Wikipedia : Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive30

Previous version reverted to:

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

Time report made: 08:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User was already

blocked for 3RR for 24 hours, now continues to edit war on the article to push POV edits. Leuko

08:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Already blocked twice for this, and another 24h is the result. Stifle (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Bbb1992 reported by User:Panarjedde (Result: 12h each)

Three-revert rule

violation on

Previous version reverted to: 04:33, 21 October 2006
1st revert: 13:04, 22 October 2006
2nd revert: 15:54, 22 October 2006
3rd revert: 16:05, 22 October 2006
4th revert: 16:12, 22 October 2006
Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. [11]

Time report made: 14:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

The user has been already blocked for 3RR violation
The comment of his 4th and last edit was (rv) this is my third and last reversion, for today
The revert is quite trivial
Yep, that's a violation and 12 hour block. Unfortunately for Panarjedde, he/she has also reverted 4 times in there and gets 12h as well. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- That's a second violation (the first was a 24h block) and deserves a 12h block. Unfortunately for Panarjedde, he reverted 4 times in 48h, so he deserves a 12h block too. Thanks.--Panarjedde 12:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  - I make no comment on the first one, but Panarjedde, sarcastic as he may be, is completely right, I goofed and apologise. Stifle (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User:68.41.31.120 reported by User:Thor Malmjursson (Result: Sprotected)

Three-revert rule

violation on

Bachmann_Thomas_and_Friends. User:68.41.31.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: [12]
2nd revert: [13]
3rd revert: [14]
4th revert: [15]
5th revers: [16]
6th revert: [17]
7th revert: [18]
8th revert: [19]
9th revert: [20]

Time report made: 16:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Discospinster and I have repeatedly warned this IP for the continued and persistent addition of information which is in direct contravention of

Wikipiedia is not a crystal ball

. The IP has repeatedly added information about upcoming products in this range of toys which they have been unable to give sources for, and have continuously ignored both Discospinster's and my own warnings.

Seems to be a job for Mr. Semi-Protection. Stifle (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Zarbon reported by User:KojiDude (Result:Zarbon, 1 month; KojiDude:warned)

Three-revert rule

violation on

22:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: [21]
2nd revert: [22]
3rd revert: [23]
4th revert: [24]
5th revert: [25]

Time report made: 22:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has received numerous 3RR blocks before. He has an extremley bad

WP:OWN issue as well. My suggestion would be a 2 week block, seeing as how this is the 4th offense, and after the 3rd he had created sock puppets to evade his block.--Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)}

I have blocked User:Zarbon for one month. I warned User:KojiDude to avoid edit-warring. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Capsource1 reported by User:Gdo01 (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: [26] Initially, reverts changed subtly as the user went on
1st revert: Revision as of 14:34, October 22, 2006
2nd revert: Revision as of 17:43, October 22, 2006
3rd revert: Revision as of 18:14, October 22, 2006
4th revert: Revision as of 18:41, October 22, 2006
5th revert: 19:15, October 22, 2006
6th revert: 20:49, October 22, 2006

Time report made: 23:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Started off as an IP user 71.194.175.20 claiming that an e-mail from the user led to the firing of Mike Malloy but offered no other explanation or citation. In addition the user added Rush Limbaugh links to the page. The user registered a user account and went on again to put Rush Limbaugh links on the page in addition to the revert. After that the user reverted multiple times as above and added a rant as of the 4th revert. I wrote on his talk page that the commentary belonged on the talk page. The user then proceeded to revert on the article page and add the same edit to the talk page. The user has shown no intent on cooperating and thinks that the rant is sufficient reason and rationale for the edits. Gdo01 23:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

~~In addition the article currently needs a revert since I am also on the verge of violating 3RR.~~ Gdo01 00:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

~~The user has reverted again with the rationalle that the edit has to remain until there is a decision. As above, a revert is again needed.~~ Gdo01 00:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I have also participated in reversion of this article, and have removed Capsource's edits now 3 times today, and am against my own 3R cap. I have also started and explained patiently on his talk page about the guidelines that make his edits improper. I hope someone can help here. Debivort 01:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 3rr, but arguably vandalism because of the style William M. Connolley 09:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User:NBGPWS reported by User:Tbeatty and User:GabrielF (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule

violation on

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

06:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: 20:14, October 22, 2006
2nd revert: 20:37, October 22, 2006
3rd revert: 21:13, October 22, 2006
4th revert: 21:30, October 22, 2006
5th revert: 21:36, October 22, 2006
6th revert: 21:46, October 22, 2006
7th revert: 22:41, October 23 2006

Time report made: 04:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Procedural note - two reports on this matter were submitted nearly simultaneously by me and Tbeatty, they are consolidated here. GabrielF 05:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a dispute over a user page, and an extremely controversial one at that. It co-ordinates editors with a particular outlook for AFD snowballs, which I can't differentiate from vote-stacking. The whole situation is really ironic, since the usual snowball swarm has now turned into a revert swarm of someone posting an article that you'd think they'd want to AFD. Anyway's I'm not even sure 3RR applies outside of article space, much less on a subpage of user talk page. At the least, Tbeatty's call for a LONG ban is inappropriate, unless he is referring to himself, in which case I fully endorse it. This is really a matter to be settled at RFC or at the Village Pump.
Derex
05:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

- WP:POINT and disruption by trying to continue a revert war. --Tbeatty
  06:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Special:Contributions/Derex is quite an interesting read. It should be noted that Derex has somehow been previously involved. Tuxide 06:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  - What's interesting about it? I hadn't ever made an edit to that page at the time of this report. I do have strong feelings about the page, which I would think is pretty clear from my comments. So, what's your implication? If you've got something to say, I'd prefer you'd be clear.
    Derex
    09:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    - I'd tend to agree -- doesn't seem entirely pertinent to the matter at hand. I've been wrong before, but I don't think Derex is going to break 3RR anytime soon. Luna Santin 09:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
      - My implication was not whether Derex will violate 3RR (I have no reason to believe he ever did) but to question the validity of Derex's above comment. It is obvious that there are two parties here that just don't seem to like getting along with each other. In my opinion, the only clear, well-defined rule concerning behaving on Wikipedia is obviously
        WP:AN/3RR. Tuxide
        00:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
        Sure, I think that's along the lines of what I was thinking, too -- there's obviously more going on here than a little 3RR.
        the Mediation Cabal works. Things seem to have calmed down a bit, which I think is good for all parties; ideally, this little incident prompts discussion and eventually leads to a resolution of some sort to stop the bickering. There've been some interesting points and concerns raised by a few parties, here, so finding a good forum to explore them doesn't seem like a horrible idea. Luna Santin
        00:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
        
        Tuxide, thank you for clarifying. I think from my comment it was entirely clear that I had issues with the reverted page, and your diff points to a heated response to baiting over the same matter. Note that the diff also explicitly credits the complainant here, GabrielF, with good faith about the page in question. At any rate, yes the issue is broader than this, and NBGPWS was clearly reverting to make a POINT. I thank you being explicit, as a dismissive wave towards my general edit history seemed to imply that I'm a troll to be ignored, instead of an editor for over two years with over ten-thousand edits on hundreds of pages on dozens of topics.
        Derex
        01:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User is disrupting a page in my userspace to make a point. GabrielF 04:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Note GabrielF brought this up on IRC before going to

WP:3RR#Reverting pages in your user space correctly) that 3RR indeed applies to user subpages that are not "yours" (project-related-wise). Nevertheless, apart from 3RR, NBGPWS was being flat-out uncivil in this incident. Tuxide

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of disruption and reverts. His last block was for 1 week. This is a form of disruption and not just reverts of content. A LONG ban is called for.--Tbeatty

04:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand, this is a 3RR violation, and probably a

MfD -- I was ignored in favor of continued disruption. On the other hand, it's out of article space. I'm not opposed if anyone cares to review this, but for the time being I've given NBGPWS a 24 hour block for continued disruption and edit warring. Luna Santin

07:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Vr6 reported by User:M100 (Result: indef)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: [27]
2nd revert: [28]
3rd revert: [29]
4th revert: [30]

Time report made: 11:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:Vr6 also previously reported at [31] as suspected sockpuppet of User:Pflanzgarten

indef blocked as sock of User:Pflanzgarten William M. Connolley 19:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Panarjedde reported by User:Dppowell (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule

violation on

18:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [32]
1st revert: [33]
2nd revert: [34]
3rd revert: [35]
4th revert: [36]
5th revert: [37]

Time report made: 13:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I'm primarily concerned with his edits to this article, but a review of his talk page and recent block log will show that this is part of a larger pattern of behavior for this user. Dppowell 17:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 19:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Supreme_Cmdr reported by User:Ehheh (Result: 1 week)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 07:31, 22 October 2006
1st revert: 10:03, 22 October 2006
2nd revert: 07:44, 23 October 2006
3rd revert: 07:57, 23 October 2006
4th revert: 08:30, 23 October 2006

Time report made: 14:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has been blocked for 3RR on this article multiple times, most recently for 72 hours on October 17. A few self-labeled reverts along with repeated removals of a SA link. Ehheh 14:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As seen from talk, what you and your friends are doing is making unwarranted edits to the article. Then when myself or another editor come in and revert, you folks punch back in the questionable edit, thereby trapping us in a 3RR rule. This mornings 3RR violation by WarHawk was caused by you. Even a notable editor JBKramer was almost caught by it until he reverted himself for an attrocious edit of yours that he removed. So, in this case, the 3RR were required and warranted Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 16:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, how are we going to allow you to decide what is warranted? You are not trapped into 3RR by a yone but yourself. I've made this 1 week since last time was 72h; others feel free to review if thats felt a bit high William M. Connolley 17:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It was a bit low by my feeling, but I think if Supreme_Cmdr doesn't lay off the Derek Smart article he's going to find himself before ArbCom in quick order. Stifle (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User:William Mauco reported by User:MariusM (Result:)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 22 oct 15:34

20 oct 18:38

1st revert: 22 oct 18:04
2nd revert: 22 oct 19:34
3rd revert: 23 oct 03:57
4th revert: 23 oct 16:49

Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here. Not a new user. However, I warned him: [38]

Time report made: 20:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:William Mauco is a supporter of Transnistrian separatist government and he is pushing his POV through entire Wikipedia in Transnistria-related articles, where he want to have "veto" rights. In this particular case, he wanted to deny or to hide the fact, proven even by official Transnistrian site, that the majority of the leaders of separatist government are not native transnistrians (deleting also a refference to official EU site that he claims is not reliable), and to add a link at an online newspaper (Tiraspol Times) where himself is a collaborator see the end of article. 1st, 2nd and 4th reverts were about the problem of nativeness of transnistrian leadership, 3rd revert was about adding the link to "Tiraspol Times" with the misleading comment that consensus was reach 4 against 1. In fact, there were 4 editors (Me, User:EvilAlex, User:Bogdangiusca and User:Illythr) who express doubts against Tiraspol Times link and from those who support that link there are 2 with conflict of interest: User:MarkStreet (self declared editor of Tiraspol Times, as his user page) and User:William Mauco (writer for Tiraspol Times [39]). For 3rd revert, as previous version will qualify this: 20 oct 18:38--MariusM 20:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Misleading. Apart from the slurs and personal attacks, I wrote one (1) single, unpaid guest column on an OpEd page for an online newspaper. What that has to do with this particular 3RR, I don't know. I certainly wasn't pushing "my" column and the edits listed are not about the newspaper, so I don't see a conflict of interest. As for the reverts in question, one was just cleaning up after a vandal. And why are there two (2) previous versions here? One on 20 October and another on 22 October? - 07:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Later adition: edit warrior User:William Mauco is continuing the edit war with his 5th revert: 23 oct 21:36--MariusM 22:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Not in the same 24H period. Besides, in the end, the correct phrasing got agreed upon in Talk, and the issue is now behind us. At the current time, we have consensus on the proper sentence for the article. - Mauco 07:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Technically, both sides should get a block for this. Both sides have violated the spirit of 3RR (although there may be some technical loopholes), and the edit wars seem to be ongoing, even if they are temporarily solved. The solution should be mediation, since I really don't believe blocking the users, or page protection, will solve this. Due to this, I'm not applying a block on anyone at the moment. 3RR and admin action is always open to you, but I really do recommend that you try solving it in a non-punitive way, since this won't solve the root of the dispute. Thanks,

Ronline ✉ 09:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point, Ronline: "The solution should be mediation". I tried twice this solution with Mauco, but he disagreed [40], [41]. What can be done when facing such a disruptive behaviour, unwilling to compromise?--MariusM 11:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If the user is unwilling to compromise, then mediation should be tried again. As a mediator, I will gladly take on this case, and ensure that Mauco complies with the spirit of dispute resolution at Wikipedia. But for that to happen, all personal attacks and a general spirit of division and bickering needs to stop.

Ronline ✉ 12:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I am absolutely certain that this is not a problem, Ronline. You know me: I didn't want to make this back-and-forth more polemic than it is already is, so I try to not to respond to some of the things said about me here. However, it should be noted that my objection to mediation in the cases mentioned (which involves the same user, but different pages) is not an objection to mediation in general, but to a very specific and narrow case where he didn't bother to follow any of the recommendations in

WP:DR first. If anything, I am hoping that I can teach this colleague how to be a better wikipedian and maybe pay a bit more attention to the policies and the guidelines first. That would be good for all of us, myself included. - Mauco

User:Antarcticwik reported by User:Asterion (Result:)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 01:35, October 22, 2006
1st revert: 01:46, October 22, 2006
2nd revert: 01:59, October 22, 2006
3rd revert: 02:15, October 22, 2006
4th revert: 02:47, October 22, 2006
5th revert: 06:01, October 23, 2006
6th revert: 17:36, October 23, 2006

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

Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. User warned here

Time report made: 22:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Some edits made without previously login in. It seems to be some sort of vengeance campaign againts

User:Al-Andalus who has been reverting User:Antarcticwik's controversial edits. The latter seems to believe that the former is Andalusian. Therefore, I presume this to be a revenge attack, which follows on a very strong racist personal attack here (in Spanish). Asterion^talk

22:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User:NisarKand reported by User:Tājik (Result:)

Three-revert rule

violation on

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

22:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 23:15, 23 October 2006
1st reverts: 09:11, 23 October 2006
2rd revert: 23:05, 23 October 2006
3th revert: 23:15, 23 October 2006
4th revert: 23:57, 23 October 2006
5th revert: 01:07, 24 October 2006

Time report made: 23:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:JonMoseley reported by User:Luna Santin (Result: 12 hours)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 20:39, October 23, 2006
1st revert: 21:38, October 23, 2006
2nd revert: 21:42, October 23, 2006
3rd revert: 21:50, October 23, 2006
4th revert: 21:57, October 23, 2006
Necessary only for new users: Welcomed with welcomenpov, noted policy violations, 3RR warning.

Time report made: 05:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

While I regret reporting such a new user, their behavior is patently disruptive, adding blatant POV into an article; two editors have calmly tried to talk them out of this, but all edit summaries and talk messages have been completely ignored. I don't think we can work with this person if they refuse to acknowledge other editors and ignore any and all attempts at communication. Luna Santin 05:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviewed. 12 hours, with consideration of longer if this persists -- Samir धर्म 05:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:DaffyDuck619 reported by User:DXRAW (Result: 48h)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: [42]
2nd revert: [43]
3rd revert: [44]
4th revert: [45]
5th revert: [46]

Time report made: 06:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has had a Mediation Case: 2006-06-22 John Cena about the same edit before

48h William M. Connolley 07:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:MariusM reported by User:Mauco (Result:)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 15:34, 22 October 2006
1st revert: 18:25, 22 October 2006
2nd revert: 18:57, 22 October 2006
3rd revert: 19:52, 22 October 2006
4th revert: 11:42, 23 October 2006

Time report made: 08:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This is the first time that I ever report anyone for 3RR, although I have had plenty of opportunities to do so in the past. We currently have some serious differences of opinion (content disputes) on Transnistria. The page is controversial, and fortunately some editors (like User:MarkStreet) deliberately limit themselves to only edit in Talk, in order to seek consensus and let others handle mainspace edits. However, representing the opposite view, there are a couple of users[47][48] who have teamed up to collaborate in active and deliberate edit-warring in mainspace. When one of them comes close to breaching 3RR, the other takes over.[49] This is a daily pattern now. This has been going on for a while. One of them has even admitted to loving edit wars,[50] and engaging in them out of boredom.[51] The other has enlisted him to participate in circumventing 3RR[52] and has then covered up the evidence of that afterwards.[53] For these types of activities, they communicate in a foreign language which they share[54], and for other things - which is not disruptive - they communicate in English[55]. In addition to using a foreign language to coordinate their 3RR circumventions, they also use private email, in order to make it harder for admins to determine what is going on.[56][57] When done, they remove the evidence of this coordination, too.[58] - Mauco 08:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please note: In the above report, I am only reporting one of the two users, who alone has four reverts within a 24 hour period. If I had added also the reverts of the other member of the edit-warring team, then the number of violations would of course increase. - Mauco 08:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No previous warning. Mauco is a well known edit-warrior, he started his activities at Wikipedia engaging edit wars with veteran users, in order to push propaganda for Russian chauvinistic Transnistrian government. I reported him 4 times for 3RR rule (he is the only one against whom I made such reports), but administrators were lenient with him in 3 cases [59], [60], [61] and 1 case is still pending [62]. In this particular case I was trying to remove plain fallacies from Wikipedia: it was claimed, by Mauco's edits, that Ethnic Moldovans are well represented in the leadership of Transnistria and that the majority of Transnistrian leaders are native born, while the refference given (the official biographies of the members of transnistrian parliament) prove exact the contrary (The majority is not native). Removing such plain fallacies is something that others editors have done as well, there is no place for conspiration theories here. Great minds think alike :-). I never before broke 3RR, he drove me to do this as he broke the rule himself and my previous attempts to enforce that rule on him were not taken in account by administrators, that gave me the feeling that this rule don't exist, the mood of administrators is more important than the rule. As I didn't received a previous warning, it will not qualify for a block.--MariusM 08:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, could you please stop reporting each other? This is an edit war that involves both sides. Since the edit war seems to be ongoing, the convention is that both sides should be warned or blocked. I personally don't believe in 3RR blocking, so I'm not going to block anyone. But I don't see how tit-for-tat 3RR reporting helps anyone. The point is that an edit war is going on that needs to be solved. Blocking for technical 3RR offences isn't going to help solve that, it's simply going to defer the problem. I do, however, issue a strong warning to User:EvilAlex and User:MariusM for what appears to be a form of collusion and "meatpuppeting". In particular, stealthy messages in Romanian calling on each other to revert really hinders the dispute resolution process, since it removes trust and also creates a situation where a complex content dispute is transformed into a clearly-deliniated and rather aggressive dispute between two discrete sides. My recommendation, particularly to MariusM and EvilAlex, is that you stop seeing the other side as "hostile and evil" (not quoting here) and hence necessary to outdo them at all costs. Try to understand, rather than to attack.

Ronline ✉ 09:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I mention also that I had problems with the plantiff in other Transnistria-related articles, I tried mediation but he refused [63], [64]. As he refused mediation I consider him a vandal and what I have done is only a anti-vandalism work.--MariusM 19:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Anti-vandalism work can be done anytime. If he refused mediation his edits can be reverted. --Wissahickon Creek ^talk 20:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, this is highly ... Misleading. For every edit in mainspace on this matter there are 8 or 9 edits in Talk, in an attempt to seek consensus. This is hardly "vandal" behavior, as the edit log and edit summaries can show. Moreover, no mediation was sought in this matter. The user is misleadingly referring to two DIFFERENT articles, both of them old, where mediation was declined by me for the simple reason that the other, prior attempts at dispute resolution had NOT been followed first. Instead of following

WP:DR have a problem with because there are a series of methods which can and should be tried first. In summary: Neither of us are vandals or trolls. I am not, and he is not. There is a heated edit conflict and it seems that someone takes it personal at times, that is all. - Mauco

I refrained myself in editing Wikipedia for 24 hours (in fact, it was around for around 40 hours - from 25 Oct 16:59 to 27 October 09:36) and I hope Mauco will do the same, either voluntarily or through an enforcement of 3RR rule imposed by administrators (I wonder why they are not doing their job, a 3RR report was filed against Mauco in 23 October and no decision was yet made).--MariusM 09:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Quizimodo reported by User:Endroit (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 14:33, 22 October 2006
1st revert: 03:55, 24 October 2006
2nd revert: 04:07, 24 October 2006
3rd revert: 04:57, 24 October 2006
4th revert: 16:13, 24 October 2006
A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here. 14:34, 22 October 2006.

Time report made: 16:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: 3RR was violated on the bolding of the words East Sea, against consensus.--Endroit 16:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, its the SOJ again :-(. 24h William M. Connolley 16:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:205.188.116.11 reported by User:SteveLamacq43 (Result:)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 17:38, 23 October 2006
1st revert: 21:42, 23 October 2006
2nd revert: 21:46, 23 October 2006
3rd revert: 04:45, 24 October 2006
4th revert: 15:07, 24 October 2006
5th revert: 17:33, 24 October 2006

Time report made: 17:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Clear and persitant vandalism. SteveLamacq43 17:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

2006-10-24T17:29:13 No Guru (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "205.188.116.11 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 hour (repeated vanfalsim) William M. Connolley 19:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Mattisse reported by User:Ekajati (yakity-yak) (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule

violation on

Previous version reverted to: Repeatedly placing tag, removed by three different editors as inappropriate, even adding the tag at the top when there is one further down in the article.

1st revert: Revision as of 23:04, 23 October 2006
2nd revert: Revision as of 15:08, 24 October 2006
3rd revert: Revision as of 16:37, 24 October 2006
4th revert: 17:29, 24 October 2006)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: same behavior on Willie Dixon
1st revert: 18:02, 23 October 2006
2nd revert: 23:06, 23 October 2006
3rd revert: 15:10, 24 October 2006
4th revert: 16:38, 24 October 2006
5th revert: 17:31, 24 October 2006

[65]

Time report made: 19:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 19:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The dynamic IP range 81.117.200.* reported by User:JBKramer (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 16:45, 18 October 2006
1st revert: 21:49, 23 October 2006
2nd revert: 16:32, 24 October 2006
3rd revert: 16:58, 24 October 2006
4th revert: 19:21, 24 October 2006

Time report made: 19:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Previously blocked for exact same violation, also blocked for disruption and trolling regarding this same POV edit. JBKramer 19:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflicts... anyway: blocked .27 and .37; maybe this will do? William M. Connolley 20:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Aaron
(Result:24h)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 19:40, October 23, 2006
1st revert: 00:25, October 24, 2006
2nd revert: 02:07, October 24, 2006
3rd revert: 10:09, October 24, 2006
4th revert: 11:29, October 24, 2006
5th revert: 11:53, October 24, 2006
6th revert: 15:44, October 24, 2006

Time report made: 20:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment I was about to post this incident myself when I noticed that MONGO already blocked the user. But there's something funny with the timestamps. He seems to have done another revert after he was supposedly blocked... Crockspot 20:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Already blocked by MONGO as you say. The timestamps look ok to me. Last revert was 2 minutes before block. - Aksi_great (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:DJ_Clayworth reported by User:Humus sapiens (Result: no block)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: 13:59, 23 October 2006
2nd revert: 17:33, 23 October 2006
3rd revert: 07:15, 24 October 2006
4th revert: 11:38, 24 October 2006

A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here. 12:03, 24 October 2006

Time report made: 20:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

My apologies, it turns out Humus is right. I miscounted the number of edits. I will voluntarily refrain from editing from 24hrs as of now. If you wish to make it an actual ban that would be fair. DJ Clayworth 20:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I will forgive you; hopefully others too. Probably just leaving J4J alone will do William M. Connolley 21:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Nixer reported by User:Lysy (Result: 48 hours)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 20:43, 24 October 2006 + variants
1st revert: 20:52, 24 October 2006
2nd revert: 21:20, 24 October 2006 + mod
3rd revert: 21:28, 24 October 2006
4th revert: 21:36, 24 October 2006
5th revert: 22:16, 24 October 2006 + mod
6th revert: 22:27, 24 October 2006
7th revert: 22:35, 24 October 2006
8th revert: 22:40, 24 October 2006

Time report made: 21:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Notorious 3RR violator. Last block only 3 days ago. --Lysy^talk 21:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Has been warned 22:11, 24 October 2006 upon hist 4th revert, yet persisted. --Lysy^talk 21:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Sarner reported by User:RalphLender^talk (Result:No violation)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: [66]
2nd revert: [67]
3rd revert: [68]
4th revert: DIFFTIME

[69] placed on article [70] given to Sarner Time report made: 21:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This report is not of a true violation of 3RR (no 4th revert in 24 hours). RalphLender has been waging a revert war against me. He is under current investigation [71] for being a sock-puppet with others who are also engaged in (and winning) this revert war. I believe this is the first time in this revert war that I have even reached 3 edits (and never four), despite considerable provocation (removal of legitimate editing tags) by the other side. If my editing conduct warrants, I would appreciate comment and guidance from an administrator. If not guilty of a 3RR, I would appreciate having Lender's entry on my talk page removed. Larry Sarner 22:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The accusation against me was considered by the Mediator to be provocative and unfounded. It has been reported as a violation of good faith and other Wikipedia policies and can be considered vandalsim. diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F2006-10-07_Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy&diff=83472380&oldid=83464450

"That was COMPLETELY unjustified. I think this shows that you will do almost anything to keep the article from the majority of editors. Nwwaew(My talk page) 11:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC) " RalphLender^talk 23:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The above comment are an example of the extremely odd goings on by the group of editors of which "Ralph Lender" is a part, and of which the mediator may also have been a part, and I suspect, this 3RR report is a part. (The mediation, as one can see from the citation made above, was not about the Bowlby page, I was not a party, and the mediator was pushing to merge it with non-existent mediations.) I only mentioned the sock-puppetry above because it bears on the revert war being waged against me, and it may warrant investigation. Larry Sarner 08:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Mikedk9109 reported by User:DavyJonesLocker
(Result: 24h)

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

Previous version reverted to: 19:52, 24 October 2006
1st revert: 20:45, 24 October 2006
2nd revert: 21:52, 24 October 2006
3rd revert: 23:12, 24 October 2006
4th revert: 00:27, 25 October 2006

Time report made: 00:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Once again, the user refuses to listen to anybody elses opinion. He's been blocked for this twice in October already. DavyJonesLocker 00:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 08:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Isarig reported by User:Tiamut (Result: no block)

Three-revert rule

For more complex reverts, please include information

about which previous versions are being reverted to. -->

1st revert: [72]
2nd revert: [73]
3rd revert: [74]
4th revert: [75]
5th revert: [76]
6th revert: [77]
7th revert: [78]
8th revert: [79]
9th revert: [80]

Time report made: 00:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Isarig's behaviour in this regard has been very disruptive. I was happily editing the article in toto (badly in need of major revisions) before he came along and repeatedly reverted my well-sourced additions to an interpretation (his) unsupported by the citations I had placed there after he requested that I find sources for my statements. This edit war has hindered any further progress in the development of that article. On a closing note, please forgive any errors in the filling out of this report. It is the first time I read about 3RR and file a report. Thank you for your time and your services to the community. Tiamut 00:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Bogus report, which I don't know if we should attribute to the fact that this is a newbie user who does not understand 3RR, or if this is a personal attack by an editor who can't make a case for his edits on Talk, and has instead decided to try to use 3RR to silence me. In any case: [1] is not a revert. [2] is not a revert, but a 2nd consecutive edit by me, to my own version. The stretch is over a period of 6 days, during which I had not made a single edit in 3 of the 6 dyas, while Tiamut has made as many, if not more reverts to the same article. There is not a single instance there of 3 reverts in 24 hours, let alone 4.Isarig 02:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Additional information: Isarig often games with 3RR rules. He often make his 4th revert after 24 hours 5 minutes Nielswik_(talk) 07:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Not in 24h, or even close William M. Connolley 08:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

User:69.249.253.211 reported by User:John Broughton

Three-revert rule

1st revert: 02:45, 25 October 2006 ("Personal" changed to "Non-Political Life")
2nd revert: 03:26, 25 October 2006 ("Personal" changed to "Private life")
3rd revert: 04:12, 25 October 2006 ("Personal" changed to "Personal life")
4th revert: 04:51, 25 October 2006 ("Personal" changed to "Out of the Political Spotlight")
5th revert: 12:29, 25 October 2006 ("Personal" changed to "Personal life")
6th revert: 13:08, 25 October 2006 ("Personal" changed to "Personal life")

Initial 3RR warning posted on talk page: 04:55, 25 October 2006 (this is not a diff; it was the first posting on the page, so a diff is not possible).

Time report made: 14:10 25 October 2006

Comments: User was warned twice on his/her talk page about 3RR violations. Warnings were also given by postings on talk pages of several articles (by another editor, not me) and in edit summaries. Use has neither

User has also been doing repeated edits to section headings of "Controversies", in other articles; he/she seems to have something against one-word section titles in four different articles.

Seems a bit pointless... 8h William M. Connolley 15:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

User:88.110.190.21 reported by User:Khosrow II (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule

violation on

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_T._Gilbert&oldid=76632556

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: 1:46 25 October 2006
2nd revert: 11:15 25 October 2006
3rd revert: 16:33 25 October 2006
4th revert: 17:59 25 October 2006
5th revert: 20:54 25 October 2006

Time report made: 23:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

2006-10-25T21:16:08 InShaneee (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "88.110.190.21 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr violation) William M. Connolley 08:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Sparkhead
(Result: no block)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: [81]
1st revert: Revision as of 23:03, October 24, 2006
2nd revert: Revision as of 14:20, October 25, 2006
3rd revert: Revision as of 15:27, October 25, 2006
4th revert: Revision as of 23:02, October 25, 2006

3RR warning diff: [82]

Time report made: 03:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Revert #3 above also broke a reference link that had been corrected, which may indicate a lack of review of the diff before committing the revert.

Revert #4 also reverted another unrelated edit.

Note user has been involved in a continual revert war on the article in question, with previous recent reverts of the same text:

Comment by Tbeatty A) this is a BLP issue and B) I self reverted my 4th edit. 20:11, October 25, 2006 before this was filed which makes this a non-violation. --Tbeatty 03:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Sparkhead A) Not a BLP issue. If it were, note

*Sparkhead

04:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There are at least 2 other editors who believe it should be removed as a BLP issue as it adds no value and invades privacy. Regardless, I reverted my 4th revert after realizing I had missed the 4 revert window by 1 minute. Per the policy If you've broken 3RR by mistake and now realise it, or if another user has left you a talk page note pointing out that you've broken 3RR, then you can self-revert your change back to the "other version". In general, this should be enough to prevent you being blocked (though there are no guarantees). I have done this. --Tbeatty 05:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Self revert is good enough, of course William M. Connolley 08:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

User:69.86.190.128 reported by User:Omicronpersei8 (Result: sprot)

).

Previous version reverted to: 18:07, 25 October 2006

1st revert: 01:49, 26 October 2006
2nd revert: 02:06, 26 October 2006
3rd revert: 02:13, 26 October 2006
4th revert: 02:16, 26 October 2006
- 3RR warning: 02:24, 26 October 2006
5th revert: 04:54, 26 October 2006

Time report made: 04:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: One user is IP jumping to push POV, and claims all reverts to his edits to be "vandalism". IPs used include 66.98.131.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 69.86.190.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and 70.85.195.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This has continued from yesterday and was the reason for the page being protected. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

2006-10-26T16:39:29 Srikeit (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Larry Craig: Anon vandalism [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]) William M. Connolley 18:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Calton reported by User:Hanuman Das (Result:)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: four removals of the same text and citation

The last edit comment shows the user is aware of
WP:3RR
.

I notice that you have left out "prev version", so its unclear if the 1st is a rv William M. Connolley 18:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Time report made: 14:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the necessary citation. No question the first edit was a revert. Please note User:Calton's incivility and refusal to discuss the matter, as well as his consciously breaking 3RR in reopening a sterile edit war. VivianDarkbloom 19:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Cryogenesis reported by User:Pak21 (Result:)

Three-revert rule

violation on

15:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [83]
1st revert: [84]
2nd revert: [85]
3rd revert: [86]
4th revert: [87]

Comment by Pak21 The issue here is the persistent readding of the information relating to the articles being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abysmal ooze, for which there is no consensus whatsoever to merge.

Comment by Rosicrucian Appears to be an attempt by

own the article. He has accused both Pak and myself of vandalism and harassment for simply asking him to participate in the merge discussion and follow Wikipedia policy.--Rosicrucian

Time report made: 15:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure this is quite technically 3RR William M. Connolley 18:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Gltl reported by User:M100 (Result: indef)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 07:12, October 24, 2006 - last good edit version

Time report made: 15:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Sole use account reverting this article against consensus, suspected sock of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pflanzgarten as pattern of reverts appears identical. Some reverts have edit summary of "reverting vandalism"!!

3RR; but as presumed sock, indef William M. Connolley 17:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Asgardian reported by Doczilla 17:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC) (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule

violation on

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: 83607931 05:07, 25 October 2006
2nd revert: 83745589 19:13, 25 October 2006
3rd revert: 83765797 21:19, 25 October 2006
4th revert: 03:12, 26 October 2006
User was previously warned about 3RR and to avoid turning this into an edit war. [88]

Time report made: 17:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Sole user has kept reverting work despite consensus and with disregard to Wikipedia guidelines.[89] Asgardian has continued edit wars over numerous Thor-related articles for the past month. (e.g.,[90][91][92][93][94][95]

24h William M. Connolley 17:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

User:JQF reported by User:Combination (Result: no block)

Three-revert rule

violation on

Previous version reverted to: [96]
1st revert: [97]
2nd revert: [98]
3rd revert: [99]
4th revert: [100]

Time report made: 18:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Hello, person wrongly charged reporting. Let me be the first to say that the first two clamed reverts are reverts, pure and simple. However, the third is not a revert, as I was changing the data of what I had reverted to. I just didn't get a chance to finish it for a few hours as I had to leave my computer and didn't know it had been reverted until I tried to save it. Compair those two and you'll see what I changed. The fourth isn't a revert, again if you compair them you will see this to be true, but a complete overhaul of the data to merge to the two styles being "discussed". JQF 18:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to judge #3 a revert, but not #4 William M. Connolley 20:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Sparkhead
(Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 14:13, October 25, 2006
1st revert: 12:03, October 26, 2006
2nd revert: 12:53, October 26, 2006
3rd revert: 13:26, October 26, 2006
4th revert: 14:01, October 26, 2006
5th revert: 14:14, October 26, 2006
6th revert: 14:33, October 26, 2006

Warning: [101] (no diff, first entry in talk)

Time report made: 18:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 20:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment, posted after result decision: For purposes of block review, note a 7th revert was made after the 3RR template was posted on the user's talk page:

7th revert: 16:16, October 26, 2006

User:Nielswik reported by User:Isarig (Result:)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 16:40, 22 September 2006
1st revert: 14:42, 26 October 2006
2nd revert: 15:54, 26 October 2006
3rd revert: 16:22, 26 October 2006
4th revert: 17:14, 26 October 2006

User was warned about 3RR just a day ago, after he violated 3RR on another page: [102]

Time report made: 19:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has a pattern of refusal to participate in Talk prior to reverting on contentious article.

Prev version is more than a month old so I am somewhat reluctant to block on the grounds that the first rv is only technically so William M. Connolley 20:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The first one doesnt count as revert

User:NisarKand reported by User:Tājik (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule

violation on

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

21:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 22:11, 26 October 2006
1st revert: 22:20, 26 October 2006
2nd revert: 22:54, 26 October 2006
3rd revert: 23:07, 26 October 2006
4th revert: 23:31, 26 October 2006
5th revert: 00:52, 27 October 2006

Time report made: 21:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user was already blocked for 24h because of 3RR a day ago: [103], and should have been warned and informed about the consequences of his fast edits. Yet, he has once again violated the 3RR and is continuing to flood the article

User:Ariana310 has suggested to report him to an admin [104]. Tājik

24h William M. Connolley 08:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

User:67.110.68.99 reported by User:Ace Class Shadow; My talk. (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 21:41, October 26, 2006
1st revert: 21:41, October 26, 2006
2nd revert: 22:06, October 26, 2006
3rd revert: 22:09, October 26, 2006
4th revert: 22:15, October 26, 2006
5th revert 22:21, October 26, 2006

—There are probably more by now, but I don't want to get excessive.—

A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here: In the edit summary, here and on his talk page here

Time report made: 22:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

24h William M. Connolley 11:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

User:162.138.176.51 reported by User:72.75.76.29(Result:)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: 13:27, 26 October 2006
2nd revert: 15:08, 26 October 2006
3rd revert: 17:08, 26 October 2006
4th revert: 18:41, 26 October 2006

Time report made: 23:08, 26 October 2006

Comments: There are more reverts by this user, almost certainly a sockpuppet for BZuckercorn. Notice the misleading comment trail.

User:Nielswik reported by User:Isarig (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 14:42, 26 October 2006

User was warned about 3RR just a day ago, after he violated 3RR on another page: [105] User was subsequently reported for 3RR on this page, earlier today, for a violation of 3RR on this page, but the reviewing admin took a lenient approach with him [106] (I guess that's the thanks you get for being lenient - the abusive editor spits in your face). A subsequent 3RR warning was given here [107]

Time report made: 03:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Given the user's brazen disregard for 3RR, and his continued violation after already being reported on this very page, it seems a long time out is required

24h William M. Connolley 08:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

User: 71.242.186.236 reported by User: Cindery

4 reverts in less than 24 hrs, after reverting for days, with a warning and pleas to read to Wiki policies. All of the anon's edits are WP:VAIN vios--he's adding uncited, irrelevant autobiographical info about himself to an article that is not about him. He is sarcastic and refuses to discuss any changes in spite of messages sent to him. Cindery 07:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Terrible formatting, but 3RR, so 24h

User:84.9.211.122 reported by User:BlueValour (Result: 3h)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 18:18, 26 October 2006
1st revert: 00:58, 27 October 2006
2nd revert: 01:11, 27 October 2006
3rd revert: 01:30, 27 October 2006
4th revert: 09:23, 27 October 2006

Time report made: 15:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: He varies between hill, ridge and low ridge but the effect is the same, and is unsourced - see Talk

ref one from Gloglass. low ridge - ormskirk parish church lies at 53m above mean sea level - duggan et al call it a low ridge. Ref 2 involves the link to the map that you keep removing.--84.9.211.122 16:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

5th revert: 16:51, 27 October 2006 BlueValour 17:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Bit silly this. Still, 3h for now William M. Connolley 18:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Juro reported by User:VinceB (Result:No violation)

Three-revert rule

violation on

Previous version reverted to: 12:20, 19 October 2006
1st revert: 23:30, 22 October 2006
2nd revert: 19:06, 23 October 2006
3rd revert: 19:41, 23 October 2006
4th revert: 17:19, 24 October 2006

Time report made: 19:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Not mentioning in the resume box, that these are reverts. --VinceB 19:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read the policy. The rule is more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Getaway reported by User:BusterD (Result: Stale)

Three-revert rule

violation on

20:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Heated discussion has been occuring on talk page. Getaway's position is that traffic violations and birthdays belong on this page. Rough consensus by any count has gone against user, and while he or she has one ally, the rest of the discussion has not been distinguished for its collegial tone. Accused of personal attacks, for my part, I have

reported myself. BusterD

My final comment is that when the discussion reached attention of admin, the user failed to back up his accusations of personal attack and fled. He has not edited the offending article in almost 48 hours (or any since his post on my personal attack report over 36 hours ago). I have brought user's tone and troll-like behavior to several Bio group admins and cross posted to BLP noticeboard. BusterD 15:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not run away. That is nonsense. I just had other things to do. There are Wikipedians that have lives outside of Wikipedia, you know. You are obviously trying to make your actions appear lily white and pure.--Getaway 15:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Time report made: 20:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Finalnow reported by User:JereKrischel (Result:)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 11:38AM 27 OCT 2006
1st revert: 11:44AM
2nd revert: 12:02PM
3rd revert: 12:25PM
4th revert: 12:51PM
5th revert: 13:03PM

Time report made: 20:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Just came to this page yesterday - Finalnow has been unable to discuss compromises, and continues to engage in personal attacks. Please see history for more information regarding his edits (which, as you'll note, include minor, unrelated changes, so the diffs aren't 100% revisions - he's still violating the spirit of 3RR.)

Looking at [Finalnow's contributions], it seems that he's a very focused POV pusher, only interested in two articles. I'm trying to reach compromise with him, but he seems committed to his POV. --JereKrischel 20:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Nixer reported by User:Eupator (Result: 1 week)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 15:25, 27 October 2006
1st revert: 18:23, 27 October 2006
2nd revert: 18:45, 27 October 2006
3rd revert: 19:19, 27 October 2006
4th revert: 19:32, 27 October 2006
5th revert: 19:44, 27 October 2006
6th revert: 20:10, 27 October 2006

Time report made: 20:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Notorious 3RR violator, previous block expired only a few hours ago. He's bringing back an archived discussion and a closed RFC.--Eupator 20:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact User:Eupator is trying to archive the ongoing discussion, because it consists arguments he does not like. Also he deletes my recent comments into it.--Nixer 20:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? That's a lie and you know it. There is no ongoing discussion. It was an RFC which was closed. End of story! The fact that you were banned at the time when it was closed and subsequently archived is irrelevant. You cannot bring back an archived discussion. Regardless, you violated the 3rr by reverting 6 times despite ebing warned by user Tekleni. Not to mention that your previous block for a 3rr violation has just barely expired.--Eupator 20:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict - I was just about to report him): Nixer, you keep restoring an archived (and extremely long) talkpage - I for one, can't access it (I'm on a dialup connection and it's way to long - just like this page :p). Nixer has just returned from another 3RR block handed out a few days ago. Do check out his block log though - very impressive.--

Tekleni

20:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing my comments from the article's talk. And it is not necessary to archive the all talk page now as the issue is not closed yet and discussion is ongoing.--Nixer 20:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has touched your comments. You cannot modify an archived talk page. In addition there is no issue or an ongoing discussion to speak of. There was an RFC which was closed. An articles talk page is not a discussion forum. Go elsewhere for that.--Eupator 20:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That talk page contained not only RfC and the discussion was clearly relevant to the improvement of the article.--Nixer 20:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all this has nothign to do with your gross violation of the 3RR, second of all it was all not only related to the RFC but initiated by the RFC. RFC was closed. The page was archived per an admins and many other users request (including the user who started the RFC). Your comments not only were unrelated but had nothing to do with the article itself.--Eupator 20:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet another 3RR vio... 1 week this time William M. Connolley 20:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Pez1103 reported by User:Ryulong (Result:24h by MessedRocker)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 22:03, October 27, 2006
1st revert: 22:33, October 27, 2006
2nd revert: 22:38, October 27, 2006
3rd revert: 22:39, October 27, 2006
4th revert: 22:39, October 27, 2006
5th revert: 22:40, October 27, 2006
6th revert: 22:43, October 27, 2006
7th revert: 22:51, October 27, 2006
8th revert: 23:03, October 27, 2006
9th revert: 23:03, October 27, 2006
10th revert: 23:08, October 27, 2006
11th revert: 23:10, October 27, 2006

Time report made: 22:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Also, he blanked the page in between there and added it to his user talk.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please act quickly. This one is very persistent and refuses to heed multiple warnings. --
Fyslee
23:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- 24h by
  MessedRocker
  23:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Yandman reported by User:User:Freepsbane
(Result:)

Yandman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

04:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Time report made: 04:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: a large scale edit war apparently took place on 10/27, on

user: Yandman was not reported despite a relatively blatant and severe violation of 3RR thus in the principle of fairness it would be prudent to evenly distribute the disciplinary action.Freepsbane

Given that JN has been blocked for this, it seems a bit odd to block the other side now. William M. Connolley 08:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I find it strange that one user was given a block while the other received no discipline whatsoever though both were equally culpable, furthermore the revert war took place in the talk page of the blocked user. the lopsided judgment may be due to an oversight on the part of the initial administrator, nevertheless this disparity should be rectified.Freepsbane 01:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"If you violate the three revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally."

this is a travesty of justice not only does Yandman invade and screwup my talkpage but i get blocked for ‘’’two week not 24 hours’’’ like the last fool said. two weeks is over the maximum allotted 3rr time for revering him. also then Yandman even though he reverted just as much he goes away unblocked. I demand that the over seeing admin Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington be cencured for this criminal act and Yandman be given a 24 hour block signed Jacknicholson 216.83.254.114 20:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)User:jacknicholson operating out of (having to manually sign the page because of a two week 3rr block that I need arb for.)

User:ManiF
(Result:24H block)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 13:40, 27 October 2006
1st revert: 14:17, 27 October 2006
2nd revert: 15:56, 27 October 2006
3rd revert: 06:53, 28 October 2006
4th revert: 07:09, 28 October 2006

Time report made: 08:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:The user was warned about 3RR on two occasions. [110][111] -- --

ManiF

08:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

User:nwe reported by User:strothra

Three-revert rule

violation on

Previous version reverted to: [112]
1st revert: [113] 16:27, 27 October 2006
2nd revert: [114] 08:50, 28 October 2006
3rd revert: [115] 09:01, 28 October 2006
4th revert: [116] 09:16, 28 October 2006
5th revert: [117] 09:39, 28 October 2006
6th revert: 16:10, 28 October 2006
3rr warning given by editors in another article he was trying to edit war in a few weeks ago, he clearly knows the policy, [118]

Please note that user was not trying to edit war with just myself over this edit but other editors of the article as well, he is also violating concensus as to the fact that his edits are POV. --Strothra 14:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have attempted to engage in discussion and compromise on this article with Strothra several times , but he has shown himself completely uwilling and unilateral in his edits.Nwe 14:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

using personal attacks to provoke my commentary is not the best way to go about doing that. --Strothra 14:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not been using personal attacks. On several times I attempted to engage with you in discussion and you merely deleted my contributions from your talk page.Nwe 15:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

User continues the revert war - the 6th revert was added AFTER this report was filed. Isarig 16:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have raised the serious POV problem of this article in talk but neither of the above users have attempted to discuss.Nwe 16:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 16:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this user is trying to evade block by editing as 159.134.63.46 (talk · contribs)--Strothra 17:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

User:deeceevoice (Result: No violation, and protected anyway)

Black Supremacy

[119] 00:30, 28 October 2006
[120]
[121]
[122] 16:27, 28 October 2006

Unsigned, poorly formatted. Anyway, DCV is saved by the bell: 2006-10-28T18:07:05 Durova (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Black supremacy: Edit warring. Protecting for cooldown. [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) William M. Connolley 18:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't "saved by the bell," ~~Durova~~ Connelley. The first edit doesn't even begin to resemble the other three. Furthermore, I have been exceedingly patient with the other editor User:Rbaish, have justified copiously each and every edit, and repeatedly have sought to engage him on the article talk page (with some limited success), insisting that he document his contributions and that they be NPOV. The entity registering this complaint isn't even on the radar and is very likely a sockpuppet.) Hardly edit warring on my part. *x*deeceevoice 18:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That was another admin quoting my pageblock summary. I didn't say you were saved by the bell. Durova 19:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. My first edit was correct. Connelley. No surprise there. deeceevoice 19:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

And in fact my apologies - I didn't even check the report, merely noted the protection. So I withdraw my "saved by the bell". Having looked subsequently, it isn't straightforward, but I suspect you would have been blocked. Please note that The first edit doesn't even begin to resemble the other three isn't relevant - if you're going to get close to 3RR, you'd better study the policy a bit William M. Connolley 20:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. When my approach to editing descends to gaming the system (tag-team edit warring, etc.), then maybe I will. Until then I'll continue to try to reason with people and hope for the best. And on that note, maybe one of you Wiki cops will take a look at Prognathism and decide to protect the page -- since the same problem exists there with another determined edit warrior (likely a sock puppet) who has no interest in collaboration or discussing things on the talk page, despite repeated requests; just serial reversion. deeceevoice 20:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Reporting User:Ramdrake for violation at the J. Philippe Rushton article (Result: Insufficient information)

I just wanted to report a 3 rr violation by User:Ramdrake at the J. Philippe Rushton article. The reverts were here [[123]], here, [[124]], and here [[125]] and here [[126]]. This user has tag teamed with User: JereKrischel (often conspiring on each other’s talk pages) to censor Rushton’s controversial views from his own article, yet give ample space to detailed selectively chosen criticism that unfairly portrays this honest and capable researcher as an incompetent racist . When I tried to add back the details of Rushton’s theory to give readers the chance to understand how Rushton came to his controversial conclusion, they tag team reverted me and others, with the excuse that his biography shouldn’t focus too much on his theory and libelously claimed that it should be relegated to a small section in an article about scientific racism. I finally got tired of edit warring decided that if there’s no room in the article to discuss his controversial theory in detail, than there’s also no room to list verbatim quotes of those implying he’s racist or incompetent because of said theory; but I against them to revert even this compromise. 205.211.50.10 00:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Malformed; no "prev version"; probably stale William M. Connolley 08:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In other words (apologies to William), please use the prescribed format (see the end of the page) and ensure you complete all the necessary information. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

User:ColumbanAgain reported by User:Beit Or (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 05:33, 26 October 2006
1st revert: 02:40, 27 October 2006
2nd revert: 04:43, 27 October 2006
3rd revert: 05:51, 27 October 2006
4th revert: 02:06, 28 October 2006

Time report made: 12:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: It should be obvious from the page history that 203.146.247.78 is the same user as ColumbanAgain, as they doing identical edits. The user was warned about 3RR [127]. Beit Or 12:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 15:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Hairwizard91 reported by User:Endroit (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 18:37, 26 October 2006
1st revert: 09:22, 28 October 2006
2nd revert: 16:10, 28 October 2006
3rd revert: 16:28, 28 October 2006
4th revert: 16:39, 28 October 2006

A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here: 16:33, 28 October 2006

Time report made: 17:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Persistently adding the word "Korean", claiming that Goguryeo was completely Korean, despite arguments in the discussion that it was partly Chinese (and/or Manchurian) as well.--Endroit 17:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 18:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Mahawiki reported by KNM ^Talk 23:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC) (Result: 24h)

VIOLATION

violation on

23:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 01:41, 27 October, 2006
1st revert: 03:58, 28 October, 2006
2nd revert: 04:26, 28 October, 2006
3rd revert: 12:48, 28 October, 2006

Previous version reverted to: 12:48, 28 October, 2006
4th revert: 15:09, 28 October, 2006 (blank out the cited information added by another editor)
5th revert: 15:24, 28 October, 2006 (same as the 4th revert)

Updated at 06:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC) 3RR violation continues, partially undoing the edits of other editors.

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

6th revert: 00:39, 29 October, 2006 (partial undo of previous edit by another editor)
7th revert: 00:42, 29 October, 2006 (removal of a sentence, which is cited information, added by another editor)

3RR Warnings: This user was cautioned about

Wikipedia:3RR

policy several times and was blocked once for violation.

Time report made: 23:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user has repeatedly undone the edits of other editors , removing the cited information in 1st revert and modifying the words added by other editors, in 2nd and 3rd reverts. User has blanked out the information (supported with the citation) added by an editor, in 4th and 5th reverts in the same article. While I requested for discussion towards consensus in talk page, he accuses the editors with different POV as "sockpuppets". - KNM ^Talk 23:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Users also seem to have been

gaming the system against maha including abusing popups. There is some sort of socking around, its just who is the question.Bakaman _Bakatalk

Comment - The user is repeatedly undoing the edits of other editors saying "Remove POV" and is removing the factual information supported with the citations. - KNM ^Talk 06:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

24h for Mahawiki. I strongly suspect that someone else (or several someone elses) are close to breaking, or already in breach of 3RR and strongly encourage a calm-down as the page is otherwise liable to be protected. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I've also warned anyone else who reverted recently. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Simoes
(Result: 8h)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: [128] 16:47, 28 October 2006
2nd revert: [129] 16:57, 28 October 2006
3rd revert: [130] 17:06, 28 October 2006
4th revert: [131] 17:14, 28 October 2006

Time report made: 23:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

On more than one occasion, Psalmuel has reverted multiple days of edits by multiple users to the version of the article authored primarily by himself. He has also flung accusations of vandalism at others who edit the article (see [132]). He has not once posted a single comment on the

talk/_contribs

) 23:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

He is now going on a

talk/_contribs

) 00:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

8h William M. Connolley 10:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Earthlink264 reported by User:FunkyFly (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 20:36, 28 October 2006

Warning: 21:18, 28 October 2006

Time report made: 01:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User destroys the structure of the article, removes interwikis. Also note his likely sock was also reverted. /FunkyFly.talk_ 01:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

24h

User:David Levy
(Result: not blocked)

Three-revert rule

violation on

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

with inapporopriate references to this dispute.

Time report made: 01:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

The first two edits are straightforward reversions. The third edit is a reversion of the previous edit (a change from a British spelling back to the American spelling that originally was used) combined with unrelated edits. The fourth edit is a straightforward reversion back to the previous page version (again restoring the British spelling). The fifth edit is a straightforward reversion back to the previous page version (pertaining to some sort of content dispute). At this point, Steel359 actually protected the page, using the summary "Enough reverts for one day." The page was then unprotected by Cowman109 (because Steel359 improperly protected it to gain an advantage in a conflict). I then noticed that the page had been altered from the American English originally used (and in place from February 2005 to August 2006) to British English, so I undid this change. The sixth edit is Steel359's reversion of my correction (on the basis that the article had used British English for "months," thereby ignoring the fact that it contained American English for roughly 1 ½ years). Upon noticing this, I examined the revision history and found that Steel359 already had violated the three-revert rule.
An administrator knows better than to behave in this manner, and I believe that a 24-hour block is in order. —

David Levy

01:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he "should know better", but blocks are only made to prevent harm, not to punish. Unprotection and a three hour block should be enough to get his attention and reckognize that he went astray. However, if this continues, then I suppose a longer block would be in order.
Voice-of-All
03:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I filed this report before learning that a three-hour block already was in place. As I commented at

David Levy

04:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

And if he is normally reasonable then maybe a reversal and three hour block will work.
Voice-of-All
04:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Steel359 has acknowledged his stress-induced impairment and wisely decided to take a break from editing the wiki. —

David Levy

12:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

User:64.180.92.22 reported by User:Sparkzilla (Result: No violation)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: [133] 08:08, 26 October 2006
2nd revert: [134] 11:18, 26 October 2006
3rd revert: [135] 23:17, 26 October 2006
4th revert: [136] 02:43, 28 October 2006

The user has been warned on his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:64.180.92.22&diff=84350271&oldid=83860584

Time report made: 06:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User keeps reverting to his verison that that includes false information and unverifiable opinions. He has also removed verifiable links critical of the union. User has been informed that his opinions are not verifiable several times, and that his information is false (see talk). He has also polluted other pages such as

Metropolis and Crisscross K.K.

Two problems.

You did not specify what the previous version reverted to was, therefore it is unclear that the first was a revert and not an edit.
The fourth revert was more than 24 hours after the first.

Therefore, no violation and no block. Stifle (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok understood. It was my first try. I will be more rigorous next time.Thank you.Sparkzilla 23:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Carrera_6 reported by User:Ian Dalziel (Result: indef as sock)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 11:23, June 21, 2006

Time report made: 12:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Repeated reverts to a months-old version by the latest Pflanzgarten sock. See [[137]]

Indef William M. Connolley 13:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

User:EvilAlex reported by User:Mauco (Result: No violation)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 05:37, 26 October
1st revert: 15:48, 29 October
2nd revert: 15:50, 29 October
3rd revert: 16:01, 29 October
4th revert: 17:08, 29 October
5th revert: 17:23, 29 October

User warned twice, here] and here.

Time report made: 18:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

uncivil, using words like "you know nothing" and "don't post your crap here". However, as soon as the page protection was lifted, he stopped participating in Talk and immediately started deleting the disputed content.[139]. After I warned him[140] that this was inappropriate, he still continued[141] and just deleted my warning from his user talkpage[142]. I then repeated my warning[143] and asked him to revert himself to avoid this 3RR report. He did not do this, but again just ignored and blanked the warning once more[144]. Finally, it took the actions of an Administrator to revert his deletions and restore the original content.[145] - Mauco

18:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by a third part: The plaintiff, User:William Mauco is a well known POV pusher in all Transnistria related articles, where he want to have veto rights. No consensus can be reached with him as he is denying the obvious and including in articles things not supported by the refferences he makes. He refused mediation in other articles[146] [147], is just trolling. Himself is the subject of a 3RR report pending from 23 October [148] but a decision was not yet made. This was at least the forth 3RR report against him, but he always was pardoned until now [149] [150] [151]. Before making reports against others, he should first learn to obey himself the 3RR rule, and I hope the administrators will take finally a decision regarding pending report of 23 October, else will create the impression that in Wikipedia there are no rules. Other people which had disputes with Mauco broke the rule because they saw he broke and nothing happened.--MariusM 22:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

1, 2 and 3 are consecutive edits made without edit-warring, which do not violate 3RR. No violation here. All parties are reminded that 3RR is a restriction, not an entitlement, to be civil, and to use talk pages. Stifle (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

-edit clashed with the above-

Although there are a lot of edits there, not all of them are reverts. The 5 consecutive eidts from 15:46-16:01 on October 29th, for example, count as 1 edit, rather than many seperate ones. As it is, then, there are two clear reverts (marked 'rv'); I don't see how this edit of 19:35 counts as a 'revert' - its not "undoing in whole or part another editor's work"; which leaves just one more eidt (the one made of many smaller edits), which looks like its just about a revert, in that it changes the wording significantly of William Mauco, to the extent that it has 'undone' his work. Either way, that's still only three reverts (one of which is only vaguley included as such) which is not paticularly good, but remains within policy guidelines.

I'll give the user a warning, but this is not a violation of the three revert rule. --Robdurbar 22:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Al-Andalus reported by User:Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)}
(Result: 31h)

Al-Andalus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

Time report made: 23:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has been involved in an unending edit war over article Chile, in which the other guy has been banned too. This user is aware of 3RR, and has been banned before.

31 hours. Khoi khoi 05:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Nwe reported by User:Dasondas (Result: )

Three-revert rule

violation on

Previous version reverted to: 16:28, 29 October 2006
1st revert: 18:39, 29 October 2006
2nd revert: 22:01, 29 October 2006
3rd revert: 22:16, 29 October 2006
4th revert: 22:43, 29 October 2006

Time report made: 00:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This user was blocked just yesterday for violating 3RR for the very same reversions. He was also warned about evading that block here. Within hours of returning from his block, he is again in violation of the same policy for the same edits.

~~::3RR next day after 24 hour 3RR block. -- Avi 05:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)~~ I misread the diff at 12:29, October 28, 2006 as October 29. There are only three reversions proper here. My apologies. -- Avi 23:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm asking for another sysop to review this. I may have missed ANOTHER one that makes this a 3RR. Maybe the Part 9 exam is messing up my head here :) . Regardless, can someone review the evidence and re-block if necessary. Thank you. -- Avi 01:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(talk)
(Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: [152]
1st revert: title=Template:Horror_Icons&diff=84501446&oldid=84419117 22:38, October 29, 2006
2nd revert: title=Template:Horror_Icons&diff=84505131&oldid=84502795 22:59, October 29, 2006
3rd revert: 23:48, October 29, 2006
4th revert: 00:05, October 30, 2006
5th revert 02:59, October 30, 2006

Time report made: 00:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User refuses to take this to the talk page. Has been told by me and another user to take it to the talk page but this user refuses. Has to have his way. --

(talk)

00:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Y'all are getting 24 hours, this was a revertfest a trois. -- Avi 05:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Ernham reported by User:Mark83 (Result: 96h)

Three-revert rule

violation on

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

01:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 18:26, 29 October 2006
8th revert: 21:13, 29 October 2006
1st revert: 00:08, 30 October 2006
2nd revert: 00:13, 30 October 2006
3rd revert: 00:23, 30 October 2006
4th revert: 00:36, 30 October 2006
5th revert: 00:54, 30 October 2006
6th revert: 01:15, 30 October 2006
7th revert: 01:21, 30 October 2006

Time report made: 00:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has been blocked many times before for both 3RR violation and personal attacks. The user's behaviour has not improved in the slightest. A RFC (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ernham) has been opened but has come to no conclusion despite being certified by many users.

Two edits are by an IP address. However user admits it was them (Not try to deceive anyone. I couldn't log in for some reason., zero cache error) and also trademark edit summaries by IP address ("Stop your damn vandalism. All polls are "unscientific". Doesn't matter who does them. Jesus")

Note, User:Ramdrake violated the 3RR in reponse to Ernham's rvts. (R1 00:11, 30 October 2006 R2 00:17, 30 October 2006 R3 00:32, 30 October 2006 R4 01:01, 30 October 2006 BUT THEN UNREVERTED 01:06, 30 October 2006. Mark83 01:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to apologize to the processing admin for having gone above the 3RR limit temporarily, but I hope nothing irrepairable has been done as I reverted my 4th revert. However, if the processing admin sees fit to penalize nme for the gesture, even reverted, I will accept it without prejudice or complaint.--Ramdrake 01:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Reversions being shown where repair of overt vandalism on that page. The blatant "removal of legitmate information" is a clear demonstration of vandalism, as per the definition of vadalism anyway. User involved have a long history of vandalizing that wiki, and he continues to do because admins continue to refuse to punish him.Ernham 01:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out the reasons for the inappropriateness of the information

talk page.--Ramdrake

This is not

vandalism, but a content dispute. Blocked for 96 hours by Shanel. Khoi khoi

05:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Bignole reported by User:FF7SquallStrife7 (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: [153]
1st revert: 19:57, 28 October 2006
2nd revert: 20:45, 28 Octbober 2006
3rd revert: 21:58, 28 October 2006
4th revert: 13:57, 29 October 2006
5th revert: 22:45, 29 October 2006

Time report made: 04:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User continues to revert my edits based on the claim that he held a vote session involving two or three other editors (who just happen to be the only ones editing the page and are most likely bias) and believes he controls the Template (which is hugely based on something subjective) and has failed to provide reasons as to why his choices are iconic aside from the fact that there was a vote in which nobody was aware of except the only editors of the page. There seems to be a "Lord of the Flies"-tyranny involved with the template. I see no justice in a one user determining when to vote or delete edits, especially when he/she acknowledges that few people look at the template & will thus always win favor of the other editors who are partial to this user. In addition, this topic is purely subjective. Therefore, any figures considered "iconic" should be allowed on the template. How is it just that a few users decide who stays or doesn't when there is no merit to what makes a character iconic?

Y'all are getting 24 hours, this was a revertfest a trois. -- Avi 05:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

First, both this user and I took part in an edit war, which I have requested for a page protection so that we can end this frivilous war and go to the talk page and discuss it. Secondly, If you check the edit summaries, and this users page I constantly, repeatedly, went beyond what should be necessary to inform this user that it had been decided (whether it's by a handful of editors or 1 million of them) that all changes to the template must go through the Talk Page. He kept refusing to do so (until just recently). There was not "tyranny', only a simple voting system that had delegated not only the structure of the template but the structure of adding things to the template. We was informed by another editor of the same thing and he continued despite what was simple people telling him to please bring his dispute to the Talk Page so that it could be discussed by those that edit the page, instead of him constantly adding things that were already decided upon and removed. Bignole 05:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Mikedk9109 reported by User:FF7SquallStrife7
(Result: 24 hours)

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

Time report made: 04:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Same as Bignole, User continues to revert my edits based on the claim that he held a vote session involving two or three other editors (who just happen to be the only ones editing the page and are most likely bias) and believes he controls the Template (which is hugely based on something subjective) and has failed to provide reasons as to why his choices are iconic aside from the fact that there was a vote in which nobody was aware of except the only editors of the page. There seems to be a "Lord of the Flies"-tyranny involved with the template. I see no justice in a one user determining when to vote or delete edits, especially when he/she acknowledges that few people look at the template & will thus always win favor of the other editors who are partial to this user. In addition, this topic is purely subjective. Therefore, any figures considered "iconic" should be allowed on the template. How is it just that a few users decide who stays or doesn't when there is no merit to what makes a character iconic? Take a look at their comments from their edits, they add figures to the template at will and condone it when they know the other users. (no voting or anything like that, either). THE TEMPLATE is purely SUBJECTIVE, does not deal with FACTS but rather OPINIONS. The opinions of the few editors who continue to revert my edits do not have precedence over anyone elses, thus their reverts are unjustified.

Y'all are getting 24 hours, this was a revertfest a trois. -- Avi 05:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Cirm reported by Kafziel (Result:12 hour block)

Three-revert rule

violation on

Previous version reverted to: 17:33 September 1 2006
1st revert: 09:59 October 30
2nd revert: 10:06 October 30
3rd revert: 10:28 October 30
4th revert: 11:11 October 30

Time report made: 15:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Seems a likely sockpuppet of User:Billycedit. Keeps replacing spam links and suspected copyright violations despite warnings from myself, Kuru, and Dylan Lake. Kafziel ^Talk 15:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked for 12 hours for a first violation of the 3RR; consider that with a longer one pending whilst I look into sock puppet allegations. Robdurbar 19:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Nielswik reported by User:Tewfik (Result:24 hour block)

Three-revert rule

violation on

17:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 17:06:32
1st revert: 13:04:02 (reverted background + POV tag)
2nd revert: 15:15:25 (restored disputed source/numbers - per his edit summary)
3rd revert: 16:28:07 (RVed numbers and background + POV tag)
4th revert: 22:30:54 (restored same disputed source/numbers)
5th revert: 11:35:04 (again RVed numbers and background)
6th revert: 16:39:14 (yet again RVed numbers and background)

Was blocked earlier this week for 3RR on a different article.

Time report made: 16:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: It would be much appreciated if the blocking admin could also revert so as not to allow a "reward" for disregarding policy, especially since the user has reverted again since I filed this report. Tewfik^Talk 16:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This one was an ADDITION not revert or deletion . This one is an EDIT .as well as I could tell (not revert too). This one is also an edit but with deletion of other source . ---

ابراهيم

16:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually they were all reversions of other users' work, especially the background which he doesn't mention often in his edit-summaries. Tewfik^Talk 17:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Tell me that what he had removed in this one . You should not mention edits that are not revert as it makes your whole report suspicious. ---

ابراهيم

17:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please review

WP:3RR. Reverts include adding words, if the effect is to undo other editors' work, as is the case here. Isarig

See below section. One should block someone filing a wrong report too. ---

ابراهيم

18:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The "below section" is totally out of place on this page, but on the off chance that the six reversions aren't clear, I listed a short description of what was done. Tewfik^Talk 19:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

User is Not Guilty

The question is that if he had made REVERT, 4 of them or not. If he did then we block him otherwise not. So lets discuss all of above.

NOT A REVERT AT ALL . 13:04, 29 October 2006 (edit). He added npov tag and made an extra ENTER. What he had reverted NOTHING.
This one is simply an addition NOT A REVERT15:15, 29 October 2006 (edit). He remove or reverted nothing at all.
A revert 16:28, 29 October 2006 (edit)
A revert . 22:30, 29 October 2006 (edit)
A revert . 11:35, 30 October 2006 (edit)
A revert . 16:39, 30 October 2006 (edit)

But then an interesting thing is that he had made only last 3 reverts in last 24 hours. Hence in 24 hours still he had made 3 reverts which is allowed and the topic is so much disputed. His changes are with references too. I think he had NOT violated 3RR rule at all. ---

ابراهيم

18:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Result

Looking at these, I think I can see 4, or maybe 5, reverts. Remember that a revert need not be the entire edit that you're doing - but insterad just an eidt that removes in whole or in part the work of another editor. To be honest with you, I have little symptathy here - the easiest and best way to avoid even being near the three revert rule is to back off from a page and not edit it for twenty four hours. As this is a complex case and not mindless reverts, I'll give a 24hour block again; any future vioaltions of policy would receive longer ones. Robdurbar 09:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Those reverts were NOT within 24 hours. He had only 3 revert in 24 hours. Hence he has not violated any rule. It is not good to ban him :(. How could you make a rule and do not follow it yourself. ----

ابراهيم

12:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Read the second paragraph of the policy,

here. Four reverts in 24 hours is not a requirement of 3RR. The rule is intended to prevent disruption, not to allow editors to push the absolute limit before backing down. Kafziel ^Talk

13:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a kind of article on which 24 hours should be applied. It is a disupted and sensitive article. Furthermore, he was giving his sources while reverting (within limit) and was not reverting blindly. Such blocks discourage users and are not useful for the project in general. ---

ابراهيم

13:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

In his e-mail to me, Nielswik admits to four reverts, but that the last was not within 24 hours. Whilst I disagree that the first listed edit wasn't a revert - I think it was - the whole reason behind the policy is to stop edit warring. It does not matter how well sourced an edit is, or on what page it is done; the rules are the rule. The whole point of having that clause which states that a fourth revert outside the 24 hour period is not allowed is to re-inforce what Kafziel states above - 3RR is not a right to revert 3 times. --Robdurbar 14:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes a user wishes to come strong when he thinks he is right. How you will detect that it is indeed a edit war or a user just want to present his point strongly. Go and create WP:2RR, I will have no objection otherwise follow WP:3RR strickly and ban someone ONLY when he reverted more than 4 times within 24 hours. If you give admin the power to decide that when he could ban (may be after 2 reverts) and when he let someone go. Then wikipedia will become a useless place to be in. Admins are there to inforce rules made by all of us after discussions. Do not make them God. ---

ابراهيم

13:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There are other reasons that you can be blocked for, including disrupting the Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy. 3RR is not the be-all and end-all. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Panarjedde reported by User:User:Kingjeff (Result:)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 00:38, 30 October 2006
1st revert: 09:24, October 30, 2006
2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australia_national_football_%28soccer%29_team&diff=prev&oldid=84622000 09:26, October 30, 2006
3rd revert: 10:10, October 30, 2006
4th revert: 10:11, October 30, 2006
5th revert: (10:45, October 30, 2006
6th revert: 12:41, October 30, 2006
7th revert: 12:42, October 30, 2006
8th revert: 12:45, October 30, 2006
9th revert: 12:45, October 30, 2006
10th revert: 13:10, October 30, 2006
11th revert: 13:11, October 30, 2006
12th revert: 13:33, October 30, 2006
13th revert: 13:34, October 30, 2006

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

Time report made: 18:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

This a clear abuse of the 3rr. Kingjeff 19:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverts have to be on *same article* William M. Connolley 11:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Aburesz reported by User:Richfife (Result:12 HOUR BLOCK)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 07:41, 30 October 2006
1st revert: 07:41, 30 October 2006
2nd revert: 09:30, 30 October 2006
3rd revert: 16:00, 30 October 2006
4th revert: 16:31, 30 October 2006

+ * A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here: [155] Time report made: 00:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This specifically relates to the NPOV tag at the top of the article.

First violation, but clear. 12 hour block--Robdurbar 09:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

User:WAS 4.250 reported by User:Ogno (Result: Resolved)

Three-revert rule

violation on

Previous version reverted to: 05:52, 28 October 2006 and later to 20:55, 30 October 2006
1st revert: 03:56, 30 October 2006 reverted to: 05:52, 28 October 2006
2nd revert: 17:41, 30 October 2006 reverted to: 05:52, 28 October 2006
3rd revert: 23:49, 30 October 2006 reverted to: 20:55, 30 October 2006
4th revert: 01:10, 31 October 2006 reverted to: 20:55, 30 October 2006

A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here: [156]

Time report made: 01:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment - The user contacted me and proposed arbitration to resolve the dispute. A consensus wording has now been agreed on by all parties. TimVickers 17:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

In that case, blocking isn't going to accomplish anything. Stifle (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Mycroft.Holmes reported by User:Patstuart (Result:People 24h blocked 3 days ago, closing it myself, will repost if another violation)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: N/A, just keep reverting each other (Holmes keeps on reverting any additions)
1st revert: 11:29, 30 October 2006
2nd revert: 16:06, 30 October 2006
3rd revert: 17:28, 30 October 2006
4th revert: 17:41, 30 October 2006
5th revert: 17:44, 30 October 2006
6th revert: 17:53, 30 October 2006
goodness gracious, editing has gone on well past when I first wrote this. I count six more by Holmes as of 19:56. Please note User:Hemto is getting in it pretty bad too. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Time report made: 18:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I'm only reporting one of the users because the other one is clearly an impersonator account, and has been reported to AIV to be blocked. If other is not blocked, I recommend giving this one a healthy break as well. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Kingjeff reported by User:Panarjedde (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 00:38, 30 October 2006
1st revert: 18:13, 30 October 2006
2nd revert: 18:34, 30 October 2006
3rd revert: 18:40, 30 October 2006
4th revert: 18:49, 30 October 2006
5th revert: 19:01, 30 October 2006

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

Time report made: 18:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

He even declared an edit war: [157]

- *I claimed that you declared an edit war on me. [158] Kingjeff 19:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 11:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Kokayi reported by User:Biomedeng (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 13:22, 28 October 2006
1st revert: 09:11, 30 October 2006
2nd revert: 10:44, 30 October 2006
3rd revert: 14:15, 30 October 2006
4th revert: 18:29, 30 October 2006
5th revert: 22:17, 30 October 2006

Time report made: 02:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: After four reverts in 24 hours I warned Kokayi about the 3RR rule on his talk page 21:18, 30 October 2006. Kokayi claimed that I was intimidating him and again reverted the article. Since he was warned prior to the fifth revert I would like some sort of appropriate action (warning or more) taken. Biomedeng 02:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 21:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Cunado19
(Result: 8h)

Three-revert rule

violation on

06:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 16:53, 28 October 2006
1st revert: 05:18, 30 October 2006
2nd revert: 07:17, 30 October 2006
3rd revert: 01:55, 31 October 2006
4th revert: 04:47, 31 October 2006

Time report made: 06:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: He has been constantly reverting many other pages, such as

Cuñado

- Talk

This doesn't surprise me at all; the main contact I've had with this user, who rarely bothers to join discussion, is as a blind 3xday reverter with an entirely predicable POV.Proabivouac 07:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I could say same things about you. Please avoid giving personal remarks on him. --

ابراهيم

08:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

8h William M. Connolley 21:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Francis Tyers reported by User:FunkyFly (Result: prot)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 13:56, 30 October 2006
1st revert: 14:52, 30 October 2006
2nd revert: 15:05, 30 October 2006
3rd revert: 15:29, 30 October 2006
4th revert: 07:40, 31 October 2006
5th revert: 07:49, 31 October 2006

Time report made: 14:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

The user has been consistenly moving the Slav-Macedonian name to a different sectinon. /FunkyFly.talk_ 14:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Note, user was formely known as FrancisTyers, and has been blocked previously for 3RR.

He wasn't warned about it. Don't blind revert. --Wissahickon Creek ^talk 15:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

He has been blocked for 3RR before, plus he is experienced user, so he knows all too well. /FunkyFly.talk_ 15:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: this is a multi-party revert war with a total of about 20 reverts within 24 hours, if I've counted correctly. Suggest page protection. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

2006-10-31T19:54:59 Alex9891 (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Macedonian language: edit warring again... [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) William M. Connolley 20:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Craig Thomasian reported by Eupator (Result:12h)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 13:21, 31 October 2006
1st revert: 12:58, 31 October 2006
2nd revert: 13:04, 31 October 2006
3rd revert: 13:21, 31 October 2006
4th revert: 14:11, 31 October 2006

Time report made: 15:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User was clearly ware of the 3rr rule based on recent banning of user Nixer in as a result of 3rr vioaltion in Talk:Armenia.--Eupator 18:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 12 hours. Mango juice^talk 20:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Betacommand
)

Three-revert rule

violation on Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (talk · history · watch). 128.226.160.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Previous version reverted to: 13:57, 31 October 2006
1st revert: 14:16, 31 October 2006
2nd revert: 15:28, 31 October 2006
3rd revert: 17:15, 31 October 2006
4th revert: 18:17, 31 October 2006
5th revert: 18:28, 31 October 2006

Time report made: 18:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I (along with three other editors) have reverted (in whole or in part) this user's changes to

WP:IAR, which directly contradict consensus established at Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules (as I've repeatedly explained on the user's talk page). I noted that the standard policy tag inserted by this very individual advises users to discuss controversial edits on the talk page before making them, and he/she responded by changing "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." to "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page, but if you are not--edit away!

".

Please see this diff, in which the user acknowledged that he/she is not new to Wikipedia and is familiar with the three-revert rule (which had not yet been violated).

This is a school IP address, so I recommend an IP-only block with account creation permitted. —

David Levy

18:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Calton reported by User:Ekajati (yakity-yak) (Result: no block)

Three-revert rule

violation on

Previous version reverted to: 01:31, 31 October 2006
1st revert: 05:33, 31 October 2006
2nd revert: 19:13, 31 October 2006
3rd revert: 19:55, 31 October 2006
4th revert: 19:58, 31 October 2006

Time report made: 20:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

In her rush to come report me and get the upper hand in not having to deal with the standard Wikipedia requests for sources and proof of notability, this user has neglected to note that I self-reverted after receiving her taunting little note [159]. If she wants to play silly games, perhaps she ought to try USENET instead of here. --Calton | Talk 20:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Self-rv: no block William M. Connolley 20:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Larry Fafarman reported by User:Guettarda (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 17:58, 31 October 2006
1st revert: 20:14, 31 October 2006
2nd revert: 20:56, 31 October 2006
3rd revert: 21:20, 31 October 2006
4th revert: 21:55, 31 October 2006
5th revert: 23:51, 31 October 2006

Time report made: 22:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Warned. Guettarda 22:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Note also that there is a
WP:AUTO issue here as well in that the edit he is adding adds a link to Fafarman's claim on a blog. JoshuaZ
00:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

2006-11-01T00:23:01 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Larry Fafarman (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (5rr PZ Myers) William M. Connolley 09:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

User:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH reported by User:Bonafide.hustla (Result: no block)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: [[160]]
1st revert:

[[161]]

2nd revert: [162]
3rd revert: [163]
4th revert: [164]

Time report made: --05:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Four reverts occured in a span of less than 24 hrs as shown in the diffs.

Self-rv: no block William M. Connolley 09:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

User:65.92.202.247 reported by User:csloat (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule

violation on

Previous version reverted to: 16:01, 17 October 2006
1st revert: 21:01, 30 October 2006
2nd revert: 21:01, 30 October 2006
3rd revert: 11:10, 31 October 2006
4th revert: 11:49, 31 October 2006
5th revert: 19:51, 31 October 2006
6th revert: 20:48, 31 October 2006
7th revert: 21:38, 31 October 2006

Time report made: 10:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User is using several different ips for these reverts, and appears to be a sock or meatpuppet of another user (possibly Armon (talk · contribs), as all edits from these ips are reverts to Armon's last edits, the ips all seem to originate from Canada, which Armon's user page states he is from, and Armon stopped editing just as the anon ip's stepped in, and the anon editor is clearly familiar with wikipedia conventions... this evidence is circumstantial, so I am not accusing Armon, but the anon ips are clearly the same person, and they made 7 reverts in 24 hours). Besides 65.92.202.247 (talk · contribs), the user is using ips 65.93.101.88 (talk · contribs), 65.93.96.64 (talk · contribs), and 172.133.187.89 (talk · contribs). I believe a block is in order.csloat 10:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked one IP. If he just swaps to another I suppose the page needs protection William M. Connolley 11:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Sfrandzi reported by User:Grandmaster (Result:Indef as sockpuppet)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 01:04, 31 October 2006
1st revert: 14:32, 31 October 2006
2nd revert: 14:47, 31 October 2006
3rd revert: 14:58, 31 October 2006
4th revert: 19:32, 31 October 2006
5th revert: 19:53, 31 October 2006
6th revert: 15:36, 1 November 2006
7th revert: 16:44, 1 November 2006
8th revert: 17:07, 1 November 2006
9th revert: 18:05, 1 November 2006

Time report made: 11:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

This user started reverting the article to his version as an anonymous user 217.10.38.105, and after being warned about 3RR rule [165] he switched to his registered account and continued reverting the article. He contributed to the talk page of this article both as an anon and a registered user, and both IP and the registered user made similar edits to the History of Nagorno-Karabakh, which leaves no doubts that it is the same person. Sfrandzi has been personally warned about the 3RR rule. [166] The last 6 diffs are reverts by registered user Sfrandzi. Grandmaster 11:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I wish all violations were this easy. I'm going to block the account indefinately as a sockpuppet, and the IP for the sock's 3RR breaking AND the use of a sockpuppet. If that makes sense. --Robdurbar 09:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Maester mensch reported by User:NBeale (Result: semi)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: 12:14, 1 November 2006
2nd revert: 09:41, 1 November 2006
3rd revert: 23:33, 31 October 2006
4th revert: 23:18, 31 October 2006

Time report made: 12:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Maester mensch accepts that he has done 4 reverts but says he will not un-revert because he doesn't like the way his reverts have been reversed by others

Comment from editor in article in question: I believe NBeale is acting in a disruptive manner. Please note
*Sparkhead
13:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I believe NBeale to be a
ignored all rules in this instance inorder to maintain the quality of the article [167] as per the articles talk page Talk:Richard_Dawkins#Balanced listing of notable academic critics and supporters and should not be penalised for his actions unlike NBeale [168] --KaptKos
13:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I've filed a suspected sock puppet report on NBeale
*Sparkhead
13:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: There is nothing against 5 Edits. Every time someone made a specific criticism I have edited the 'offending' section to address thier concerns. Simply deleting the section (because they don't like their hero being criticised?) is not helpful and as far as I can see is against Wikipedian policy. the 'sock' stuff is simply nonsense I'm afraid. NBeale 22:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There are indeed dubious things going on here. Get back to me if it doesn't settle down now I've s-protected the article William M. Connolley 14:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Deeceevoice reported by Yahshoor

Three-revert rule

1st revert: [169]

11:50, 31 October 2006

2nd revert: [170]

12:39, 31 October 2006

3rd revert: [171]

08:59, 1 November 2006

4th revert: [172]

09:19, 1 November 2006

User:Greier reported by User:Khoi khoi (Result:)

Three-revert rule

violation on

07:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 12:28, 29 October 2006
1st revert: 18:58, 1 November 2006
2nd revert: 19:02, 1 November 2006
3rd revert: 19:07, 1 November 2006
4th revert: 19:30, 1 November 2006
5th revert: 19:40, 1 November 2006

Time report made: 19:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
Please check his block log. Khoi khoi 19:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Caloon2000 reported by User:Kathryn NicDhàna (Result:)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 04:48, November 1, 2006
1st revert: 14:23, November 1, 2006
2nd revert: 19:11, November 1, 2006
3rd revert: 19:56, November 1, 2006
4th revert: 20:51, November 1, 2006
5th revert: 21:48, November 1, 2006

Time report made: 21:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Previous reverts were piecemeal (such as reinsertion of extremist websites and self-published religious tracts), so hard to link to. See users edit history. Other identical partial reverts done by IP only. Some edits as User:89.241.187.123, deleted non-fundamentalist links under another IP I'm having trouble finding.. Registered user for one week, obsessed with inserting extreme religious POV into Halloween article. Possible sockpuppetry. Either misunderstands or misrepresents Wikipedia policies, yet knows how to report incidents and falsely accuse those he disagrees with of vandalism. Claims "consensus" reached on talk page when no such thing happened. See also Talk:Halloween

The alledged reverts were edits I made to the page I am currently editing. They are not reverts. Kathryn NicDhàna is involved in editing on a controversial issue and reverted without commenting it. [revert] Caloon2000 08:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Explained need for edit at various points on talk page. Caloon2000 ignored initial series of requests to discuss it, then began series of reverts. Then began retaliating to warnings by placing unwarranted vandalism templates on my talk page. --Kathryn NicDhàna 22:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Sparkhead
(Result: 8h)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 17:21, October 31, 2006 (dif)
1st revert: 18:27, October 31, 2006
2nd revert: 09:13, November 1, 2006
3rd revert: 03:27, November 1, 2006
4th revert: 17:38, November 1, 2006

User was previously warned and blocked on the same page for 3RR: [User:NBeale reported by User:Sparkhead (Result: 24h)]

Time report made: 23:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User posted a 3RR report against another user who was simply attempting to clean up the work of NBeale's puppets, here: User:Maester mensch reported by User:NBeale (Result: semi)

Comments: I understood that it is Wikipedia official policy to: "Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The Three Revert Rule forbids the use of reverts in repetitive succession. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond unkindly, and do not make personal attacks." The recent contributions of

User:Sparkhead and User:Maester Mensch to the Richard Dawkins article have consisted entirely in repeated reverts of a carefully referenced section that has been extensively discussed in the talk pages. It would be better if they made constructive contributions and positive suggestions, whilst sticking to the 3RR, than trying to label people who disagree with them "trolls" or "puppets". And perhaps the actions of Adminstrators could encourage this? NBeale

Comments: In addtion the first alleged 'revert' changed the section in question (which had simply been reverted by MM) to address the 2 specific comments that he made. In the other they were undoing mindless reverts where no specific criticisms had been made, and in each case these editors had "simply revert[ed] changes in a dispute" without at all trying to "improve the edit" NBeale 07:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I also note that (a) Sparkhead's allegations that the other editors are 'socks' have been officially determined to be invalid Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/NBeale (b) Making this report is hard to square with his assertion here NBeale 07:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: (a) "Not guilty" is not the same as "innocent". They were puppets, if not sock puppets. See

*Sparkhead

15:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Can't remember now why, but 2006-11-01T22:59:26 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "NBeale (contribs)" with an expiry time of 8 hours (3rr on Dawkins) William M. Connolley 19:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

User:24.203.42.57 reported by User:BostonMA (Result: 12 hours)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 00:11, 2 November 2006
1st revert: 00:22, 2 November 2006
2nd revert: 00:35, 2 November 2006
3rd revert: 00:41, 2 November 2006
4th revert: 00:46, 2 November 2006
5th revert: 01:26, 2 November 2006

3RR Warning made to user prior to 4th revert

Time report made: 01:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User is also a suspected sock of Utzchips (talk · contribs) which account also violated 3RR

2006-11-02T02:07:27 Lucky 6.9 (Talk | contribs | block) protected Brad Hines (Lots of contention during AfD [edit=sysop:move=sysop]

User:Utzchips reported by User:BostonMA (Result: prot)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 00:11, 2 November 2006

1st revert: 01:38, 2 November 2006 (removal of AfD template)
2nd revert: 01:45, 2 November 2006
3rd revert: 01:51, 2 November 2006
4th revert: 02:06, 2 November 2006

3RR Warning made to user prior to 4th revert

Time report made: 01:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User is also a suspected puppetmaster of 24.203.42.57 (talk · contribs) which account also violated 3RR

2006-11-02T02:07:27 Lucky 6.9 (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Brad Hines: Lots of contention during AfD [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) William M. Connolley 19:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Larry_Fafarman reported by User:Tsumetai (Result: 48h)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 20:56, 31 October 2006
1st revert: 07:43, 2 November 2006
2nd revert: 09:42, 2 November 2006
3rd revert: 10:32, 2 November 2006
4th revert: 11:29, 2 November 2006
5th/10th revert: 13:47, 2 November 2006
6th/11 revert 17:58, 2 November 2006

3RR warning and request for discussion made to user prior to 4th revert

Time report made: 12:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has just regained editing rights after a 24 hour block for a 3RR violation on the same page, for the same revert. See [173] Tsumetai 12:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed duplicate report by me; added 5th (or 10th) revert. Guettarda 16:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Added 6th/11th revert. Also note that Tsumetai made a 4th revert but then reverted himself. JoshuaZ 18:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

48h this time William M. Connolley 19:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Justiceiro reported by User:195.93.21.136 (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: [174]
2nd revert: [175]
3rd revert: [176]
4th revert: [177]
5th revert: [178]

Time report made: 19:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User also broke rule on

Hilda Toledano

24h; probable sock William M. Connolley 20:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Tudorminstrel reported by User:Captain Scarlet (Result: 8h)

Three-revert rule

violation on