Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:21, 9 October 2006

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354
355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364
Incidents (archives, search)
1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156
1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
468	469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477
478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
320	321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329
330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Violations

Please place new reports at the bottom.

User:Ramdrake reported by Ernham (Result:)

Three revert rule violation on {{Race and intelligence}}. Ramdrake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Previous version reverted to: [1]

1st revert: [2]
2nd revert: [3]
3rd revert: [4]
4th revert: [5]

-->

Time report made: 23:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Warned previoulsy in his talk page and I recently warned him as well of him violating 3RRV, yet he refused to comply or discuss logically in the discussion page. I started writing this up, but then he finally said he would revert the info back to what was there, and i was satsified with that. I looked at the page and saw that the top of the edit history showed he had in fact reverted back to what i had there prviously, but then when i looked at the current article again, it was back to what it was when he reverted my edition wholy or in part previously. So then i looked back at the edit page and magically the last edit he had on the edit page, the edit that supposedly reverted the material back, had somehow vanished. I can only guess he also edited the edit history of the page as well. So it looks like he not only went over the 3 revert limit, he also wentand altered the history of the page somehow. That's purely speculation however, and I assume you guys have some way of checking that. I've never filled one of these out before so hopefully I did it resonably correctly.

Explanation from Ramdrake:

While I have gone to 3 reverts on this occasion, the 4th revert attributed to me is in fact an edit. I have tried to be reasonable with this editor (please see the edit summary of Intelligence quotient along with the talk page: Talk:Intelligence_quotient, but he has shown to be totally illogical (as per the talk page of Intelligence Quotient), verbally abusive (to the point I had to leave a warning on his user talk page) on Talk:Intelligence_quotient and launched into a revert war. My only error was to let myself get dragged into said revert war. Should I be found guilty of 3RR violation, I would only ask that consideration be given that this user also engaged in the revert war, and that penalties be meted out on both sides, as the reviewing admin sees fit for both behaviors. Thanks for hearing me out.--Ramdrake 23:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the record, the user has now reinstated twice an uncivil comment and personal attack removed from a talk here as per WP:NPA

Here is my initial removal:[6]

And here are the two instances he reinstated them. Please also notice the edit summaries accompanying these reverts:[7][8]--Ramdrake 23:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Ernham has just reverted the removal of his uncivil comments once more: [9]. Could an admin please look into it and issue the proper warnings or actions? This user seems totally out of control.--Ramdrake 23:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now he has continually reverted my comments in the discussion, breaking the 3RR -- again. He feels that my opinion of some of the studies he cites as being "trash" science because they are written like op-eds in a newspaper is somehow a personal attack. I'm not even reading any of the stuff he wrote above. I've had enough of him and his control-freakish behaviorErnham 03:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are user Ernham's comments in question:

Bunch of trash that reads like op-ed pieces in the New York times. Pfft. You got a PhD in BS, I figure, sure, uhuh. Ernham 22:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC) ([10])[reply]

He has been warned there and on his talk page that this constitutes a personal attack and uncivil language. Nevertheless, he has continued with a fourth revert to this foul language (ref just above). I haven't reverted any other comments of his. I would dare say his constant reintroduction of this injurious material constitutes vandalism, and the appropriate warning has been placed on his user talk page, in addition with the previous warning about NPA. I rest my case.--Ramdrake 03:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now he continues to (he has been all night) bothering me in various ways on my talk page, usually a variety of veiled threats. Mr. Ramdrake claims to have a PhD in BS,yet he continually cites athropological and psychology studies. This lead me to the sarcastic response of "Yeah, sure, you have PhD in BS." I doubt he does. In any event, he made it clear on his first response of supposed personal attack(either in my own talk page or the discussion page he just violated anothher 3RR on, i forget which) that it was not anything rleated to my sarcastic responce of PhD of BS(biological science), but instead of calling the cites/studies he supplied as "trash". Now he's changed those comments and wants to pretend he had issue with the PhD comment I made and immediately clarified its meaning. i actually work with half a dozen PhDs of BS, and i have this funny feeling he isn't one. Heh. But that's neither here nor there. I'm not responding to him or this matter again until this matter has touched upon by an admin Ernham 03:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs not versions please. I've blocked Ernham for 3h for incivility William M. Connolley 07:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Ernham's talk page will attest, the "veiled threats" are simply two standard warnings: one for incivility (already dealt with), the second because the multiple reversal of the removal of his comments on the talk page of Intelligence quotient (removal as per WP:NPA and WP:RPA) can and was interpreted as vandalism and treated as repeated addition of nonsense (under WP:VANDAL). All the other interactions that took place on his page are merely explanations related to one or the two points in this paragraph. For authentic veiled threats, please refer to the comments user Ernham left on my talk page: [11]. And again, sorry if this situation mixes up a 3RR situation with one of misbehavior from the part of a user.--Ramdrake 11:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to add this again as an afterthought, but for the record I have no admin rights whatsoever, so I couldn't have done what Ernham is suspecting me of doing (altering an article's history page).

Also, when I pointed out my qualifications I mentioned my Ph.D. was in neurobiology. He then retorted by calling it a Ph.D. in BS which under the circumstances I view as a direct insult.--Ramdrake 14:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is disgrace that you would dare block me for incivility after someone is reported for violating the 3RR TWICE within hours of each other! Outrageous adminstrator bias. If you would have bothered to take the time to actually read the history of edits on here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligence_quotient&action=history

You would have seen that, when making those comments about PhD in BS that he did not have issue with them. Nope. He had issue with me calling some cites trash. If that is the grounds by which you ban people for hours or even SECONDS, almost the entire wikipedia community would be banned the majority of their liftetimes. This is disgusting and smacks of biased moderation. Ernham 19:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you better go look up what sarcasm is. What i said was no different from saying "why is it that someone that PhD in a biological science when you only supply cites from psychology and ahtropology sources when you are trying to disprove something related to biological science". needless to say it's much shorter. Do you "get it"? I'm going to be reporting this behavior to any other mods that listen. Totally bogus treatment. Ernham 19:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And finally, the second 3RRV and supposed "uncivility" issue did not have anytign to do with the previous violation of the 3RR, the one that is fully reported above. So you took the time to punish me for some trumped up "uncivility" claim, yet you did not bother to process the above complaint. Would you care to explain yourself and your behavior before I write you off as being a completely biased admin??Ernham 19:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zhang Qiang reported by User:Niohe

I want to report User:Zhang Qiang for clear violation of WP:3RR on the following pages:

Hope you can deal with this promptly.--Niohe 21:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should use the proper format when reporting, please. -- Avi 05:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Here is my report in what I hope is proper format. User:Zhang Qiang has repeatedly deleted verifiable information in the heading of Dalian and Shenyang, and refused to engage in any serious discussion on the topic on Talk:Dalian#Dalny and Talk:Shenyang#Mukden.

Dalian

Shenyang

Hope you can deal with this.--Niohe 15:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Antman reported by User:Rex (Result: prot)

Previous version reverted to: (originally) 00:18, 29 September 2006 but the user made various other (but very related) reverts.

Time report made: 22:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Antman is insultive, refuses to accept consensus and refuses to provide references for his highly controversive edits/text.

User has been warned by another user prior to this was posted (warned for 4 reverts, see his talk page) Rex 22:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If one cares to actually look at my so-called reverts, one would see that only 2, possibly 3 are actually reverts, the others are edits. Ameise -- chat 22:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request seconded by User:LucVerhelst

[12] Another revert, with edit summary : "Yes, I just violated the 3RR, but so did you." --LucVerhelst 01:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just violated the 3RR, but I do not believe that I did when this claim was made. Ameise -- chat 01:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006-10-01T01:53:25 Grandmasterka (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected German language: Cool down a raging edit war [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) William M. Connolley 09:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rex Germanus reported by User:Antman (Result:No violation)

Previous version reverted to: (originally) 16:38, September 28, 2006, but the user has also made various other (and signifigantly related) reverts.

I did not give this user a warning.

Time report made: 22:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Rex Germanus is abusive and makes repeated comments against me, calling me ignorant. He follows my edits and often reverts them with little or no description besides things such as utter bollocks. He often demands that others give him references, while never giving citations nor references himself. User has not been warned. Ameise 22:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No warning, these are not reversions of the same edit, and they span signficantly more than 24 hours. Please read the 3RR policy before making reports. Thank you. -- Avi 05:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, my reverts are all of different edits and don't apply either. Ameise -- chat 05:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but why were a number of comments deleted? Rex 09:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zorkfan reported by User:PinchasC (Result: 48 hours)

Previous version reverted to: 19:30, 29 September 2006

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

User was blocked previously for 3rr. [13]

Time report made: 00:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Coming off a 24hr block for 3rr user has done nothing but edit war. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that User:Zorkfan vandalised this page after this report was filed. See this diff. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that every SINGLE WAKING ONE OF ZORKFAN'S ARTICLES ARE BEING REMOVED BY A HATEFUL LEGALIST WITHOUT SUFFICIENT EXPLANATION.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zorkfan (talk • contribs) 20:43, September 30, 2006 (UTC)

I am not a participant in this, but I read some of Zorkfan's edits, and it does appear as though PinchasC is simply reverting [User:Zorkfan|Zorkfan]]'s edits for the sake of reversion, and not for content; this is not the place to debate that, though. Ameise -- chat 00:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His edits have been reverted by multiple editors and it was explained on the talk page adn on his talk pages when he was editing as an ip and edit summaries why he was reverted. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48 hours. Content dispute is not an excuse for 3RR. -- Avi 00:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Haksve reported by User:AndersL (Result: no vio)

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

1st revert: [14] 16:32, 29 September 2006
2nd revert: [15] 20:53, 30 September 2006
3rd revert: [16] 23:37, 30 September 2006
4th revert: [17] 00:54, 1 October 2006
5th revert: [18] 01:13, 1 October 2006

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

Time report made: 02:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:Warned several times not to remove content from the Gripen article. Encouraged to use the talk page, several times without complying until his 5th revert. Haksve is suspected for the same behaviour on the Nynorsk wikipedia aswell. --AndersL 02:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not with 24h William M. Connolley 09:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wearegoingtowin reported by User:Atrian (Result:No violation)

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

1st revert: [19]
2nd revert: [20]
3rd revert: [21]

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

Time report made: 03:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: There is a clear warning about placing these types of edits on the article talk page but this user is insistent.

Please read the policy, 3RR requires FOUR reverts in a 24 hour period. -- Avi 05:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a fourth (made after this was reported, but before the admin's judgement):

4th revert: [22]

I had placed a friendly warning to stop on User_talk:Wearegoingtowin before the fourth revert was made. It looks like this game will continue until an admin does something. Wolfchild 05:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:WLU reported by User:Mystar 05:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC) (Result: 12h each)

Three revert rule violation on Terry Goodkind.

WLU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Previous version reverted to: [23]Revision as of 02:27, 1 October 2006

1st revert: [24]
2nd revert: [25]
3rd revert: [26]
4th revert: [27]
5th revert: [28]

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

Time report made: --Mystar 05:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Also see Terry Goodkind Disscussion page, WLU talk page, Sword of Truth Wikipedia Project Talk page.

Obviously enough, you have *both* broken 3RR, so can have 12h each William M. Connolley 09:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Peroxisome reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: 16 hours)

Previous version reverted to: not needed; all are marked as reverts

1st revert: 2006-10-01T10:57:15
2nd revert: 2006-10-01T09:26:25
3rd revert: 2006-09-30T16:29:47
4th revert: 2006-09-30T11:05:35

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

Time report made: 11:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Note previous block for 3rr on this same article
Another one: 2006-10-01T16:27:45 William M. Connolley 17:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the user for 16 hours per WP:3RR. alphaChimp^(talk) 17:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===User:Wearegoingtowin reported by User:Wolfchild (Result: 24)===h

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 00:00, 1 October 2006 [29]

1st revert: [30]
2nd revert: [31]
3rd revert: [32]
4th revert: [33]
Warning issued to user after 3rd revert: [34]

Time report made: 15:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This is an extension of a previously filed and closed report (above). This report contains further information including a warning issued to the user and a fourth revert which occured after that warning.

Thats 3R, but the first "R" isn't, since the prev-rev-to doesn't include the linking. Furthermore... I really don't understand why removing the link is a good idea William M. Connolley 15:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unwisely, WAGTW has now reverted again, so gets blocked William M. Connolley 18:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: 18:48 1 October 2006 This is the version it should be.Khosrow II 19:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1st revert: 9:38 1 October 2006
2nd revert: 11:13 1 October 2006
3rd revert: 13:33 1 October 2006
4th revert: 14:28 1 October 2006

Necessary only for new users: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZaparojdik&diff=78910808&oldid=78883412.

Time report made: 19:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Zaparodjik made a total of ten reverts/edits on this page, I just listed 4 of them. He also broke 3RR on this article: Turko-Iranian. This user continuously starts revert wars and has been blocked for 3RR several times. I hope admins take all of this into consideration when blocking this user, as per the amount of time they should give him. He has been warned of the 3RR rule many times by me, but he just doesnt care about it the rules. Thanks.Khosrow II 19:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24h William M. Connolley 19:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fastifex reported by User:Roleplayer (Result:)

Previous version reverted to: 14:40 28 September 2006

1st revert: [35]
2nd revert: [36]
3rd revert: [37]
4th revert: [38]

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

Time report made: 19:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

I don't know if it counts, but this user has been restoring the same information to the article previous to this occasion, however this is the latest string of straight-reverts. User does not appear willing to engage in discussion regarding the extra information. -- Roleplayer 19:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs not version please, and these aren't in 24h William M. Connolley 19:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yugigx60 reported by User:Ryūlóng (Result:Protected)

Previous version reverted to: [39]

1st revert: [40]
2nd revert: [41]
3rd revert: [42]
4th revert: [43]
5th revert: [44]
6th revert: [45]
7th revert: [46]

Necessary only for new users: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%20talk%3AYugigx60&diff=cur&oldid=prev

Time report made: 21:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: ~~While I do not have a fourth revert, I have mentioned something at WP:ANI concerning this whole debacle in which~~ the user I have reported went out of his way to change a template that is in high use on this and a few other pages so that the images would be used and then asked for it to be protected on his version. I have not been able to contact the protecting admin as best as I could, but he has not yet replied to me. Ryūlóng 21:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed this report to that on the template itself, in which I am unfortunately assuming that the anons were this user, as well. Ryūlóng 21:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template is protected Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is protected, but now the users involved in the disruption have gone about to try and get around the protection by making a forking template. I've mentioned this here, ANI, and at RFCU. Ryūlóng 23:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the forked template (pokepisode2) and blocked one newcomer for incivility William M. Connolley 19:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anonymous 57 reported by User:Jeff3000 (Result:3 hours)

Previous version reverted to: 16:25, October 1, 2006 EST

1st revert: [47]
2nd revert: [48]
3rd revert: [49]
4th revert: [50]
5th revert: [51]
6th revert: [52]
7th revert: [53]
8th revert: [54]

Time report made: 22:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Has been adding unreferenced tags to many pages (including featured articles), when references exist (but not in ref tags). See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive behavior from user_Anonymous57 -- Jeff3000 22:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three hours Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kosmopolis reported by User:Tewfik (Result:72 hours)

Previous version reverted to: 2006-09-29T18:28:00

~~1st revert: 13:32:52-17:11:18~~
1st revert: 13:32:52-17:11:18 Corrected diff to further highlight the reversion, though other sections reverted were included in the previous diff
2nd revert: 18:14:12
3rd revert: 19:51:26
4th revert: 22:00:00

This is this user's 5th 3RR in the last few weeks. Just this week he was blocked for 48h for 3RR.

Time report made: 22:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I request that the admin revert back to the consensus version - this has been a very disruptive experience. Tewfik^Talk 22:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by reported user: The report is invalid. These diffs are not related to each other. The first diff presented [55] is a series of edits I made over the course of 8 hours, not a reversion (see my name on the top). I have heavily edited the article and have carefully watched not to revert any part more than three times in 24h. As for the reporter's allegations: I have been blocked *two* times for 3RR, not four or five times like the reporter states. Also, the 48h block was last week, not this week. He is actually the one who had reported me those two times I were blocked, he has been accusing me of bad faith on the talk page and we had several content disputes in the past weeks. Since the reporter's last edit yesterday, the article has been edited by 10+ editors already (excluding me), without anyone challenging the current version, so it is unclear what the reporter means by "consensus version". Obviously, he is the only person that personally objects to the edits that were made. Regardless of the content disputes and the reporter's false assertions, I would like to stress that this report is neither valid nor justified, and that no 3RR violation has taken place. Thanks. Kosmopolis (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: the diffs do not have to be related to each other - please see WP:3RR. I won't block you because earlier I was involved in opposing User:Kosmopolis there - so his claim that User:Tewfik was alone against him (or even against the consensus) is false. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have *never* had a conflict in a discussion with the above user at said article. In fact, the last edit of this user to the article dates back to August 13. At this time, I wasn't even editing the article. However, on a related article, above user indiscriminately reverted my removal of a conspiracy claim (which was presented as fact and which originated from an anonymous' writer's blog), without leaving a comment, a behaviour which I assessed as an attempt to abuse adminship. Kosmopolis (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There have been many precedents that demonstrate that the reversions do not have to be related to one another and User:Kosmopolis knows this. He has continually re-inserted similar tendatious material all the while writing extremely combative and all-around rude comments on the talk page, so one could argue that in spirit the diffs were related anyways.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last contribution of this user to the article dates back to September 6. Before and after that, virtually all of his edits are mass-reverts of *multiple* editors (including me), usually without providing a single comment and without engaging in a discussion, whereas he regarded my critique of the tedious and continuous insertion of a clearly POV quote by non-RS as "uncivil" and "inappropriate". Kosmopolis (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user was blocked three (3) times under this username, and once as an IP 80.135.***.** (one of the user blocks was for using the named account to avoid the IP's 3RR block) - the last block (48h) was on 09-26 - a bit over 5 days to this report, and thus within the week. I've altered (expanded) the first diff to more clearly show how these were related, though the 3RR policy makes no such stipulation, especially since these edits were reverting the same bloc of information. I stand by this report (if the blocking admin has any questions about the other points raised above, I would be glad to discuss them at the venue of their choosing, but I recognise that this isn't the place to discuss anything but 3RR). Tewfik^Talk 01:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. I have been blocked two (2) times under my username, and once as an IP. *All* reports were by the same user, namely Tewfik, and even the first one was questionable. On this occasion, a user which hadn't edited the article before and which has *never* showed up since came timely to his help to drive me into 3RR violation, at a time I did not know that such rule existed. Tewfik *immediately* reported me while I (as a total newbie) was in the process of completing my self-revert, a few minutes after I had been warned that I violated a policy. Again, I have taken great care not to revert more than three times within 24h. Also, the reporter has already undone any of my edits again, an effort which he is continuously engaged in. The massive amount of time the reporter has been investing to defame me here (and on multiple talk pages) and to instigate others against me is evidently a clear sign of harassment. This may also have taken place off-Wikipedia, since I cannot explain otherwise the timely arrival of other users (on this occasion and earlier ones) without a trace of discussion on any talk page, which obviously goes against Wikipedia's policies of transparency and openness. I would appreciate it if the reviewing admin could assess and consider the reporter's behavioural pattern, as I regard this behaviour as harassment. And I would very much appreciate it if this could be done by someone who is not contributing in the same subject area as above users and has no affiliation whatsoever to them. Thanks. Kosmopolis (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply not true. Relevant to this discussion: a quick review of the page's history will establish that there were no self-reverts. The user was blocked three times plus once as an IP (one of the user blocks was for avoiding the IP block which I stated above) - they should be familiar enough with the 3RR policy at this point. Tewfik^Talk 15:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the self-reverts: the commit that led to me violating 3RR was a commit I checked in only to retain my pending (non-disputed) changes, because there was an edit conflict and I did not know how to do it, otherwise. After I had committed, I immediately started reverting the disputed section to meet consensus. At the same time, I was warned by User:SlimVirgin that I had violated 3RR (as a consequence of her indiscriminate reverting, combined with my inexperience). One hour later, Tewfik reported me. Like I said, I was a new user at that time, and was unaware of the rule. A few hours later, I was blocked. Regarding the current issue, I left an honest invitation to compromise on his talk page at 14:29, to try and resolve our ever-recurring differences. [56] His response here on this page is dated 15:42, but I have no answer from him, yet. Over the course of today, I have poured a lot of effort into making the article better, fixing references, converting links to refs, copy-editing, etc. [57]. I made these contributions in the interest of all readers and editors of the article and in the interest of Tewfik as well, so I don't understand why Tewfik is insistently wanting to have me blocked, instead of at least considering an honest and well-meaning peace proposal. Kosmopolis (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 72 hours.:
1. Per WP:3RR, Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word (or punctuation mark). Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. "Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention.

2. This the fourth time he has violated 3RR on this article, including reverting with IPs while blocked.

3. He continues to revert the article (e.g. [58]) even while arguing here he should not be blocked for his 3RR violation. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was a very unfair action. Administrator jayjg should have recused himself from any administrative role involving any Israel related action. The lack of fairplay and ganging up that occured above is shameful and a travesty. There needs to be balance in WP and its absence some self-policing. Best Wishes. Will314159 18:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

User:24.68.248.210 aka User:Lightbringer reported by User:Blueboar (Result:)

Three revert rule violation on Freemasonry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.68.248.210‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Comments: User:24.68.248.210‎ is strongly suspected of being a sock puppet for long term abuser User:Lightbringer (note IP addresses and edit pattern). He is actually very careful not to be in technical violation of 3rr (he makes the same reverts twice during any given day and then waits until 24 hours have passed and again reverts with the same edits). However this is a clear case of "gaming the system".

See his contribution history: here

2006-10-01T19:45:23 Pilotguy (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "24.68.248.210 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (banned user attempting to edit) William M. Connolley 19:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:64.131.205.160 reported by User:Mr. Darcy talk (Result:)

Previous version reverted to: 22:33, 30 September 2006

1st revert: [59]
2nd revert: [60]
3rd revert: [61]
4th revert: [62]

Other reverts presumed to be the same user (from other AOL IPs):

5th revert: [63]
6th revert: [64]
7th revert: [65]

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

User:64.131.205.160 was blocked on September 25th for spamming the 3RR page with a bogus 3RR report.

User in question is User:Mykungfu, blocked for one week for 3RR spam, 3RR violations, and generally disruptive behavior. New sockpuppetry allegation posted at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Mykungfu_(2nd).

Time report made: 01:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

2006-10-02T02:46:07 Cowman109 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "64.131.205.160 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (Blocked user evading block..) William M. Connolley 19:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pete_K reported by User:Goethean (Result: blocked elsewhere)

Previous version reverted to: 06:01, 2 October 2006

Time report made: 17:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

~~Nevermind...I just realized that his last revert was not the same. This section can be deleted or struck out --- whatever is the procedure. — goethean ॐ 17:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
Update -- now I believe that he has reverted four times. — goethean ॐ 22:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is 3RR, but: 2006-09-02T21:11:05 Longhair (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Pete K (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Violation of WP:3RR at Waldorf education) William M. Connolley 20:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Antman reported by User:Rex (Result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: 06:37, 25 September 2006

User is fully aware of the 3 revert rule. He is known to edit war.

Time report made: 18:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User is currently also reported for personal attacks. Please block him so wikipedians who want to improve wikipedia can have a constructive conversation without persons claiming to be American German nationalist and who place hate userboxes on their talk pages. Rex 18:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24h William M. Connolley 19:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:GWP reported by User:Siobhan Hansa (Result:)

Previous version reverted to: 08:25 October 1, 2006

Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.21:47 October 1, 2006

Time report made: 19:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:GWP is being repeatedly reverted by what looks like one other editor operating from IPs in the 80.141.8x.xxx. Hopefully you can do something about that too (short semi-protect?). Thanks. --Siobhan Hansa 19:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, semi'd William M. Connolley 21:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Waya 5 reported by User:Englishrose (Result:)

Three revert rule violation on Template:Gündüz Kılıç. Waya 5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Previous version reverted to: 21:47, 1 October 2006

1st revert: [66]
2nd revert: [67]
3rd revert: [68]
4th revert: [69]
5th revert: [70]

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

Time report made: 21:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Typical content dispute from user who has already broken 3RR this will and has broken it on and other article since, who is also closing to breaking more 3RRs. Englishrose 21:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waya 5 (again) reported by User:Englishrose (Result: 24h)

Three revert rule violation on Template:Football hooliganism. Waya 5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Previous version reverted to: 10:32, 2 October 2006

1st revert: [71]
2nd revert: [72]
3rd revert: [73]
4th revert: [74]

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

Time report made: 21:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: It started when I readded a paragraph that had been deleted a month ago without me or any of the other editors noticing. To be fair, under normal cases I’d have tried to sort it out on the talk page. However, after he made this personal attack towards me straight away [75], I felt like I would have been wasting my time trying to do, especially considering he has been in already broken the 3RR once today and been unwilling to sort matters out on the talk page. It was agreed on the Galatasaray talk page that some of the content should be moved here instead of the main article, which was unamiously agreed to. Englishrose 21:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24h William M. Connolley 21:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===User:DXRAW reported by User:HamishMacBeth (Result:24hr)===

User:69.230.87.101 reported by User:Ckessler (Result:Article sprotected)

Three revert rule violation on Coyote Shivers. 69.230.87.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coyote_Shivers&oldid=79141188

Time report made: 22:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User insists on removing information, calling it gossip, and stating that the writer is a friend of one of the subjects. Information comes for Fox News, perfectly acceptable by the standards of WP:RS. User has been warned about 3RR on this article once before.

Article sprotected. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Uknewthat reported by User:Dual Freq (Result:24 hours)

Previous version reverted to: 02:53, October 1, 2006

Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed on the users talk page for both GPS and H-K articles.

Time report made: 01:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Way past 3RR on Hafele-Keating experiment and Global positioning system. Blocked for 3RR in the past. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Uknewthat for more reverts on H-K article. Possibly an SPA for POV pushing on GPS and Hafele-Keating experiment. --Dual Freq 01:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Khosrow II reported by User:baristarim (Result:24 hours)

Previous version reverted to: 2 October 2006

1st revert: [76]
2nd revert: [77]
3rd revert: [78]
4th revert: [79]

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

Time report made: 01:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User keeps on adding an unsourced statement relating to a dispute over ethnicity, basically trying to prove that a certain ethnicity considers itself one thing more than another thing.. The usual; however, this has been going on for a while now, and what worries me is the fact that this has been made a national cause as can be seen here [80] - I don't know what the solution would be..

24 hour block. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:BhaiSaab reported by User:Bakaman _Bakatalk (Result:)

Three revert rule violation on Bakasuprman (talk · contribs), Bilbobaggins8 (talk · contribs).

BhaiSaab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Previous version reverted to: 9-30 3:15:30

1st revert: [81]
2nd revert: [82]
3rd revert: [83]
4th revert: [84]

1st revert: [85]
2nd revert: [86]
3rd revert: [87]
4th revert: [88]

Time report made: 02:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has been blocked for 3rr. Checkuser was over two months ago and merely showed one account used before I became active.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bakasuprman's first edits were during early July. [89]. Both sockpuppets made their edits concurrently during late July. His removal of the template is vandalism. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:3RR states "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period." BhaiSaab ^talk 02:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template was unwarranted. The account was throwaway made before I stsrted contributing. Anyway gpod job violating 3RR.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The account Bilbobaggins8 last edited 10:58, July 27, 2006. That's a long time ago. May I just inquire as to the reason you are pushing the template? I hope it is something out of good faith. Thanks! zephyr2k 02:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because other admins have stated that the sockpuppeteer template may not be removed. Are they wrong, or is there some sort of expiration date? I don't know of any policy regarding this, other than what User:Blnguyen, an admin, stated. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not good faith, its bad faith and malignment. 17 edits means absolutely nothing.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You used one of the accounts to make this edit and you're accusing me of malignment. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again 17 edits two months ago. Seems some people cant get over old grudges and contribute to wiki.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:47,

shrugs* I am no expert on wikipedia policy. I've only been around only for a few months. But in my opinion, to forever force someobody to carry the sockpuppet template for a mistake made on the first month on WP is quite harsh. You yourself admit to not knowing of whether there is a policy regarding the permanency of the sockpuppeteer template. How much more would someone editing on the first month know about WP policy on the use of sockpuppets? zephyr2k 02:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should take that up with Blnguyen. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really any hard rule for this, so it seems. Looks like Baka used the account to insult a few users two months ago, and at the time he wasn't gaming the system by using two accounts to give the illusion of two users, to vote-stack/team revert/evade block, etc, etc. In this case, the sockpuppet isn't "cheating" the system as he did not gain an unfair advantage through this second account. He was however blocked as he was responsible for the personal abuse of BilboBaggins. Since then there has been calm editing and he has written a group of new articles, some of which were good quality and made. So I think that the tag should be removed as it doesn't really apply to "cheating the system" and also as it seems long past. This is not the same situation, as say User:Anwar saadat who evaded blocks and revert-warred using socks, or Subhash_bose, who evaded the block with Pusyamitra Sunga. Baka did not gain an unfair advantage using a sock, he made a personal attack for which his main account was held accountable. He has not been involved in anything since. I would suggest not having the template there. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Blnguyen! I hope this clears things up a bit for all of us. I really do hope that the two of you will find a way to peacefully settle your differences. Happy editing! zephyr2k 04:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blnguyen's comment is just astonishing. If his description of how Baka used the Bilbo account is true, then Baka never used sockpuppets. Users are allowed to have multiple accounts. If Baka continued to edit under the Baka account while the Bilbo account was blocked for making personal attacks, then he was block evading, not using sockpuppets. Do not add the sockpuppeteer template again. DRK 04:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baka did not edit (aside from his userspace) whilst Bilbo was blocked. So they weren't block evading. There was no advantage gained by the multiple accounts. One of the accounts broke NPA and both were held to account. Inquiries to my talk page welcome, as this is not really about 3RR. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baka did try to edit and got autoblocked.Does blnguyen mean to say one is permitted to make abusive sock to abuse like this and call it throwaway account .So ,Blnguyen gives baka permission to make as many such throaway account as he wish and just maintain a clean main account.Shameful. Ikon |no-blast 08:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

by allowing aggressive/abusive editors to keep a fleet of "alternate accounts" is shooting ourselves in the foot. Let Bakaman use a single account (permablock all others) and pledge to refrain from harassing people. We have better things to do than babysit people playing puerile games with the system, after all. dab (ᛏ) 08:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, you do not have the authority to make that kind of decision. If you want to restrict him to one account then you can take this to arbcom. Since apparently he never used sockpuppets, any user who re-adds the sockpuppeteer template should warned for violating WP:POINT. Your implication that Bakaman is an aggressive/abusive editor is barely avoiding a personal attack. DRK 19:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, I threw away "Bilbobagins8" two months ago, (though I did learn a lesson from the throwaway account). I dont have any respect for dab and will not honor his other request because dab's comments are rude and incivil. Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jlambert reported by User:Aaron Brenneman (Result: User warned)

Previous version reverted to: 01:20, 18 September 2006

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

Time report made: 04:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Meant to hit "preview" so this isn't finished. - brenneman ^{L} 04:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, that's finished. I will note two further item: The editor has not received a warning, and that the edit summaries given are not terribly accurate. - brenneman ^{L} 05:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A look at this user's contribs is illuminating. I've left a note on this user's talk page, pointing him in the general direction of WP:OWN, and advising him to attempt to reach some sort of compromise with his fellow editors. He's been blocked for 3RR before on the same article, but the soft answer turneth away wrath and all that. If he persists, I'll gladly give him a brief vacation. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 05:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not noticed that Extreme Unction already have given User:Jlambert a warning for the 3RR violation and gave him a 24h block since he has already been blocked on the same article and was unblocked on the promise to avoid revert warring. I am not familiar with the history of the article so feel free to unblock the guy if you feel I was to harsh. abakharev 05:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeed unblocked him, and I thank you for your prompt response. ΞU

User:82.168.59.236 reported by User:Ugur Basak (Result:Long term block)

Previous version reverted to: 00:27, October 2, 2006

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

diff: Not a new user but i again send a warning message.

Time report made: 07:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

This user has already blocked several times for 3RR rule. He is also using socks and they've blocked several times to. Other accounts and ips. User:Burak18, User:82.92.94.108, User:194.171.121.31, User:Johnny200. If his (their) contributions checked, it can be easily seen that sole purpose is just reverting and edit-warring. He also removes, notes, interwikis etc, this shows that he has no intention for improvement of articles. Cheers --Ugur Basak 07:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definate Break of 3RR. Will initially block for 8 hours, whilst investigating sock puppet claim. --Robdurbar 08:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robdurbar, previously i filled a checkuser request but it's turned back. His last block for sock by Konstable is here. Cheers --Ugur Basak 08:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the user has a history of many week/month long blocks for personal attacks and general disruption, I've blocked the IP (which doesn't appear to be shared) for 6 months. --Robdurbar 08:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:194.46.174.81 reported by User:Demiurge (Result:)

Previous version reverted to: 11:11, 1 October 2006

Warned about 3RR twice: [90] [91]
- And still reverting today [92], can we get a block please? Demiurge 10:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tonycdp reported by User:PaxEquilibrium (Result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: 12:21, 30 September 2006

He has been reported at User_talk:Tonycdp#3RR by User:Reinoutr.

Time report made: 11:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Incivil user (as per the ArbCom) banned by the ArbCom from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo from Kosovo-related subjects. Known for editing under IPs pretending to be someone else. --PaxEquilibrium 11:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see anything about a ban in the arbcomm stuff. OTOH its 3RR William M. Connolley 15:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo/Proposed_decision#Topical_Probation_for_parties. I quote: For the duration of this case, any of the named parties may be banned by an uninvolved administrator from Kosovo or related pages for disruptive edits. Now see User_talk:Tonycdp#WP:POINT; quote User:Consumed_Crustacean: As an above section states (and I missed, apparently), you may be placed on a ban from Kosovo and related articles while the arbitration case is underway. Consider that ban now active, thanks to these edits of yours. It will be lifted once the case is over, and whatever decision they make will take its place. If you create or edit any articles related to Kosovo, you will be blocked (by myself or another administrator) from editing the Wikipedia for some period of time. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC) What do you mean by "OTOH"? --PaxEquilibrium 18:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pflanzgarten User:Burneville User:Zandvoort reported by User:Ian Dalziel (Result:)

1st revert: [93]
2nd revert: [94]
3rd revert: [95]
4th revert: [96]

Time report made: 13:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Burneville and User:Zandvoort are established sockpuppets of User:Pflanzgarten. All three have previously been banned for this identical months-old revert. -- Ian Dalziel 13:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the evidence for them being socks William M. Connolley 15:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[97] -- Ian Dalziel 15:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So... Samir has blocked Burneville indef; Z is blocked 24h; if these are all socks then please can you put notices on the userpages. I guess Pf ought to be blocked too William M. Connolley 17:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Derouch reported by User:R. S. Shaw (Result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: 03:53, 2 October 2006

Note: capitalization and/or other minor details may vary.

1st revert: [98]
2nd revert: [99]
3rd revert: [100]
4th revert: [101]

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

Time report made: 19:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has been adding same external link repeatedly (with slight variations in capitalization) usually less than 3 times/day. Reverted 4 times on 21/22 September, when above 3RR warning was given. Several editors removing the link. Has ignored discussion of this external link on article talk page. -R. S. Shaw 19:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours, warned to stop adding the link. --Michael Snow 01:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Halbared reported by User:DXRAW (Result: declined)

Three revert rule violation on Template:List of famous tall men. Halbared (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

1st revert: [102]
2nd revert: [103]
3rd revert: [104]
4th revert: [http://]

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

Time report made: 22:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has been banned 2x before for 3RR

Only three reverts, no violation. That this is the focus of a revert war is still not good, of course, and both parties need to work on finding a solution rather than continuing. --Michael Snow 01:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lochdale reported by User:Onefortyone (Result: )

Previous versions which were frequently removed: for instance 19:14, 2 October 2006, 00:18, 3 October 2006, 03:17, 3 October 2006, 15:38, 3 October 2006

1st revert: [105]
2nd revert: [106]
3rd revert: [107]
4th revert: [108]

1st revert: [109]
2nd revert: [110]
3rd revert: [111]
4th revert: [112]

Time report made: 23:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Warned about 3RR: [113]

Comments: User:Lochdale frequently removes contributions by User:Onefortyone from the Elvis Presley article, attacks this user and claims false things. Lochdale's user identity primarily seems to have been created in order to harass user Onefortyone. See Lochdale's contribution history from the beginning: [114], [115].

I'm finding this report too confusing, because some of the diffs show him apparently reverting himself. Can you choose one set of four reverts, plus a diff showing the first edit was a revert, and give the dates and times, please? Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the report must be rather confusing, as this user is removing paragraph by paragraph. So it looks as if he is reverting himself. Here is a list of several paragraphs from the Elvis Presley article which were removed again and again. See [116], [117], [118], [119] [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126]. I hope this may help. Onefortyone 10:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I continue to explain my reverts in the Talk Page of the artcle. This is an article that User:Onefortyone has been banned from a number of times. He has made multiple efforts to get me baned as well (not only from the article but from wiki). I am thinking that perhaps this needs to go to arbitration as it is a recurring issue. Lochdale 22:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zaparojdik reported by User:ManiF (Result: 48 hours)

Previous version reverted to: 18:56

1st revert: [127]
2nd revert: [128]
3rd revert: [129]
4th revert: [130]

Time report made: 00:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Zaparojdik just returned from a 24hr block for 3RR, and he immediately re-engages in disruptive edit-waring and reverts the same article 4 times in 4 hours against the consensus of the other editors at that article and despite numerous 3RR warnings. --ManiF 00:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because he's just back from a block for 3RR on the same page, 48 hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Englishrose reported by User:Waya 5 (Result:)

Previous version reverted to: 19:22, 2 October 2006

1st revert: [131]
2nd revert: [132]
3rd revert: [133]
4th revert: [134]

Time report made: 01:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:Englishrose insists on adding that paragraph to the article despite even her sources admitting that no members of the Galatasaray football club or its supporters were involved in the incident (meaning there was no football hooliganism on the part of any Turkish supporters eliminating the need for a "Turkey" section. However, there were definitely Leeds United supporters there. Also, a great deal of misinformation is presented, and crucial information left out (too long to mention here) as demonstrated in my arguments here: [135] and here: [136] and here: [137].

We need a diff showing that the first edit was a revert. The diff you gave was dated after the first edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment stale report see here for backgound. (Two reports) Agathoclea 10:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

commentFirst revert looks like a revert when it’s not, it was more of a readding old information that got deleted many months ago. Thus, for the first “revert” I was not reverting anything or reverting to any previous page, thus it’s not a revert and yes it is stale revenge. Englishrose 10:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:82.168.59.236 reported by User:User:Waya 5 (Result:)

Previous version reverted to: 07:16, 1 October 2006 and 21:26, 1 October 2006 and 14:14, 30 September 2006 and 07:17, 1 October 2006

1st revert: [138]
2nd revert: [139]
3rd revert: [140]
4th revert: [141]

1st revert: [142]
2nd revert: [143]
3rd revert: [144]
4th revert: [145]

1st revert: [146]
2nd revert: [147]
3rd revert: [148]
4th revert: [149]

1st revert: [150]
2nd revert: [151]
3rd revert: [152]
4th revert: [153]

This user has been blocked before for this as seen here [154].

Time report made: 01:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This anonymous user insists on reverting pages to outdated states and does not mention on the edit talk or talk page why he does so.

Waya, can you choose one article and give the times and dates of the reverts, and a diff showing that the first revert was a revert and not an edit? There's too much to look through otherwise. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yakuman reported by User:Michael Snow (Result: 24 hours)

Previous version reverted to: 20:01, 2 October 2006

1st revert: 05:56, 3 October 2006
2nd revert: 08:21, 3 October 2006
3rd revert: 16:54, 3 October 2006
4th revert: 20:27, 3 October 2006 (with slight change in section heading)
5th revert: 00:48, 4 October 2006

Warning given

Time report made: 01:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Warning was given, but edit summary for second revert shows counting, suggesting awareness of the policy beforehand anyway. Editor has bizarre notion that he's immunized from the rule because the article is a biography of a living person. But he's the one adding the information, if anybody's protected it's the people reverting him. --Michael Snow 01:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He clearly knew about the rule, so 24 hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I violated no rules and this charge is absolutely unfounded. "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals." While I respect your right to comment about Wikipedia content, the statements here go beyond what could be considered legitimate criticism. The above constitutes a defamatory statement against me that injures my reputation. Yakuman 04:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Justanother reported by User:Antaeus Feldspar (Result: 24 hours)

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

1st revert: [155]
2nd revert: [156]
3rd revert: [157] (removing only the portions he considers "gossip")
4th revert: [158] (removing only the portions he considers "gossip")

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

Time report made: 02:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Justanother is removing information that he knows was verifiably reported by the Washington Post. He is also aware of WP:3RR. However, he claims to believe that WP:BLP covers his actions; he considers the material that the Post reported on to be just "gossip" and therefore automatically poorly sourced no matter who reports on it. He has already had explained to him that Wikipedia works on a principle of "verifiability, not truth" but claims to believe that "bios of living people have special rules (e.g. 3RR does not apply if I decide to pull this)." Note: Even in the edits where his edit summaries claimed he was only removing the parts that were "gossip" -- he also removed the only reference the section had. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24 hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:67.72.98.84 reported by Coredesat (Result: week)

Previous version reverted to: 02:45, 4 October 2006

1st revert: [159]
2nd revert: [160]
3rd revert: [161]
4th revert: [162]
5th revert: [163]
6th revert: [164]
7th revert: [165]
8th revert: [166]
9th revert: [167]
10th revert: [168]
11th revert: [169]
12th revert: [170]

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

[171]

Time report made: 03:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Anon user is persistently trying to insert irrelevant details into Mark Foley scandal, such as Mark Foley's stance on abortion. There have been 12 reverts of this user, and he is also removing other, more relevant, details in response to people removing "pro-choice" from the lead. There is extensive discussion on the user's talk page. --Core des at (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note user is claiming that part of the info can be removed per WP:BLP even though it has 3 sources (and has been repeatedly told this). JoshuaZ 04:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

13th reversion- [172]. JoshuaZ 04:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14th reversion- [173] JoshuaZ 04:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 week. Appears determined to revert. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[174][175]. Two more reverts from a different IP - started as soon as the block went into affect. JoshuaZ 04:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This relates to the Mark Foley reverter above, so I'm moving it. Septentrionalis 18:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Skyemoor reported by: Septentrionalis (result: 8h)

Previous version reverted to: 19:13 3 October
1st revert: 20:01
2nd revert: 20:52
3rd revert: 00:23 4 October
4th revert: 02:14

Reported at: 04:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment First reversion exact; second reversion missed a word; fourth reversion changed it back. For whatever it may be worth, the third reversion avoided collateral damage to the rest of the article, but is exact on the point at issue, the first paragraph of the intro. Note that these are reverts of three different editors, all of whom edited the section. Septentrionalis 04:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused? Which "block"? Nonetheless, this seems to be 4R, so 8h William M. Connolley 18:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:ArielS reported by User:Walloon (Result: 14h)

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: 09:59, 3 October 2006
2nd revert: 12:21, 3 October 2006
3rd revert: 17:29, 3 October 2006
4th revert: 23:29, 3 October 2006

Time report made: 05:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The latest of a series of reversions going back several weeks. 3RR warning given by User:Rossrs. — Walloon 06:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24h William M. Connolley 09:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nothing But The Truth reported by User:Leuko (Result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: [176]
1st revert: [177]
2nd revert: [178]
3rd revert: [179]
4th revert: [180]
5th revert: [181]

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. --> [182] and [183]

Time report made: 20:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:Nothing But The Truth keeps trying to insert an external link to a non-notable blog (which I can only assume is his), which should be avoided under WP:EL, since it is not a reliable source. Multiple editors have attempted to remove the link in question. User:Nothing But The Truth has been made aware of 3RR, and the 5th revert above is after such warning, placing link back in.

24h William M. Connolley 10:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:129.2.37.134 reported by User:Ronz (Result: 24h)

Warning: -->[184]

Time report made: 21:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User introduced a link that was agreed to be inappropriate per Talk. User is ignoring discussion on user's and article talk page as to why the link (and the section the link is in) is inappropriate. User is repeatedly restoring the removed section that includes the link he introduced.

24h

User:recury_No edit Summary and 4 reverts reported by User:Buforiadmin (Result:)

Three revert rule violation on Template:Bufori. recury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: [185]
2nd revert: [186]
3rd revert: [187]
4th revert: [188]
5th revert: [189]
6th revert: [190]
7th revert: [191]
8th revert: [192]
9th revert: [193]
10th revert: [194]

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. -->

Time report made: 03:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

2006-10-05T03:54:49 Luna Santin (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Buforiadmin (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR at Bufori, was warned) William M. Connolley 10:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pmanderson_4 reverts reported by User:Skyemoor (Result:)

VIOLATION violation on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: [195]
2nd revert: [196]
3rd revert: [197]
4th revert: [198]

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. -->

Time report made: 12:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Interestingly enough, PManderson submitted my name for 3RR (I'm a newby at this, so was caught by surprise), and assumed I wouldn't figure out what happened.

User:Mikedk9109 reported by User:BertieBasset (Result:)

Previous version reverted to: 16:12, 1 October 2006
1st revert: [199]
2nd revert: [200]
3rd revert: [201]
4th revert: [202]

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

Time report made: 13:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Warned user on his talk page, but he seems argumentative to a ridiculous point. BertieBasset 13:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No "prev version" so unclear if 1st is a revert William M. Connolley 20:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:PStrait reported by User:Muchness (Result:)

Previous version reverted to: [203]
1st revert: [204]
2nd revert: [205]
3rd revert: [206]
4th revert: [207]
5th revert: [208]

Warning for new user

Time report made: 15:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user indicated prior knowledge of 3RR before his fourth revert (see this diff and this edit summary). The editor in question is also possibly engaging in meatpuppetry and WP:POINT: he admits that the motivation for his actions was a "litmus test" to see if he could get editors to object by adding a "totally disgusting" edit. The only objection then, as now, is that the edit lacks adequate sourcing. --Muchness 15:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:166.102.231.101 reported by User:Mmx1 (Result: 1 month)

3RR violation on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. 166.102.231.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Previous version reverted to: 19:37, 4 October 2006
1st revert: 07:19, 5 October 2006
2nd revert: 09:05, 5 October 2006
3rd revert: 10:42, 5 October 2006
4th revert: 11:13, 5 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. -->

Time report made: 16:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: It is believed that this IP is a sock of User:Jacknicholson, on which a case has been filedWikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Jacknicholson; 10 such IP's have been used in the last few days to perform this revert; Jacknicholson was the only registered user to also do so. A checkuser on four of the IP's came back "likely". Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Jacknicholson--Mmx1 16:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006-10-05T18:58:13 Kilo-Lima (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "166.102.231.101 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 month (IP being used to avoid 3RR detection; also large scale vandalism) William M. Connolley 20:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Blockader reported by User:-- Vision Thing -- (Result: 3h)

Previous version reverted to: 20:29, 4 October 2006
1st revert: 21:28, 4 October 2006
2nd revert: 21:36, 4 October 2006
3rd revert: 17:40, 5 October 2006
4th revert: 17:46, 5 October 2006

Time report made: 18:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

It is 4R but arguably somewhat subtly... 3h first offence William M. Connolley 19:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nikpapag reported by User:Argyriou (Result: 24h)

3RR violation on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Nikpapag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 09:46, 5 October 2006
07:47, 5 October 2006
08:31, 5 October 2006
09:46, 5 October 2006
A diff of 3RR warning before this report was filed here. (10:19, 5 October 2006)
10:42, 5 October 2006

(difftimes are UTC -7)

Time report made: 19:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 19:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Uzumaki & User:BhaiSaab reported by User:tjstrf (Result:1 Indefblocked user sockpuppet, and 1 briefly 25RR block overturned by blocking admin.)

VIOLATION violation on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Uzumaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & BhaiSaab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Uzumaki:

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 11:07, October 5, 2006 by Uzumaki or a blank page.

1st revert: [209]
2nd revert: [210]
3rd revert: [211]
4th revert: [212]

etc.

BhaiSaab:

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 07:32, October 5, 2006 by JBKramer

1st revert: [213]
2nd revert: [214]
3rd revert: [215]
4th revert: [216]

etc.

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. Uzumaki, BhaiSaab -->

Time report made: 21:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Due to the complicating factors of sockpuppetry accusations, general incivility, and the fact that it was in userspace, I'm not sure whether to simply file a 3RR report or if there is some other location to take this. --tjstrf 21:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well this dude is obviously a sockpuppet. He edits the same articles in the same fashion, and registered shortly after a host of other sockpuppets from the same sockpuppeteer were banned. See my report on the vandalism page. [217]. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well this dude is obviously a jackbooted moron. I only have one interest, that's making Wikipedia better. I told him in edit summary that I would not edit that page again. He's a vindictive ass whose interest is harassing me for touching his precious page? HE CAN FUCKING HAVE IT. He can have complete control over it. I don't care. I just want him to LEAVE ME ALONE AND STOP LYING ABOUT ME AND HARASSING ME. Uzumaki 21:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. BhaiSaab and his two cronies are deliberately harassing me for making a good faith edit somewhere, and are continuing to harass me even after I told them I would not edit their precious page anymore, they can own it if they want to. BhaiSaab is even going as far as using a bot to vandalize my user pages. I do not see why this clear harassment is tolerated. Uzumaki 21:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no bot. I don't care if you won't edit the disputed page anymore - you're a sockpuppet and I'd like to see you get banned. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It even admits it's a bot named popups, you LIAR. Uzumaki 21:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't play "noob" - you're well aware of popups is. You purported to know a lot about Wikipedia with your first edit but youe attitude changed quickly after the sockpuppet accusations came. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing about Wikipedia from a friend, and knowing where things are, are two different things, you bot-using liar. Uzumaki 21:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the sockpuppets seems to have those "friends" these days. They just loving talking about Wikipedia all day long. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are just completely fucking batshit cocksucking insane. Uzumaki 21:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly advise due care be given to this matter. While it is easy to block on sight given the huge number of reverts involved, Uzumaki has been clearly identified as being Freestylefrappe. A breather can't hurt, but giving in to Freestylefrappe will only embolden him. That's my 2 cents, in any case. Jean-Philippe 21:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Philippe is a crony of BhaiSaab and a damned moron, too. I have no relation to Freestylefrappe, whoever or whatever it is. Uzumaki 21:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incident concluded User:Uzumaki was blocked indefinitely for being a sock of User:Blainetologist. Bhaisaab was blocked for his ~25RR violation, but unblocked 21 minutes later after the checkuser case confirming Uzumaki as a banned sock was completed. So this case can be closed out/archived. Not sure on the procedures here. --tjstrf 03:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jango Davis reported by User:csloat (Result:24h)

VIOLATION violation on Scott_Ritter. Jango_Davis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Previous version reverted to: 12:12
1st revert: 12:12, 5 October 2006
2nd revert: 12:31, 5 October 2006
3rd revert: 12:37, 5 October 2006
4th revert: 19:06, 5 October 2006

Warning when he was doing this earlier

Time report made: 02:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

The user keeps placing the disputed content - a link to a mugshot - on the web page. While he occasionally responds to comments in talk and on his user page about it, his argument has been refuted and he simply keeps repeating it. On his talk page, he simply brushes off the claim, demanding intervention from an admin if he is to pay attention to the issue at all. It has become very frustrating.--csloat 02:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24h William M. Connolley 08:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Epf reported by User:71.198.59.81 06:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC) (Result:)

Previous version reverted to: 05:37, 20 September 2006 by Epf

Block log indicates 3RR priors. Four reverts in less than 5 hours by a dogged edit warrior with abrasive and immature editing style. Epf, does not like to engage on talk pages or work towards consensus wording.

Time report made: 06:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Make up your mind guv - Austrians or Welsh? And vn rev to doesn't seem to fit William M. Connolley 08:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, this is a really rude comment! I'm not involved in the Welsh people article at all. User:Epf likes to edit war and you seem to like to be rude people. Wikipedia must be a truly wonderful place. 71.198.59.81 16:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User PeteK reported by User:Thebee (Result: Warning)

VIOLATION violation on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Pete K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Previous version reverted to: [218]
1st revert: 17:14, 5 October 2006
2nd revert: 19:51, 5 October 2006
3rd revert: 01:17, 6 October 2006 (excluding paragraph that PeteK has earlier deleted two times, when adding excessive text part deleted by someone else)
4th revert: 01:51, 6 October 2006) (a second time excluding paragraph that PeteK has earlier deleted two times, when adding excessive text part deleted by someone else)

Time report made: 08:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User PeteK has been blocked once before for 3rr violation. This time, he has deleted completely verifiable description of published original sources two times, and then omitted it two times when reinserting large text part of section, deleted by someone else as excessive and belonging to a sub article. With all four reverts, he has has reverted the section to the basic form it had before my addition at the end of an overview description of RS' views on the causes for the near extinction of the American Indians.

I'm going to be leniant on this one and warn the user only. Although he has been banned once before, so this might seem a strange route to go down, I do think that Pete has engaged well on the talk page and is certainly editing in good faith. HOWEVER, I (and I hope other admins) would conisder any future violations of the rule as being very serious.

User:Thebee; please note the format of the other reports and try to stick to those in future; it makes everything much easier. --Robdurbar 16:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've never reported a 3rr violation before, and it took some time to figure out how to write it using the template. Does this mean that it is OK for me to add the by P.K. deleted paragraph at the end of the section, without it being considered a violation of the 3rr rule? Again, thanks.

Is Pete a 'a decent good faith user'? Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thebee/WikiViolationsByPK --Thebee 17:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Grazon reported by User:Derex 09:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC) (Result:)

VIOLATION violation on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Grazon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Was advised of 3RR. Technically, his last 2 are WP:POINT, but clearly fall within the intent of 3RR.

Last 24 hours:

1st:[219]
2nd:[220]
3rd:[221]
4th:[222]
5th:[223]

Previous 24 hours:

[224]
[225]
[226] (initial insertion)

Comments

Has been reverted by User:Mattarata, User:Ds13, User:Rosensteel, User:Derex, and User:Omicronpersei8. Their is a link to Mark Foley scandal at that place. Further commentary on his homosexuality is tangential there, as determined by 5 other editors, with no editors supporting his edit. Grazon persists, and has not made a case on Talk.

User:194.9.5.12 reported by User:Rex (Result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: 08:56, 5 October 2006
1st revert: 16:31, 5 October 2006
2nd revert: 09:17, 6 October 2006
3rd revert: 11:09, 6 October 2006
4th revert: 15:33, 6 October 2006

3RR warning before this report was filed here: (...) mind the 3RR if you revert again I will report you (...)

Time report made: 14:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User continuously inserted Frisians into the article, after he was thoroughly proven wrong, now he insists on "East Frisians" being inserted. He edits wars and has been warned before. Rex 14:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

If possible could an Admin make the article in question protected against anonymous users for a while? Rex 14:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24h William M. Connolley 14:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:62.101.126.216 reported by User:NeonDaylight (Result: sprot)

3 revert rule violation on Carlos I of Portugal. 62.101.126.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

1st revert: [227]
2nd revert: [228]
3rd revert: [229]
4th revert: [230]

Time report made: 17:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: There seems to have been an edit war going on here for quite a while. I haven't reported the other user in this case as they're under a shared IP.

I sprotected the page William M. Connolley 19:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:PPGMD reported by User:DJ Clayworth (Result: 24h)

Three revert rule violation on Bowling for Columbine. PPGMD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: 1650 Oct 5th
2nd revert: 1126 Oct 6th
3rd revert: 1332 Oct 6th
4th revert: 1439 oct 6th

Warning supplied here.

Time report made: 19:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 08:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC) (but blocked earlier)[reply]

User:62.101.126.216 reported by User: 195.93.21.136 20:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

3 revert rule violation on Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza. 62.101.126.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

1st revert: [231]
2nd revert: [232]
3rd revert: [233]
4th revert: [234]

Time report made: 20:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Second break of the rule today

24h William M. Connolley 08:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:J Di reported by User:SchmuckyTheCat (Result:)

Previous version reverted to: [235]

1st revert: [236]
2nd revert: [237]
3rd revert: [238]
4th revert: [239]

On the image:

1 [240]
2 [241]
3 [242]
4 [243]

Time report made: 23:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Discussion: [244]

Prev version is same as 1st rv William M. Connolley 08:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may comment on this, I feel my reverts are justified as each one has been done to either to remove fair use images from a talk page or to re-add an {{orfud}} tag that is being removed by SchmuckyTheCat (talk). SchmuckyTheCat believes these images can be used in talk pages because of what this webpage says. I've told him that Wikipedia's fair use policy should not be ignored because of Microsoft's rules, and did ask him to stop removing the {{orfud}} tag from the image's page ([245]). jd || talk || 10:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: 01:41, 5 October 2006
1st revert: [246]
2nd revert: [247]
3rd revert: [248]
4th revert: [249]

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. -->

Time report made: 00:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User refuses to take on board anybody else's opinion that may render his wrong and also has a another 3RR complaint above. HamishMacBeth 00:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24h William M. Connolley 08:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hkelkar reported by User:BhaiSaab ^talk (Result: no block)

Time report made: 05:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The third revert was a partial revert while the others were full reverts. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first is a revert cos it says so. The others appear to be unrealted edits. If they are reverts, you'll need to demonstrate that William M. Connolley 08:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The second edit was a revert of this edit, made at 22:53, 6 October 2006. The third edit was a partial revert of this edit, made at 00:38, 7 October 2006. The fourth edit was a revert of this edit, made at 00:58, 7 October 2006. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.The others are unrelated edits in different sections (and extremely well-sourced ones). Non of BhaiSaab's edits were sourced and, besides, by that reasoning, BhaiSaab has also violated 3RR per these diffs which can be construed by his own reasoning as "partial reverts":

All of these "edits" are (largely unsourced) attempts to bring in the same bias into the article, thus, by BhaiSaab's own line of reasoning, qualify as "partial reverts". It is my opinion that BhaiSaab tried to get me blocked by hoping that merely "posting a complaint" will lead an admin to make a summary judgement against me. I am glad that admin User:William M. Connolley has looked into this matter in greater detail. re-affirming my belief that the Gaussian white-noise created by users such as BhaiSaab can be recognized as such.Hkelkar 10:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How are they reverts? Reverts are undoing another editors work; those edits do not undo anyones work. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 is a bit too weak I'm afraid, for my tastes, so no block. OTOH if you both keep edit warring you'll probably both get blocked just to give us some peace William M. Connolley 19:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chadbryant reported by User:Lil crazy thing (Result: 48h)

Randy Orton page

Previous version reverted to: 16:26, 6 October 2006
1st revert: 01:19, 7 October 2006
2nd revert: 01:58, 7 October 2006
3rd revert: 06:39, 7 October 2006
4th revert: 07:01, 7 October 2006

John Cena page

Previous version reverted to: 19:05, 6 October 2006
1st revert: 01:22, 7 October 2006
2nd revert: 01:57, 7 October 2006
3rd revert: 06:35, 7 October 2006
4th revert: 07:00, 7 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. -->

Time report made: 07:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User it's reverting pages back to what he wants them to be. He is always making up his own rules and expecting everyone to go by them, he edits many pages and acts like he owns them and that other peoples edits aren't allowed, he regulary breaks the 3RR because of the above statement, many people disagree with his edits but he will carry them on know matter how many tims he has toe dit a page. He has been very uncoprative. The user has many problems with alot of users because he does not accept anyone removing anything he has done so he will continously revert the page back.

WP:FUC and WP:OWN are not "made up". This user has been reminded numerous times that fair-use images are to be used sparingly, and that she is not the owner of Randy Orton. She refuses to be held to these standards either out of complete ignorance, or a feeling that said standards do not apply to Randy Orton's biggest fan. - Chadbryant 07:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not make personal attacks that is also braking a rule whcih you have done twice now. I am not randy ortons biggest fan, i know alot about the Orton famiyl as a whole. The use of two/three images is not excessive in anyway, the images go by a section of the article so it is allowed. I know i do not own the page but i will remove un-needed edits from the page, which is what the edits are that your making. Please do not reply on this page no more, this page is because you have broken the 3RR yet again not for anything else an admin will decide what to do not you. Lil crazy thing 07:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can and will respond to your misleading and inaccurate claims as I see fit. You are not an admin, and I respectfully request that you not attempt to act like one. - Chadbryant 09:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs not version please William M. Connolley 08:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, i've corrected them, Lil crazy thing 08:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this DXRAW 12:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a causality violation here - the prev version is *after* the reverts... William M. Connolley 19:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there you go yet again, there both exactly the same anyways, please can you do something he is still carrying on, and because you are not doing anything his gettign away with it so he has no reason to stop.Lil crazy thing 20:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The JC one looks more convincing... 48h William M. Connolley

User:Groser reported by User:Todor →Bozhinov (Result: 3h)

Previous version reverted to: 16:07, 7 October or similar
1st revert: 13:07, 7 October 2006
2nd revert: 15:06, 7 October 2006
3rd revert: 15:53, 7 October 2006 (substituting with a different link)
4th revert: 15:58, 7 October 2006 (substituting with a different link)
5th revert: 16:10, 7 October 2006 (substituting with a different link)
6th revert: 17:10, 7 October 2006
7th revert: 18:04, 7 October 2006

Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here. Warned twice in Bulgarian: 18:58, 19:04

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

Time report made: 16:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

With this redaction is removed only one link. That is subject of advertisement that the content does not correspond to the ethics and the rules of the Wikipedia. User:Groser

Comments:

User keeps deleting the link http://sz.free.bg , and is even edit warring removing that link from the talkpage [254] and his own talkpage [255]. Presumably, he doesn't want to inflate its Google ranking.--Tekleni 17:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The user really needs to be blocked ASAP, he's going on with the reverting despite the warnings and this report. Todor →Bozhinov 18:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3h first offence. Please don't warn people in Bulgarian on the english wiki cos we won't have a clue what it says William M. Connolley 19:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikipediatrix reported by User:66.93.144.171 (Result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: [256]
2nd revert: [257]
3rd revert: [258]
4th revert: [259]

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. -->

Time report made: 18:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Under a flawed understanding of the WP:OR rule, user continues to unilaterally blank two sections of the entry. From her 2nd entry on the discussion page on the topic, she indicated she intended to keep doing so, and would only stop if arbitration were brought in, which is supposed to be the last step, not the first.

24h William M. Connolley 19:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kedorlaomer reported by Szvest (Result:)

Previous version reverted to: 13:40, October 6, 2006

Time report made: 20:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: - 5 reverts in less than 24h. -- Szvest 20:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign[reply]

User:Kedorlaomer was warned on his user-page, and asked to self-revert here. --Huldra 20:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Baristarim reported by User:Khosrow II (Result: no block)

Previous version reverted to: 2:48 8 October 2006
1st revert: :13 8 October 2006
2nd revert: :57 8 October 2006
3rd revert: 3:33 8 October 2006
4th revert: 3:36 8 October 2006

Necessary only for new users: Not a new user.

Time report made: 04:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: 3 reverts, one "partial revert", and one edit all within a 24 hour period

User in question - In my last edit I actually reverted myself (the third edit mentioned), because I actually was looking at another version other the one that I had wanted to revert, therefore I ended up putting another map than was mentioned, that's why there was only a difference of three minutes and no edits by anyone else between the third and fourth edit mentioned.. I am aware of the 3RR and was aware of it while doing the edits in question, I have never had a 3RR warning before. Sorry if this has caused confusion and disruption.. Baristarim 04:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a self revert. You totally reverted back to a previous version without even bothering to come to an agreement on the talk page, when two opposing versions of the map were already on the article so that we could discuss on the talk page.Khosrow II 04:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you took it that way, in my third edit I was honestly trying to put the map that I had put on the fourth one, it was a mistake, that's why there are only three minutes and no edits by anyone else between the last two.. That's why I am saying that it was a self revert, I was trying to undo my third edit.. This is the truth, believe me - I wasnt aware of the last version.. Baristarim 05:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rv 3 and 4 are contiguous and so count as one William M. Connolley 09:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:AManSac reported by User:Banana Republic (Result:3h)

VIOLATION violation on

Previous version reverted to: 23:29, 6 October 2006
1st revert: 06:01, 8 October 2006
2nd revert: 07:23, 8 October 2006
3rd revert: 07:44, 8 October 2006
4th revert: 08:00, 8 October 2006

3h William M. Connolley 09:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:72.75.104.188 reported by User:Khoi khoi (Result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: 08:28, 8 October 2006
1st revert: 08:32, 8 October 2006
2nd revert: 08:39, 8 October 2006
3rd revert: 08:50, 8 October 2006
4th revert: 08:56, 8 October 2006

3RR warning: 08:51, 8 October 2006

Time report made: 09:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Oops, forgot to note blocking: 24h William M. Connolley

User:Mahawiki reported by User:KNM ^{Talk - Contribs} (Result: 8h)

Previous version reverted to: 01:23, 8 October, 2006
1st revert: 01:39, 8 October, 2006
2nd revert: 02:13, 8 October, 2006
3rd revert: 02:30, 8 October, 2006
4th revert: 03:35, 8 October, 2006
5th revert: 03:52, 8 October, 2006

3RR Warnings: This user was cautioned about Wikipedia:3RR policy more than once, in previous revert wars.

One
Two.

Time report made: 14:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: In the current revert war at Belgaum article, the user has been consistently reverting the changes by other Editors and adding a citation from non-English source. As per Wikipedia:Citing sources#When_you_add_content completely, "If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it."

However, the user has not provide the translation along with the original-language quote and still reverting back the questioning of other Editors. The similar reverts have happened in Belgaum border dispute article as well, and there also WP:3RR violation has happened from the same user in last 24 hours.(Diffs: One, Two, Three, Four.

8h William M. Connolley 15:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Killerman2 reported by User:Isarig (Result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: 09:08, 7 October 2006
1st revert: 15:56, 7 October 2006
2nd revert: 8:27, 8 October 2006
3rd revert: 09:01, 8 October 2006
4th revert: 14:52, 8 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. --> User has been warned about 3RR many times on his Talk page, the most recent one being this [260]

Time report made: 15:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User is engaged in a repeated pattern of adding a contorversial category to the page. In addition to the above listed 4 reverts, he has made the same revert at least 13 more times in the last 2 weeks, often making a 4th revert just 24 hours + a few minutes after a previous set of 3 reverts, in an attempt to game the system. This revert seems to be his sole contribution to the page, and he has not attempted to discuss his change on Talk.

24h. Sorry, forgot to sign earlier William M. Connolley 18:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zaparojdik reported by User:Tekleni (Result:1 week)

Previous version reverted to: version of 20:11, 7 October 2006
1st revert: 16:18, 8 October 2006
2nd revert: 16:35, 8 October 2006
3rd revert: 16:43, 8 October 2006
4th revert: 16:48, 8 October 2006

Has been blocked for violating the 3RR many times before, so he knows about it.

Time report made: 16:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

No comment.--Tekleni 16:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked for one week. He's just coming off a 48 hour block, and he's been edit warring all over the place, as well as being incivil. --InShaneee 17:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Msbjustice reported by User:Signpostmarv (Result: 3h)

Previous version reverted to: 17:59, 8 October 2006
1st revert: 21:00, 7 October 2006
2nd revert: 02:10, 8 October 2006
3rd revert: 14:27, 8 October 2006
4th revert: 16:53, 8 October 2006
5th revert: 17:59, 8 October 2006

Time report made: 17:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User doesn't seem to understand WP:V and WP:NPOV. I'm also not sure if I'm violating the 3RR rule myself.

You most certainly have broken 3RR; OTOH it isn't clear that Msbj has, since I'm not convinced #4 is a rv, and your "prev version" is not prev at all. 3h for you William M. Connolley 18:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tajik reported by User:85.102.187.247 (Result: 12h each)

Previous version reverted to: 13:05, 8 October 2006
1st revert: 13:30, 8 October 2006
2nd revert: 13:55, 8 October 2006
3rd revert: 15:51, 8 October 2006
4th revert: 18:17, 8 October 2006
5th revert: 18:30, 8 October 2006

Time report made: 19:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Is it possible for you to have a look at the article 'Timur'? User Tajik tries to falsify the older text about his ethnicity. Furthermore you can have a look at the article 'Turco-Mongol' to be able to understand why his ethnicity was written as Turco-Mongol. I suggested to talk with him but he didn't reply. Instead he preferred to revert it for five times. I don't wanna go ahead in the article since I'm new and don't know the rules in detail. But as far as I understand from this page, he violated the rules.

You have *both* broken 3RR so can both have a block William M. Connolley 19:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently investigating this case. I will contact both affected parties. — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) 22:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:J Di reported by User:SchmuckyTheCat (Result:)

Previous version reverted to: [261]

1st revert: [262]
2nd revert: [263]
3rd revert: [264]
4th revert: [265]

Time report made: SchmuckyTheCat 19:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Discussion: [266] Removal of a non-fair use image while claiming it is being removed because it is fair use counts as just plain annoying vandalism, right? This is failing to make sense to me. SchmuckyTheCat 19:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The license tag that was on the image page at the time of these edits said that the image I was removing was a fair use image. jd || talk || 00:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An image can be both permission AND fair use. As well, image tagging states that multiple tags can be applied to one image if appropriate. Add software-screenshot as a template is appropriate for a software screenshot regardless of the rights information in the template. Your level of remaining ignorant on this regardless of how many times I have stated is astounding. SchmuckyTheCat 05:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:PPGMD reported by User:Schrodinger82 (Result: no block)

Previous version reverted to: [267]
1st revert: [268]
2nd revert: [269]
3rd revert: [270]
4th revert: [271]
5th revert: [272]

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. -->

Time report made: 01:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This user was just blocked for 24 hours on two days ago for violation on the 3rr on the same page 2 days ago, and is now doing it again. Keeps putting in "Unbalanced" tag, while refusing to explain why in accordance with Wiki guidelines. Ironically, is now insisting that I am not allowed to revise his latest entry, because "Once more and you are in violations of the 3RR rule," despite the fact that he has just violated this rule himself (Thus showing that he is well aware of it.). Habitual offender.

I added the tag per my discussion in talk and then added as the user deleted it without attempting to gain concensus. One of the edits was simply getting the tag name correctly. If he deletes it once more he is in violations, as would I if I placed it again if it gets deleted without a violations of 3RR PPGMD 01:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rvs 4&5 are contguous so count as 1. Prev-vn isn't. No block. Discussion trimmed William M. Connolley 08:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:RuthieK reported by User:Mardavich (Result:)

Previous version reverted to: 14:59, 8 October 2006
1st revert: 15:27, 8 October 2006
2nd revert: 09:49, 9 October 2006
3rd revert: 10:09, 9 October 2006
4th revert: 10:17, 9 October 2006

Necessary only for new users: --> [273].

Time report made: 10:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:RuthieK keeps adding a self-created "POV fork" list to the "List of Arab scientists and scholars", which is absolutely against the consensus on the talk page. He's also previsly broken 3RR on the same article, for which he was warned but not reported.[274] --Mardavich 10:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kdbuffalo reported by User:Andrew c (Result:)

Previous version reverted to: 21:34, 20 September 2006
1st revert: 21:12, 22 September 2006
2nd revert: 14:21, 2 October 2006*
3rd revert: 15:37, 4 October 2006*
4th revert: 21:20, 4 October 2006*
5th revert: 08:12, 6 October 2006
6th revert: 12:48, 6 October 2006
7th revert: 16:37, 7 October 2006
8th revert: 01:17, 8 October 2006
9th revert: 20:26, 8 October 2006
10th revert: 22:36, 8 October 2006

Was warned about 3rr at least once before back in June, in addition to being warned about edits on Jesus a few weeks ago.

Time report made: 13:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Reverts 2, 3, and 4 belong to an anon that most likely, based on the editing time frame and edit history, is Kdbuffalo not logged in. This is the epitome of edit warring. An attempt to discuss this matter was brought to talk back in August, but it seems as if talking is not enough and Kdbuffalo will do nothing short of simply removing this content. (Kdbuffalo has a habit of this, such as removing categories from Richard Carrier and removing the same link about a dozen times over the past 5 months at Biblical inerrancy). While the vast majority of these edits do not violate the 24 hour rule, it is clear that this user does not intend to discuss these things further on talk, but instead shows up every few weeks to make the exact same deletions at a number of articles. I think this aspect of the user's editing habits is very unproductive, and what is happening recently at Bible scientific foreknowledge is simply unacceptable. (all that said, this user is knowledgeble and otherwise contributes positively at wikipedia, despite POV-warrior tendencies, removing any critical comments from user talk, and these few slow edit wars). --Andrew c 13:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-paste-edit this for a new report

===[[User:USERNAME_VIOLATION]] reported by User:~~~ (Result:)===
<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter your username manually -->

[[WP:3RR|VIOLATION]] violation on 
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|VIOLATOR_USERNAME}}: 
<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

* Previous version reverted to:  [http://VersionLink VersionTime]
<!-- Use this for simple reverts. For more complex reverts, please include information 
about which previous versions are being reverted to. -->
* 1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

* 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. 
-->

Time report made: ~~~~~ 

''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->

@@ Line 2,181: / Line 2,181: @@
 ''' Comments:''' [[User:RuthieK]] keeps adding a self-created "POV fork" list to the "List of Arab scientists and scholars", which is absolutely against the consensus on the talk page. He's also previsly broken 3RR on the same article, for which he was warned but not reported.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RuthieK&diff=79652186&oldid=79650008] --[[User:Mardavich|Mardavich]] 10:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
+===[[User:Kdbuffalo]] reported by User:[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] (Result:)===
+[[WP:3RR|VIOLATION]] violation on
+{{Article|Bible scientific foreknowledge}}. {{3RRV|Kdbuffalo}}:
+<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
+* Previous version reverted to:  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bible_scientific_foreknowledge&oldid=76904159 21:34, 20 September 2006]
+<!-- Use this for simple reverts. For more complex reverts, please include information
+about which previous versions are being reverted to. -->
+* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bible_scientific_foreknowledge&diff=77280698&oldid=76906081 21:12, 22 September 2006]
+* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bible_scientific_foreknowledge&diff=79081835&oldid=77308728 14:21, 2 October 2006]*
+* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bible_scientific_foreknowledge&diff=79505862&oldid=79118827 15:37, 4 October 2006]*
+* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bible_scientific_foreknowledge&diff=79564679&oldid=79562497 21:20, 4 October 2006]*
+* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bible_scientific_foreknowledge&diff=79831922&oldid=79623463 08:12, 6 October 2006]
+* 6th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bible_scientific_foreknowledge&diff=79871814&oldid=79837377 12:48, 6 October 2006]
+* 7th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bible_scientific_foreknowledge&diff=80085419&oldid=79872397 16:37, 7 October 2006]
+* 8th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bible_scientific_foreknowledge&diff=80158913&oldid=80099266 01:17, 8 October 2006]
+* 9th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bible_scientific_foreknowledge&diff=80319094&oldid=80161844 20:26, 8 October 2006]
+* 10th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bible_scientific_foreknowledge&diff=80340387&oldid=80336081 22:36, 8 October 2006]
+<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
+*Was warned about 3rr at least once before back in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kdbuffalo&diff=57227657&oldid=57032911 June], in addition to being warned about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kdbuffalo&diff=77384814&oldid=77328553 edits on Jesus] a few weeks ago.
+Time report made: 13:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
+''' Comments:'''
+*Reverts 2, 3, and 4 belong to an anon that most likely, based on the editing time frame and edit history, is Kdbuffalo not logged in. This is the epitome of edit warring. An attempt to discuss this matter was brought to talk back in August, but it seems as if talking is not enough and Kdbuffalo will do nothing short of simply removing this content. (Kdbuffalo has a habit of this, such as removing categories from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Carrier&action=history Richard Carrier] and removing the same link about a dozen times over the past 5 months at [[Biblical inerrancy]]). While the vast majority of these edits do not violate the 24 hour rule, it is clear that this user does not intend to discuss these things further on talk, but instead shows up every few weeks to make the exact same deletions at a number of articles. I think this aspect of the user's editing habits is very unproductive, and what is happening recently at [[Bible scientific foreknowledge]] is simply unacceptable. (all that said, this user is knowledgeble and otherwise contributes positively at wikipedia, despite POV-warrior tendencies, removing any critical comments from user talk, and these few slow edit wars). --[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] 13:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 ==Copy-paste-edit this for a new report==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Revision as of 13:21, 9 October 2006

Violations

User:Ramdrake reported by Ernham (Result:)

User:Zhang Qiang reported by User:Niohe

User:Antman reported by User:Rex (Result: prot)

User:Rex Germanus reported by User:Antman (Result:No violation)

User:Zorkfan reported by User:PinchasC (Result: 48 hours)

User:Haksve reported by User:AndersL (Result: no vio)

User:Wearegoingtowin reported by User:Atrian (Result:No violation)

User:WLU reported by User:Mystar 05:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC) (Result: 12h each)

User:Peroxisome reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: 16 hours)

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

User:Fastifex reported by User:Roleplayer (Result:)

User:Yugigx60 reported by User:Ryūlóng (Result:Protected)

User:Anonymous 57 reported by User:Jeff3000 (Result:3 hours)

User:Kosmopolis reported by User:Tewfik (Result:72 hours)

User:24.68.248.210 aka User:Lightbringer reported by User:Blueboar (Result:)

User:64.131.205.160 reported by User:Mr. Darcy talk (Result:)

User:Pete_K reported by User:Goethean (Result: blocked elsewhere)

User:Antman reported by User:Rex (Result: 24h)

User:GWP reported by User:Siobhan Hansa (Result:)

User:Waya 5 reported by User:Englishrose (Result:)

Waya 5 (again) reported by User:Englishrose (Result: 24h)

User:69.230.87.101 reported by User:Ckessler (Result:Article sprotected)

User:Uknewthat reported by User:Dual Freq (Result:24 hours)

User:Khosrow II reported by User:baristarim (Result:24 hours)

User:BhaiSaab reported by User:Bakaman Bakatalk (Result:)

User:Jlambert reported by User:Aaron Brenneman (Result: User warned)

User:82.168.59.236 reported by User:Ugur Basak (Result:Long term block)

User:194.46.174.81 reported by User:Demiurge (Result:)

User:Tonycdp reported by User:PaxEquilibrium (Result: 24h)

User:Pflanzgarten User:Burneville User:Zandvoort reported by User:Ian Dalziel (Result:)

User:Derouch reported by User:R. S. Shaw (Result: 24h)

User:Halbared reported by User:DXRAW (Result: declined)

User:Lochdale reported by User:Onefortyone (Result: )

User:Zaparojdik reported by User:ManiF (Result: 48 hours)

User:Englishrose reported by User:Waya 5 (Result:)

User:82.168.59.236 reported by User:User:Waya 5 (Result:)

User:Yakuman reported by User:Michael Snow (Result: 24 hours)

User:Justanother reported by User:Antaeus Feldspar (Result: 24 hours)

User:67.72.98.84 reported by Coredesat (Result: week)

User:Skyemoor reported by: Septentrionalis (result: 8h)

User:ArielS reported by User:Walloon (Result: 14h)

User:Nothing But The Truth reported by User:Leuko (Result: 24h)

User:129.2.37.134 reported by User:Ronz (Result: 24h)

User:recury_No edit Summary and 4 reverts reported by User:Buforiadmin (Result:)

User:Pmanderson_4 reverts reported by User:Skyemoor (Result:)

User:Mikedk9109 reported by User:BertieBasset (Result:)

User:PStrait reported by User:Muchness (Result:)

User:166.102.231.101 reported by User:Mmx1 (Result: 1 month)

User:Blockader reported by User:-- Vision Thing -- (Result: 3h)

User:Nikpapag reported by User:Argyriou (Result: 24h)

User:Uzumaki & User:BhaiSaab reported by User:tjstrf (Result:1 Indefblocked user sockpuppet, and 1 briefly 25RR block overturned by blocking admin.)

User:Jango Davis reported by User:csloat (Result:24h)

User:Epf reported by User:71.198.59.81 06:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC) (Result:)

User PeteK reported by User:Thebee (Result: Warning)

User:Grazon reported by User:Derex 09:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC) (Result:)

User:194.9.5.12 reported by User:Rex (Result: 24h)

Request

User:62.101.126.216 reported by User:NeonDaylight (Result: sprot)

User:PPGMD reported by User:DJ Clayworth (Result: 24h)

User:62.101.126.216 reported by User: 195.93.21.136 20:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

User:J Di reported by User:SchmuckyTheCat (Result:)

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

User:Hkelkar reported by User:BhaiSaab talk (Result: no block)

User:Chadbryant reported by User:Lil crazy thing (Result: 48h)

User:Groser reported by User:Todor→Bozhinov (Result: 3h)

User:Wikipediatrix reported by User:66.93.144.171 (Result: 24h)

User:Kedorlaomer reported by Szvest (Result:)

User:Baristarim reported by User:Khosrow II (Result: no block)

User:AManSac reported by User:Banana Republic (Result:3h)

User:72.75.104.188 reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result: 24h)

User:Mahawiki reported by User:KNM Talk - Contribs (Result: 8h)

User:Killerman2 reported by User:Isarig (Result: 24h)

User:Zaparojdik reported by User:Tekleni (Result:1 week)

User:Msbjustice reported by User:Signpostmarv (Result: 3h)

User:Tajik reported by User:85.102.187.247 (Result: 12h each)

User:J Di reported by User:SchmuckyTheCat (Result:)

User:PPGMD reported by User:Schrodinger82 (Result: no block)

User:RuthieK reported by User:Mardavich (Result:)

User:BhaiSaab reported by User:Bakaman _Bakatalk (Result:)

User:Hkelkar reported by User:BhaiSaab ^talk (Result: no block)

User:Groser reported by User:Todor →Bozhinov (Result: 3h)

User:72.75.104.188 reported by User:Khoi khoi (Result: 24h)

User:Mahawiki reported by User:KNM ^{Talk - Contribs} (Result: 8h)