.124.114.26's user talk page have already been protected because he kept blanking it and in the process broke the 3RR. This would make the second time User:71.124.114.26 violated the 3RR without being blocked.

18:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OK: 3RR and NPA: 12h William M. Connolley 19:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

81.155.32.194, 81.158.224.206, 81.129.16.180, 81.129.168.102, CHRB

Users

.

Reported by: Atlant 20:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

CHRB is apparently the new alias of this person; they're making the same sort of edits today.

Atlant 16:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least they've now discovered how to use the "talk" pages. ;-)

Atlant 19:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

12.40.31.149

Please help. This user is edit warring with me on pages such as 12 Stones, The Doors, Rival Schools and The All-American Rejects when I was trying to correct the nouns. Later, he continues to change them back as well. He's trying to be like RJN, the person who continues to change nouns on the same pages. Please ban the user in a way to stop this edit war. Anything you could provide would be most helpful in a way to avoid breaking the 3RR. 65.222.216.15 21:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length on several talk pages to use "is" and "was" for American bands, not "are" and "were". See Guns N' Roses are vs. is, Talk:Angels_and_Airwaves/Are_vs_Is, and The Smashing Pumpkins are vs is. 12.40.31.149 21:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

84.146.253.82 at Ann Coulter reported by Kizzle

• Revision as of 10:57, June 26, 2006
• Revision as of 11:04, June 26, 2006
• Revision as of 12:39, June 26, 2006
• Revision as of 12:48, June 26, 2006
• Revision as of 14:04, June 26, 2006
• Revision as of 14:21, June 26, 2006

Which equals 4 reverts 5 reverts 6 reverts in a period of 24 hours.

I have the initial edit (which was not a rv by the way but my first attempt to put in an original passage), then 1, 2, and 3 reverts (see

history, thus I have not broken any policy (to my knowledge). --kizzle 21:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The above user is skating around his 24hr block by using another Ip: User:84.146.231.122--kizzle 21:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The above user is now skating around his 24hr block by using User:84.146.230.146. --kizzle 22:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think he's now skating around his 24hr block by using User:DaEnforcer and User:MrEnforcer, though I could be wrong. Regardless, DaEnforcer came out of a 2 week editing lapse to make one revert on Ann Coulter, while MrEnforcer has made 2 edits total, one of them being a revert on Ann Coulter, DaEnforcer's edit coming directly after 84's ban. --kizzle 22:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I think I'm on a hornet's nest of sockpuppets: look at User:RichDoctorsForChoice's message on User:DaEnforcer's page.

Holy crap, this guy has an insane amount of IPs all starting with 84.146..., also probably User:Goodandevil. --kizzle 22:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kizzle. The user has been repeatedly advised to get an account, as he is so determined to push a specific version of the article (let's just say Kizzle is definitely not the only editor he has had revert-wars with from what I've seen). His response was that he used to have an account but people were "malicious" to him and so apparently chooses to edit from an IP address alone. I am trying to assume good faith here, but I can't think of any reason to edit from an IP when you have an account except for a desire to dissociate oneself with a previous account. As for the IP's, it's also possible the user has some sort of dynamic IP from his ISP, which could explain the multiple IP addresses.

Also I feel constrained to point out that, as far as I know, sockpuppetry requires that multiple socks be used at once, ie. to establish false consensus or win a straw vote or circumvent 3RR. Previous to this 3RR violation, the contrib histories of the various IP's do not appear (on cursory examination) to overlap. Therefore the explanation could be some sort of rotating IP over which the user may have no control. However, I do wonder why, if 84.etc really is user Goodandevil, he has abandoned that name. It would certainly be helpful to other Wikipedians for a user with some sort of rotating IP to get and use an account, so we always know who we're talking to. It would prevent a great deal of confusion. Kasreyn 23:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Kizzle reported by User:84.146.253.82

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable:

Kizzle's 4 reverts of civil rights advocate in the Ann Coulter opening paragraph within 1 hour:

• 1. 19:35, 26 June 2006
• 2. 19:43, 26 June 2006
• 3. 19:57, 26 June 2006
• 4. 20:23, 26 June 2006

Sigh... the first edit was completely original on my part, was not an attempt to remove "civil rights advocate" but add "litigator for the Center for Individual Rights, something which (to my knowledge) had not been edited before... also if you'll notice on my last edit (which I still perceive to be my 3rd revert), I call attention that it is my 3rd revert and that I will refrain from reverting for the rest of today. --kizzle 21:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... you walked into an on-going edit war about this very term, and then pretend that you had no idea this was a controversial revert. If you like being dishonest, then good for you. The rest of the world is not so hot on the idea. The nice thing is that Ann's books are all best-sellers regardless of this article. 84.146.230.146

Bye bye :) --kizzle 22:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Only 3 reverts so no block. But both of you would be wise to stop the edit warring. Sasquatch t|c 22:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Will do, still have an open dialog on the talk page when 84 comes back, unless he gets in trouble for sockpuppets. --kizzle 22:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Estavisti reported by User:Dado

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [155]
• 1st revert: 17:24, 25 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 00:06, 26 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 12:07, 26 June 2006
• 4th revert: 16:37, 26 June 2006

Time report made: 23:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Comanche cph reported by User:Asatruer

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: Revision as of 10:19, 2006 June 25
• 1st revert: Revision as of 13:51, 2006 June 25
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 07:52, 2006 June 26
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 09:26, 2006 June 26
• 4th revert: Revision as of 10:24, 2006 June 26
• 5th revert: Revision as of 10:43, 2006 June 26
• 6th revert: Revision as of 12:26, 2006 June 26
• 7th revert: Revision as of 12:39, 2006 June 26
• 8th revert: Revision as of 14:16, 2006 June 26

Time report made: 00:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Even though Comanche cph often refers to his reverts as reverting biased vandalism, this appears to not be a case of reverting vandalism, but rather a content dispute.

• He's been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR, see below. Don't want to pile on with additional block for now, but will add additional warning. -- Samir धर्म 09:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User:RogerMooreArm reported by User:Cool Cat

)

• original edit
• revert #1
• revert #2
• revert #3
• revert #4
• revert #5

Time of report: --Cat out 00:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: All of the linked edits happened in a spawn of 2 hours. hence why I am not citing the times. --Cat out 00:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• 24 hours. Please, however, report 3RR in the "one true way"  :) Wikibofh_(talk) 00:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  Alright, but lets save the courtmartial this time ;) --Cat out 03:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Lifer00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• revert#1
• revert#2
• revert#3

Lifer00 is possibly if not most certainly is a sockpuppy of RogerMooreArm whom himslef be a sockpuppet. In any case user has a total of 5 edits. 3 being reverts, one being this...

--Cat out 05:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Update: according to Dmcdevit's checkuser (prompted by my irc inquiry) this is "a very obvious match". Any other person with checkuser can verify. --Cat out 07:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've indef blocked Lifer00 and reverted the article William M. Connolley 07:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Dōmo arigatō. --Cat out 08:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User:70.108.115.246 reported by User:Will Beback(Result:24 hours)

).
70.108.115.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
70.108.84.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 15:39, June 25, 2006
• 1st revert: 21:40, June 25, 2006
• 2nd revert: 22:57, June 25, 2006
• 3rd revert: 21:05, June 26, 2006
• 4th revert: 21:14, June 26, 2006
• 5th revert: 23:36, June 26, 2006

Time report made: 00:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• The anon was warned 23:07, June 25, 2006. The reverts are just beyond the 24 hour limit, but appear timed to game the system. -Will Beback 00:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• "Appear timed to game the system". Cute. For one thing, yesterday's reverts were not the same as today's, and they were only done 3 times each. Now let's look at Will Beback's activity on this article. Some anon IP in upstate New York posted loony, unsourced defamation in the form of a conspiracy theory in violation of
  WP:RS. It is rightly reverted again. Yet, this time around Will Beback (talk · contribs) repeatedly inserts it right back into the article and insists on adding even more defamation of the subject of the article. Now let's look at why User:Will Beback might do this. It's because he has a personal history with regard to the subject of this article, that's why, which I will not go into here. For that reason, he should refrain from even having anything to do with the article, even in an administrative sense. 70.108.115.246
  00:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours for 3RR and trying to gaming the system. FeloniousMonk 03:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User:CloseEncounters reported by User:FeloniousMonk (Result:24 hours)

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 19:16, 25 June 2006
• 1st revert: 07:23, 26 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 08:48, 26 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 09:47, 26 June 2006
• 4th revert: 15:07, 26 June 2006
• 5th revert: 15:12, 26 June 2006
• 6th revert: 15:55, 26 June 2006
• 7th revert: 16:31, 26 June 2006
• 8th revert: 16:59, 26 June 2006
• 9th revert: 17:09, 26 June 2006
• 10th revert: 18:25, 26 June 2006
• 11th revert: 18:39, 26 June 2006

Time report made: 02:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:CloseEncounters is also likely User:144.81.172.32, editing not logged in to dodge 3RR. 144. has edit warred to insert a bit of POV as has CloseEncounters:

• Version reverted to:by 144.81.172.32
• 1st revert:05:57, 26 June 2006
• 2nd revert:06:13, 26 June 2006
• 3rd revert:06:26, 26 June 2006 by CloseEncounters

CloseEncounters has been warned about 3RR and has continued to revert: [156]

24 hours for 3RR and disruptive editing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately he's still at it as "User:User:CloseEncounters" was blocked, not User:CloseEncounters: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:CloseEncounters http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:User:CloseEncounters Can we get this fixed? FeloniousMonk 02:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the issue myself since no one responded. FeloniousMonk 03:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, FM. I went to "block user" in the toolbox, so I don't know how it happened, unless I cut and paste User:X in by mistake, instead of just the name. My apologies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin reported by User:Homey

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime
• 1st revert: 21:47 26 June 2006 note was "revert POV changes"
• 2nd revert: 22:26 26 June 2006 one additional edits follow immediately (22:28)[ which also reverts material
• 3rd revert: 22:53 26 June 2006 reverts intervening edis
• 4th revert: 07:14 27 June 2006 reverts earlier move by anon
• 5th revert: 08:11 27 June 2006 reverting anon
• 6th revert: 08:17 27 June 2006 reverting anon

Time report made: 08:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• User was warned on her talk page[157] She is very famliar with 3RR being an admin who regularly patrols this page and having contributed to 3RR policy discussions and user has been blocked for 3RR in the past - repeat offender. Homey 08:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Don't hurry on this one. #3 is not a revert and it seems that later she was restoring material she removed unintentionally. See
    WP:AGF. Also I'd like to point out that Homey intitiated this ongoing (and it seems never-ending) edit war/political activism. Disclaimer: I am involved in it as well. ←Humus sapiens ^ну?
    09:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• She was warned and ignored the warning when she should have taken it as a cue to edit with care. She well knows the consequences of 3RR and has been an advocate of strict application in the past. Regardless, she's been edit warring all day when she should have taken a break when once realising she was in danger of violating 3RR. I'm sorry if she's confused, there's a long list of confused people who have been blocked for 3RR violations but since she was warned violating 3RR by accident is hardly an acceptable excuse for anyone who is not a newbie. Homey 09:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • An anon, User:72.232.204.226, was editing at the same time as me, but we each didn't know the other was editing, so at one point we both undid each other's edits, but we then both reinserted them. Homey is aware of this, because the anon and I both apologized to each other on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • SV is experienced enough to know what the words "edit conflict" means when they pop up on one's screen and should have been careful at that point, particularly after she had been warned. Homey 09:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I think it was a technical error rather than carelessness on both our parts. By the way, it's possible that I actually violated the 3RR, feel free to block me if I did. El_C 10:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
        • No, you didn't violate it either. Homey, you know perfectly well that I didn't get an "edit conflict" message, because you've read the talk page. If I had, I wouldn't have been able to overwrite. As I said on talk, I think the other editor and I were just editing perfectly in synch, each of us not realizing the other was there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
          • I didn't know that "perfectly well" because you didn't say on the talk page until after I posted this complaint and after I made my above comments (and you know this quite well so you know better than to make that remark). However as both you and El C (the anon) are saying it was a technical error I'll AGF and withdraw the complaint. In future, however, I advise you to heed warnings. Homey 11:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe this was a bad-faith report, so I'm writing the details up here for future reference, because it fits with what HOTR has been doing to Zeq.

It was clear from edit summaries at 08:15 and 08:16

, I say I'm restoring it.

HOTR was watching this, and yet filed a 3RR report 15 minutes later at 08:33.

I apologized to El C at 09:04 in case I had inadvertently reverted him. El C posted at 09:16 that he had had a similar glitch.

I know that HOTR was reading this, because he was responding to it, and yet he continued to try to get me blocked, appearing at one point to be about to block me himself, writing at 09:21: "Should I ban you now or will you do it yoruself?". He then made several more threatening comments here, on the article talk page and on my talk page, and this was long after he had been told by three editors that it was an obvious edit conflict/glitch between two editors who didn't realize the other was editing at the same time. [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

My "threat" was to give you a choice between voluntary recusal or being blocked - a choice you give routinely to others. If I was acting in bad faith I would not have warned you in the first place long before writing you up. You did not acknowledge or respond to the warning at all, rather you returned a few hours later and started what seemed to me to be edit warring. As for Zeq, I don't think I have ever filed a 3RR report against him though he has filed various bad faith reports himself. That you would invert that, particularly after referring to his behaviour when talking to me, is bizarre.Homey 17:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This report was clearly made in bad faith and his continuing to try to game the system after being made aware no violation was made only compounds the problem. Homey has been a chronically disruptive editor, having 5 recent 3RR blocks himself if I remember correctly. His threats to a fellow admin that he's been locked in a long-running content dispute with are especially troubling. If he continues in this manner a block for disruption is called for. FeloniousMonk 21:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What part of "I warned her first and she failed to acknowledge or respond to my warning" and "I withdrew the complaint after it became clear there was a technical glitch" do you not understand? And given that Zeq's latest 3RR complaint against me was found to be bogus why haven't you threatened to block him for disruption? Maybe we should have a rule against friends making threats on behalf of other friends as that's something of a conflict of interest?Homey 21:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Ultramarine reported by User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 03:56, 2006 June 27
• 1st revert: [164]
• 2nd revert: [165]
• 3rd revert: [166]
• 4th revert: [167]

Time report made: 08:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Editor edited lead repeatedly earlier in 24 hours to put in very similar unencyclopedic equivocation in lead; though not as exact identical version of this reversion. E.g.: [168], [169], [170], [171], etc.

• Lets not block Ultramarine...I have protected the page to eliminate any further reverting by all parties involved until they can reach an agreement.--MONGO 08:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• I have used different definitions each time from respectable sources. I just want to point out the diversity. I do not think it appropriate that just the Marxist definition, which also uses commodity differently from how many people use the term, should be proclaimed to be the true definition of capitalism without mentioning the many other views.Ultramarine 09:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• • MONGO, it looks like Ultramarine's edit warring is being sanctioned. There is a RFAR/Ultramarine#Log_of_bans_and_blocks. Instead, you protect his version? El_C 10:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • That only applies to two articles, Democratic peace theory and Criticisms of communism.Ultramarine 10:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I take that correction, but am still preplexed as to why a 3RR violation dosen't result in a user with a history of revert warring not being blocked, and instead the page being protected on his version. Dosen't seem right. El_C 10:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Protection does not imply that a version is correct. I think that it is a good idea so we can have a sensible discussion. Please continue on the talk page of capitalism. Ultramarine 10:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• You are the one who are bringing the content issues to AN3, as you do in your 1st "respectable sources" comment here. Whereas I am contesting MONGO's 3RR action, so I will not continue on the talk page of the article, and will continue to use this board as I see fit. El_C 11:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • ElC...I merely protected the page. I have no preferred version and I clearly stated that on the discussion page. I am not aware of any prior issues about Ultramarine, and am not familiar with any past determinations or editing history of said user. Lulu and others asked me to help out with NPOVing the article, knowing that I had no vested interest in it, aside from a desire to see it become stable. I do not know all the details, so if you feel my protection is wrong, or if Ultramarine deserves to be blocked, then you probably know more about the issues than I do. Again, my protection was to head off an edit war and I don't revert when I make quick determinations that articles are degenerating into chaos...I simply protect them.--MONGO 11:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Ultramarine is well aware of the 3RR rule, instead of blocking him you protected the page on the 3RR version. Dosen't seem right. El_C 11:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
      • ElC, I'm sorry, I meant nothing malicious in any way...I protected the page before I noticed that this 3RR report had been filed. I do not oppose a block, I was just trying to have everyone hash it out on the Capitalism talk page...do you want me to lift the protection and block Ultramarine?--MONGO 11:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I do not think this is the place to discuss if Wikipedia should state that just the Marxist definition of capitalism, including its rather special use of
    commodities, is the true definition of capitalism. I would prefer to discuss that in the talk pages. I do note, again, that I used many different definitions from different reliable sources to show the variety of definitions used and that many are different from the Marxist one.Ultramarine
    11:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It is not the place, please do not disrupt this board by repeating what you said above. El_C 11:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Obviously this is the place to point out that I in the different edits used different definitions from different sources.Ultramarine 11:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• It is not, this place is to discuss the 3RR violation, not your content rationals for violating it. You are misusing this board. El_C 11:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Again, there were no violations. One reason is that I used different definitions, citing different sources, in different edits. Ultramarine 11:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Prev. version: "according to one of the many definitons"
1. "according to one of the many definitons"
2. "according to one of the many definitons"
3. "according to one of the many definitons"
4. "according to one of the many definitons"
El_C 11:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If you insist on a few words, when I used different sentences, different definitions, citing different sources, in different edits, then 172 and Lulu, the opposing editors advocating the Marxist pov, have violated 3RR numerous times during the last 24 hours.Ultramarine 11:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

They are not advocating the Marxist pov, I know that because I am advocating it. You are just so to the right that you see their moderation as not only radical, but outright revolutionary. It is not. As for the policy, read

3RR#Detail. El_C

11:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, if you insist that a few words are 3RR, then 172 and Lulu have violated 3RR numerous times during the last 24 hours. I think protection is preferable so we can discuss our differences.Ultramarine 11:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are not reading the policy I linked "Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention. You have not provided evidence 172 and LLtLE violated 3RR, and I don't see why they would need to do so, there are two of them and one of you. El_C 12:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is a violation of 3RR by Lulu. Prior verion: [172]. 3 reverts to this Marxist definition "Capitalism refers broadly to an

private ownership of the means of production." [173][174][175] Here is another complete revert, [176] to this prior version.[177]. Ultramarine

12:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I will shortly add similar violations for 172.Ultramarine 12:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You are being inconsistent. You've placed the same link twice. Also, stop calling it Marxist definition, this is not the place for me to argue that you are wrong in calling it that, so just exercize some restraint and stay on-topic. El_C 12:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, now corrected above. Ultramarine 12:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a 3RR violation, even though the partial revert from the 26th has nothing to do with the others. El_C 12:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Now here there is no question. 4 complete reverts by 172. [178][179][180] to [181]. [182] to [183].Ultramarine 12:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Corrected.Ultramarine 12:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It does not appear to be a 3RR violation, one edit simply restored the<refs> which were removed by someone (i.e. vandalism). El_C 13:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess you are thinking of [184]. Scroll down to see the massive reverts of many paragraphs. These are 4 simple reverts.Ultramarine 13:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct, though the question that now comes to my mind is who would remove so much encyclopedic content for him to need to restore it. But technically, you were able to demonstrate your case that they also breached 3RR, which makes MONGO's position more understandable. Although at this point it's all rather academic. El_C 03:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Comanche cph reported by User:Phaedriel

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 17:27, 26 June 2006
• 1st revert: 18:23, 26 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 18:38, 26 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 20:18, 26 June 2006
• 4th revert: 20:36, 26 June 2006
• 5th revert: 08:51, 27 June 2006

Comments: Warned about breaching of 3RR [185] by

09:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Reviewed. Appropriately warned, but continued to revert. Blocked for 24 hours -- Samir धर्म 09:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Telex reported by User:Yakin (result: no block)

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime

• 1st revert: 09:36, 26 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 12:12, 26 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 17:31, 26 June 2006
• 4th revert: 09:13, 27 June 2006

Time report made: 09:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

2,3 are part of a block (inc a self-revert) so count as 1 at best William M. Connolley 13:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with William Connolley. Besides, User:Yakin is none other than the infamous Rajput Troll, trying to browbeat and intimidate Telex, who is reverting his vandalism made under a new, disposable sockpuppet-account every day. Can someone advise on how the depradations of this pernicious and inhumanly persistant vandal can be better contained? This nuisance-troll daily reverts whatever edits I may have made the previous day, regardless of what they are. Wikistalking, wanton vandalism, abuse -- all this, by a user who has an Arbcom decision against him and has been banned 30 times over. Is there really nothing that can be done about this? ImpuMozhi 15:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur with ImpuMozhi. This is a matter of legitimate reverting of an egregious banned vandal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User:ASkolnick reported by User:Peterklutz

):

• numerous reverts cf history

2006-06-27 14:03:42 Bishonen (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Transcendental Meditation: Full protection to stop meaningless revert war. Time to try to reach consensus on the talkpage. [edit=sysop:move=sysop])' William M. Connolley 14:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Amitsanyal34 reported by User:David Underdown

):

• 1st revert: Revision as of 2006-06-26 15:13:47
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 2006-06-26 15:19:08
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 2006-06-27 13:31:52

Time report made: 14:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments The three diffs above show the removal, without comment of article lines stating that Sundarbans National Park is to the south of Kolkata. In addition to these diffs the article history will show that other edits by the same author have resulted in broken wiki-links. I left the user a note about this yesterday, and Ganeshk has done the same today. Hope I've got the process right, it's the first 3RR report I've filed.

User:Litany reported by User:ilir_pz

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 13:19, 25 June 2006
• 1st revert: 13:32, 25 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 13:49, 25 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 14:08, 25 June 2006
• 4th revert: 21:56, 25 June 2006

Time report made: 14:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Pure violation of 3RR rule, reverted the same content 4 times, and refused to take into consideration the reliable sources offered. Action by an admin would be appreciated ilir_pz 14:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably stale; but I've warned

User:His excellency reported by User:Pecher ^Talk

):

• 1st revert: 15:24, June 26, 2006
• 2nd revert: 15:42, June 26, 2006
• 3rd revert: 16:05, June 26, 2006
• 4th revert: 14:01, June 27, 2006
• 5th revert: 14:46, June 27, 2006

Time report made: 15:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Complex partial reverts. Revert #1: removal of a sentence. Revert #2: re-insertion of a previously removed quote. Revert #3: moving back of several paragraphs previously moved to a different part of the article by another user at 15:48, June 26, 2006. Revert #4: massive revert to a version 15:48, June 26, 2006 by the same user. Revert #5: massive removal of material. Pecher ^Talk 15:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

His excellency is another username of User:Amibidhrohi, who has accumulated a number of 3RR and other blocks. Pecher ^Talk 15:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Richb1111 reported by User:Tom Harrison ^Talk

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 09:26, 25 June 2006
• 1st revert: 10:20, 26 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 12:08, 26 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 10:19, 27 June 2006
• 4th revert: 10:58, 27 June 2006

Time report made: 17:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked. This is clearly a problem user - but no warning was issued. Please warn the revert warriors, it makes our job easier! Just zis Guy you know? 18:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:CHRB as IP User:86.143.57.222 prior to registration reported by User:ALR (result: warned)

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 0853
• 1st revert: 0906
• 2nd revert: 0920 warned by User:SWAdair
• 3rd revert: 1252 as CHRB following registration
• 4th revert: 1652 as CHRB warned by me
• 5th revert: 1707 as CHRB warned by User: Atlant

Time report made: 18:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:The user appeared to register following warning and has sought to justify the repeated reverts both on own talk page and on the article talk page. Similar reversions have been ongoing on Robert Lomas although stopped short of breaching the 3RR in that article. I would assess that this user is not so wikinaive as they seem to suggest. ALR 18:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Newbie; warned William M. Connolley 19:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Ptmccain reported by User:Jayjg ^(talk)

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 21:29, 26 June 2006
• 1st revert: 02:28, 27 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 10:49, 27 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 15:45, 27 June 2006
• 4th revert: 23:47, 27 June 2006

Time report made: 00:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• Editor keeps removing the description of
  Paul Johnson as "British historian". Editor is well aware of the 3RR, having been blocked for violating it 3 times on this very article. Jayjg ^(talk)
  00:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• 4th 3RR vio on the same article in 7 weeks; blocked for 48 hrs. Guettarda 00:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk reported by User:Isarig

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: reverts made to different sections of the article
• 1st revert: 17:41, 27 June 2006 (edit ssummary is "restored...) - adding of prev. removed 'all criticisms of PIPA statement
• 2nd revert: 17:51, 27 June 2006 (edit summary reads "rv. If you assert ..", - again added the same statement
• 3rd revert: 18:47, 27 June 2006(removed {fact} tag, did not provide needed citation)
• 4th revert: 19:00, 27 June 2006 (edit summary reads "restoring quotes..."- re-added previously removed non [[WP:RS}} blog source)
• 5th revert: 19:06, 27 June 2006(removed "much of the")
• 6th revert: 02:46, 28 June 2006 (edit summary reads "rv. See talk..."- re-added previously removed non [[WP:RS}} blog source)

Time report made: 03:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• WP:CIVIL and calling those opposed to his adding of blog sources as "willfully obtuse" Isarig
  03:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• I'd already reverted myself prior to this being filed until this was sorted out. Nevertheless, Isarig's counting of reverts here is flawed: What he claims is my 1st revert is not a revert all, but my first edit to the article since 8 June, restoring content that was deleted nearly a month ago. What he claims is my 3rd revert is me editing my own content and removing a misused tag. What Isarig claims is my 4th revert is not a revert but again me restoring content that was deleted several days previous by Isarig. And what Isarig claims is my 6th revert I reverted myself after his mentioning it to me until this could be cleared up:[186] By my count I was at 3 reverts counting toward the 3RR threshols, and with my self-rv that leaves 2 reverts Isarig has presented here that actually count toward 3RR. FeloniousMonk 04:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• For something this complex, the diffs aren't up to standard. After working through this, I can't find four reverts, and even if there were four reverts in there, FM self-reverted in response to Isarig's warning, so the report is moot. Guettarda 04:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• I'd be happy to find all 4 (or rather 6) reverts for you, if you are interested. To me it is moot since FM self-reverted after I filed this. As a a side note if this comes up again, adding content that was previously removed is just as much of a revert as removing content previously added, especially when the editor himslef describes that edit as a revert. Isarig 04:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• I take that back, and find Guettarda's comment to be a little disingenious, as right after saying that "FM self-reverted", he went and restored FM's last revert. So, I believe the diffs I've provided speak for themsleves. If you can't see the 6 reverts -tell me which ones you don't see and I'll point them out to you very clearly. Isarig 04:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • For one, my revert of the page has nothing to do with FM's self-revert. It's my judgement on the content, after seeing the conversation on his talk page. Apart from taking FM's word on it that he reverted where he said he did (ie, the edits he labelled as reverts), none of your diffs are clear. Guettarda 13:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Your revert was, both in practice and in your edit summary, a simple reversion of FM's self-revert. It was not judgement on the page contnet in any way shape or form. Seems you are the only editor here who has trouble understanding the diffs. perhaps it's time you took a wikibreak. Isarig 14:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • • That's uncalled for, Isarig. If Guettarda agrees with the content of the version he went back to, that's a content decision. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
        • what is uncalled for? I'm responding to the statement by Guettrada that his revert of the page "has nothing to do with FM's self-revert. It's my judgement on the content" - that's a false statement as evidenced by his own edit summary. Isarig 15:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
          • He said he returned to that version because he agreed with it. That's a content decision. He would hardly have done it had he disagreed with it. I think this topic is exhausted by now, Isarig, so I hope we can drop it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Felonius says: "What he claims is my 3rd revert is me editing my own content and removing a misused tag." As I recall, removing a tag counts as a revert regardless of whether you think it's misused or not. As for "restoring content that was deleted nearly a month ago" the 24 hour time limit applies to the number of reverts done within that period, it does not apply to the lag time between an edit being done or reverted. Putting back in material that was removed a month ago still counts as a revert. The policy says "Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part." It does not say "undoing the actions of another editor or editors within 24 hours". Felonius is an admin, one who regularly implements 3RR bans and thus is familiar enough with 3RR policy to know better. Indeed, his own edit summaries show he knew full well that he was reverting. Homey 06:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• The first link given was an edit, not a revert. The third and fourth edits (18:47 and 19:00) were back to back and therefore count as one edit/revert. And FM has reverted himself on his 02:46 edit (per
  WP:3RR) — and had done so before this report was filed — so there aren't four reverts in the above list. SlimVirgin ^(talk)
  10:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• True, the back to back edits should count as a single revert. As to whether the first edit counts as a revert, as I said, the policy as it's currently written (unless I'm missing something) states a revet is simply "undoing the actions of another editor" with no time frame being given. Homey 10:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• The first edit is a revert per WP:3RR guidleines. It is the re-addition of text removed 3 days ago by Ucanlookitup (not a month ago as FM claims). The 3RR report was filed at 3:45. FM self-reverted AFTER the report was filed, not before, at 3:48. FM was warned, on his talk page at 3:03. Instead of self-reverting then, he proceeded to post an offensive personal attack on the Talk page of the disputed article. Only after the 3RR was fied did he sle frevert. please review the timelines. So, even if you count the 3rd and 4th as a single revert, we still have 5 reverts made prior to the report being filed. Isarig 14:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Isarig, if the user reverts himself, that's the end of it. In fact, it's often a good idea to offer people the opportunity to revert themselves before reporting them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It may be the end of it from a practical POV, but that's not what WP guidelines say. I thought it was a moot point myself, and wrote so, until I saw that the admin who reviewed this and failed to see the reverts undid the self-revert. As to your other point - I'm not sure what you're getting at. It is precisely what I did - I warned him, gave him 45 minutes to self revert, and when he instead chose to attack me personally, reported him. Isarig 15:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• If he continued to revert after a warning it shouldn't be ignored, particularly not as he is an admin familiar enough with the rules to know better. Homey 17:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Someguy0830

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [187] Spacing is slightly off, but the text is exactly the same.
• 1st revert: [188]
• 2nd revert: [189]
• 3rd revert: [190]
• 4th revert: [191]

Time report made: 05:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user has proven unwilling to compromise on this article, and used a personal attack (diff) when I gave my reasoning for using past tense in this article. The event has long since past and using present tense makes it difficult to read. This is echoed on the talk page by another user. –

) 05:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Not at all obvious that the first is a rv; ver-rv-to doesn't match it William M. Connolley 18:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Very well, I won't argue it. The tags on the article will do. –

Talk | contribs

) 18:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ante Perkovic

(result: 12h)

).

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 12:47, 23 June 2006

Since Hahahihihoho made a lot of partail edits, I believe its better to show how he deleted the same (or almost the same) text 9 times (8 times in 24h)

• 1st deletion: 12:47, 23 June 2006 (a base for later deletions that are essentially reverts)
• 2nd deletion: 16:59, 27 June 2006
• 3rd deletion: 17:31, 27 June 2006
• 4th deletion: 18:05, 27 June 2006
• 5th deletion: 18:08, 27 June 2006
• 6th deletion: 21:42, 27 June 2006
• 7th deletion: 10:55, 28 June 2006
• 8th deletion: 14:39, 28 June 2006
• 9th deletion: 15:44, 28 June 2006

Time report made: 16:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I warned this user about his 3RRv, but he deleted the sections one more time after that. I can't make any more reverts because I would be breaking

.

Also, I must note that he made some personal attacks on me. See details.. Nevermind, this doesn't amount to personal attack. --

17:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a note, that hardly seems like a personal attack. It borders on incivility and could even be considered a good will effort to request help in talking to someone. Isn't that what Mediation is all about. People there are asking the same questions. Please

Assume good faith. Chuck^(contrib)

16:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you talking about the link I provided above (details), it certainly is a a good will effort (thanks :). But, that isn't a personal attack I talked about. It was my explanation of the attack. You can see that the edit was done by me.

12h William M. Connolley 16:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

User:RWR8189 reported by User:User:Hipocrite

Preamble:The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique.

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 08:23, 28 May 2006

• Since the intial position swap on 28 May 2006, editor has reverted the article an unprecedented 44 times, and has written a total of only this on the relevent talk page. Brought to my attention here. I am involved in unlrelated dispute with editor. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Time report made: 17:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do us the favour of troubling to at least name the page in question, if its just tooooo much trouble to file a report in proper form William M. Connolley 18:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry.

America. I don't see how propper form would be relevent, but I can go ahead and do it - for completness sake, I would mention that I did not find 4 reverts in 24 hours in a substantial overview, which is why I mention the massive number of reverts over extended timeframe without discussion Hipocrite - «Talk»

18:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think reverting once every other day is going to lead to a block William M. Connolley 19:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Would it lead to someone reading this report who is not involved in other disputes with said editor telling the user to start using talk pages to discuss his changes instead of enforcing his preferred version via reverts? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I left a message on his/her talk page about trying to use discussion pages.--MONGO 20:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog

(result: 24h)

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: Revision as of 19:42, 27 June 2006
• 1st revert: 00:40, 28 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 09:42, 28 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 15:12, 28 June 2006
• 4th revert: 17:25, 28 June 2006

Time report made: 18:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Clearcut case. User warned politely in talk and invited to self-revert. Declined. [192]

Seems perfectly clear. 24h William M. Connolley 18:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Rama's Arrow reported by User:Rama's Arrow

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime
• 1st revert: 18:43, June 28
• 2nd revert: 18:55, June 28
• 3rd revert: 19:01, June 28
• 4th revert: 19:16, June 28

Time report made: 19:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• I fear that I may have violated
  WP:3RR. I request an administrator to do justice. Rama's Arrow
  19:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No. Blocks are last-resort preventative measures, not punishments to be handed out arbitrarily. Don't do it again. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 19:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! A 500lb load lifted off my chest! Felt I had to report it though. Rama's Arrow 19:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Redvers

):

1. 23:07, 28 June 2006 Code Pink (Properly laid out and referenced according to the information in the source.)
2. 22:32, 28 June 2006 Code Pink (The source cited does not agree with you. It reads "you're protesting the soldiers in the hospital. That's not what's going on. Let's set the record straight".)
3. 22:23, 28 June 2006 Code Pink (Please cite a reputable source rather than just someone's blog. Thank you.)
4. 22:11, 28 June 2006 Code Pink (Putting [1] and [2] by contentious statements is not citing. You actually have to provide the links, you know. And to reputable sources, too.)

Time report made: 22:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• Not quite reverts, but in the same spirit.
  ЯEDVERS
  22:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• <after edit conflicting with myself, oddly>Perhaps not, actually. 160.149.13.69 is still editing the article, but what they're saying is only faintly perjorative. In fact, compared to what went before, what they're saying is downright neutral, so it will probably do for now... or do for another editor to look at. I'm off to bed!
  ЯEDVERS
  22:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • No. Blocks are last-resort preventative measures, not punishments to be handed out arbitrarily. Don't do it again. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 22:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Hatto reported by User:Mackan (result: 8h)

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 06:40, 26 June 2006
• 1st revert: 23:32, 28 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 23:54, 28 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 09:56, 29 June 2006
• 4th revert: 10:14, 29 June 2006

Time report made: 01:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User reverted my changes 4 times, even though I asked him to explain his edits on the talk page, he ignored these requests (he did eventually respond on his talk page, but only to say I'm a cold person because I won't allow his "free edits" and "freedom of expression"), and even though I explained carefully on the relevant talk page why I made my edits he would not respond. This is not the first time this user causes trouble, he is currently in mediation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Hatto). He is known for refusing to listen to other people and constantly contends that he has the right to write whatever he wants because it's "freedom of expression", no matter how many times he has been rebuked (he frequently deletes those from his talk page though) telling him that's not what Wikipedia is about. Mackan 01:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, I warned the user about breaking the 3R rule about 9 hours before he broke it: [193] Mackan 10:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Really, a good 3RR report isn't that hard. Yours is just show versions, not even diffs. Please clean up. Wikibofh_(talk) 02:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't get what I've done wrong. Could you please be more specific?Mackan 02:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed it. I think you should try and make your comments more helpful to people who never have reported a 3RR before (the tone of your message makes it sound like I made a mistake on purpose), the example at the bottom isn't all that specific. Mackan 02:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Fairly clear that 2 is a revert to 1. And that 3, 4 are reverts. Not so obvious that 1 is a revert William M. Connolley 11:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, why do you find it unclear? If you compare the "Previous version reverted to, if applicable" with the 1st edit it seems pretty clear to me it is a revert. If you check this link [194] (difference between the version before my three edits and his first revert, ([195]), you can clearly see he took out all changes I made.Mackan 11:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah OK, and its also marked rv too :-). Perhaps a short block then, esp as he reported you back... 8h William M. Connolley 12:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Mackan reported by User:Hatto

):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [196]
• 1st revert: [197]
• 2nd revert: [198]
• 3rd revert: [199]

Time report made: 03:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User deleted my sentence 3 times at least. Although I called him "please don't remove it" many times, he kept removing sentences you think "it's useless or nonessential" at his own discretion. This is extremely unfair deletion. --Hatto 03:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Needs 4 rv, as per the example William M. Connolley 07:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)