text:
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive9

User:158.147.53.100
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * 0th revert: (2005-12-20 09:44:42)
 * 1st revert: (2005-12-20 11:13:16)
 * 2nd revert: (2005-12-20 10:43:23)
 * 3rd revert: (2005-12-20 09:53:17)
 * 4th revert: (2005-12-20 09:50:38)

Reported by: William M. Connolley 16:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC).

Comments:
 * Warned on her talk page.
 * I'm disinclined to block because the warning happened after the reverts, but if another revert happens please post it here. Also, in the future, please provide the "version being reverted to," followed by diffs between the anon's reverts and that version.  And your timestamps and order should be right too.  That reduces the job of the admin verifying the 3RR violation greatly. Thanks! -- SCZenz 17:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Huaiwei
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 14:32, 20 December 2005
 * 1st revert: 14:53, 20 December 2005
 * 2nd revert: 15:02, 20 December 2005
 * 3rd revert: 15:17, 20 December 2005
 * 4th revert: 15:47, 20 December 2005

Reported by: Monicasdude 16:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User:Huaiwei insists edits to the article require prior consensus and claims the right to summarily delete any changes which are not presupported rather than letting them stand for comment. Policy violation should be apparent. Underlying issue is verifiability, and User:Huaiwei asserts that toning down of an unsourced factual claim must be sourced, even though the original language remains unsourced. User:Huaiwei's reverts are not properly marked and are accompanied by inappropriate edit summaries. Monicasdude 16:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 14:53, 20 December 2005 is quite obviously not the first reversion, for it was an edition in which I choose to selectively keep some edits while removing others. Monicasdude insists on adding and reinstating edits which were disputed in Featured article candidates/Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore), where he failed to convince anyone and instead faced opposition from just about all who replied. Yet he failed to respond, and all of a sudden, chose to enforce his edits into the article without any sign of wanting to find concensus. He further made several changes in his edit without being able to show any verification for them, such as suggesting that platform screendoors are unable to prevent all cases of unauthorised intrusions by the simple change of one word which he insisted on reinstating despite objections in the FAC nomination. He did these without showing initiation to discuss, while I was the one bringing them up for debate. All my reverts were well explained, unlike his reverts which were devoid of reasoning. I would seek fair judgementin this case from the admins. Thank you!--Huaiwei 16:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, the following text I wrote in Monicasdude's talkpage was deleted without showing any ability in explaining his editorial behavior.--Huaiwei 17:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Response:
 * Warned both parties; any further reverting will result in a block. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * While I appreciate the need for evenhandedness in handling disputes, I would have thought that my responding to user:Huaiwei's violation by reporting it in accordance with guidelines, and limiting my subsequent edits to relevant talk pages, should be sufficient to demonstrate my intention to comply with the applicable policy. Given his sanctioning by arbcom barely two weeks ago for similar behavior in another area, I don't think your response is appropriate. user:Huaiwei has taken a garden-variety verifiability question and, without provocation, turned it into a full-blown, personalized dispute, and is edit warring to preserve a set of unsourced, moderately dubious claims. He has conspicuously violated applicable civility and personal attack policies and guidelines. He denies an overt, intentional 3RR violation. It is, I believe, irresponsible to tacitly encourage him to continue in such behavior, as your response has done. Monicasdude 22:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Blocked for 24 hours - see also 3RRvio on below. Izehar 22:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

User:DrBat
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 19:24, 12 December 2005
 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zatanna&diff=32093957&oldid=32056270
 * 2nd revert: 19:03, 20 December 2005
 * 3rd revert: 19:11, 20 December 2005
 * 4th revert: 19:19, 20 December 2005
 * 5th revert: 19:22, 20 December 2005

Reported by: --69.49.99.25 19:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * I'd like to note that this report is likely by User:Mistress Selina Kyle, who I just blocked for violating 3RR on the same article. I would have blocked DrBat also, but I wasn't sure that he knew about 3RR policies.  It's clear from the earlier reports on this page that he does, so I will block him also.  However, I'd note that DrBat was reverting to the consensus version of the page, while Selina was not. · Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 19:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Yuber
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 15:04, 19 December 2005
 * 1st revert: 15:11, 20 December 2005
 * 2nd revert: 18:39, 20 December 2005
 * 3rd revert: 20:08, 20 December 2005
 * 4th revert: 20:23, 20 December 2005

Reported by: --Fones 20:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonymous_editor&diff=prev&oldid=32140010 - As soon as he had done his 3 reverts he ran to User:Anonymous editor to try enforce their Islamic-positive POV on articles. After Anonymous editor got reverted he goes and breaks 3RR himself. From the looks of it he does this thing whenever an edit he doesn't like is made - gathering Islamic-cliques to vote and revert for him. --Fones 20:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * This user is likely a sockpuppet of blocked User: Mistress Selina Kyle who has just been created to revert war. And probably a sockpuppet of another banned editor too. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Response:
 * Blocked 24 hours, given that Yuber is currently on Probation, he shouldn't be engaging in edit wars, especially on topics that were a problem before.
 * Its been pointed out that the last editor Yuber reverted is most likely a sockpuppet, however, that was his fifth revert and he did have the option of reporting that editor instead of reverting again. If anyone else disagrees, feel free to unblock. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It has been pointed out to User:Anonymous editor that technical evidence indicates that User:Fones is not a sockpuppet of User: Mistress Selina Kyle. Jayjg (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Jackohare
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 16:02, 20 December 2005
 * 1st revert: 22:18, 20 December 2005
 * 2nd revert: 22:27, 20 December 2005
 * 3rd revert: 22:31, 20 December 2005
 * 4th revert: 00:06, 21 December 2005

Reported by: --65.87.105.2 00:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * The above demonstrates a clear violation of the 3RR rule. In addition, the issue being discussed on the page is whether a specific user-created diagram violates the wiki No original research policy.  I would be interested to hear some administrators weigh in on that subject, too.  Thanks.--65.87.105.2 01:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Still waiting on action on this request more than 24 hours later. Admin attention is requested.  The violation is clearcut.  Thank you.  --65.87.105.2 21:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

 * is a vandal, and has reverted the article himself at least a dozen times. Reverts done by  (and others) were only to revert said vandalism. --Thoric 22:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The above is a bold faced lie from Thoric who authored the diagram in question. I have not reverted the article a dozen times, I have never committed a 3RR violation, and I have never committed an act of vandalism. If he has evidence of a 3RR violation, he should state it here.  I deleted his subjective chart after discussing the issue on the talk page just as a good editor should.  Thoric has been unable to cite the source for his subjective classification of various drugs in overlapping categories.  I would appreciate it if a truly objective person would review the Psychoactive drug which lacks the sourcing and citation usually found in wiki articles of a scientific nature. Perhaps this is appropriate for an RFC.--65.87.105.2 23:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * When a single user stirs up a nest of hornets like 65.87.105.2 has, and his repeated vandalism to an article results in a few editors reverting his changes, along with a half dozen editors arguing against him on the article talk page, and he persists regardless of all kinds of source citing, then we have a problem. --Thoric 01:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, actually you did violate the 3RR rule on the exact same page -- I normally will not revert more than even one time, but you removed content without using the talk page, then reverted to your removal 4 additional times. I suppose it is wrong for me to revert more than policy dictates, but in this case it seemed like obvious vandalism I was reverting; An anonymous user was removing content without justification. --jackohare 01:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoa, actually make that 12 times you've reverted your edits on, given that 65.87.105.2 and 24.55.228.56 are obviously the same people. (Just look at their histories - same style, same edits) --jackohare 01:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Antidote
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 19:58, 19 December 2005
 * 1st revert: 03:50, 20 December 2005
 * 2nd revert: 18:36, 20 December 2005
 * 3rd revert: 22:22, 20 December 2005
 * 4th revert: 23:49, 20 December 2005

Reported by:--Pecher 08:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments: User:Antidote is engaged in a number of edit wars on different lists of Slavic people and is now subject of RfC.--Pecher 08:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Blocked for 24 hours. Izehar 13:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The user has violated the block by editing List of Ukrainians from an anonymous IP address . For more on IP addresses associated with the user, see Requests_for_comment/Antidote.--Pecher 08:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Additional evidence of block violation, , , --Pecher 10:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * More evidence of editing, this time on Talk:List of Poles, . On RfC, the user already threatened to circumvent a ban if one was to be imposed; see the last added paragraph here [.--[[User:Pecher|Pecher]] 10:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is evidence that the user is knowingly violating the 3RR block. Also see a related RfC which indicates that he has a history of breaking due process. Jbetak 19:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I went through the history of the list and could not find four reverts on the same day in TWO instances. I emailed the admin about this. The ban was unjustified because no one informed me of a second 3RR violation if there even was a second. I was left to assume I had been banned twice by the first. Antidote 19:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Dhimmi
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * 1st revert 15:52 December 21
 * 2nd revert 15:56 December 21
 * 3rd revert 16:00 December 21
 * 4th revert 16:04 December 21
 * 5th revert 22:04 December 21
 * 6th revert 22:50 December 21

Reported by: SlimVirgin (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

has been reverting at Bat Ye'or for weeks, particularly in order to keep in anything negative in about her. He has been blocked three times for it. The reverts above are not to the same version or over the same issues, which is indicative of what he does: he reverts any change he disapproves of, and does so for days on end without ever compromising, until he gets his way, which he usually does because everyone else gets fed up and wanders off. He oftens labels his reverts as rvv, although they are not vandalism.

It's a single issue account, and has made only 45 edits in total, 38 to the main namespace, 37 of which are to Bat Ye'or, probably all of them reverts. He is almost certainly a sock puppet of another user, because he seems to know instantly when a change is made that he doesn't like. I would ask any admin looking at this to consider blocking the account indefinitely as a disruptive sock puppet or revert puppet, because his reverting means it's hard to get anything done on the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Not that it is true that I revert "in order to keep in anything negative in about her", but you know, if something is "negative" but factual then it certainly should be kept in! To remove it is vandalism. That's what CtlFn was doing. Reverting vandalism doesn't count in the 3RR. Saying that my edits are "probably all" reverts is patently untrue. My first edit was adding her real name, and I have done various copyediting since, as well as reverting vandalism, which is unfortunately frequent on that article, as some people want to remove anything "negative". Dhimmi 00:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

 * He has just admitted it's a sock puppet account. SlimVirgin (talk)  23:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Can anyone explain the WP:SOCK policy to SlimVirgin? She's constantly making insinuations about my being a sock puppet, as if that's something bad per se. As I explained her, I want to separate my contributions on Bat Ye'or from my other ones because of the inevitable conflict you get into on a topic like that, i.e. no matter how right you are, you get some mud stuck on you, and I don't want that on my main account. Dhimmi 00:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Ignoring the erroneous sockpuppetry allegations since having a sock isn't against the rules (though it is discourged) unless your using it to break rules and/or go around a block which doesn't seem to be the case here, I still think a 48 hour block is warranted for repeated edit warring and for gaming the rules in regards to reverts especially considering that this is not the first time that Dhimmi has had to be blocked for this. Jtkiefer T  00:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Dhimmi has created a sock puppet account for the purpose of violating 3RR, so that blocks for 3RR (three blocks so far, hopefully four after today) don't show up on his main account. That is a violation of WP:SOCK. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually if this account is being exclusively for edits on this article then yes it's actions are against the rules in itself but as long as the other account doesn't edit the article (or articles if that's the scope) then it's not a violation of WP:SOCK since in that case it wouldn't be a sockpuppet specifically for sidestepping the rules and even stretching the meaning of the rules quite a bit I don't see how you think that it would be otherwise, unless of course you have reason to believe that the other account(s) of his are also editing this article in an attempt to impose his POV. Jtkiefer T  00:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Jt, under circumventing policy, WP:SOCK says: "Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as 3RR are for each person's edits. Similarly, using a second account for policy violations will cause any penalties to also be applied to your main account." And "Users who are banned from editing or temporarily subject to a legitimate block may not use sock puppets to circumvent this. Evading a ban in this manner causes the timer on the ban to restart."

 * Dhimmi has admitted that it is not his main account. He has created it in order to violate 3RR at Bat Ye'or. He does this whenever he wants to, and he knows it won't be recorded in the block log of his main account, so he doesn't care. The violation isn't causing a penalty to be applied to his main account, because we don't know what the main account is, and any reputation Dhimmi has as a disruptive editor will also not apply to the main account. It seems to me that this makes the creation of Dhimmi a violation of policy. Multiple accounts are fine so long as they're not being used disruptively, not only if they're not being used on the same article. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I find SlimVirgin's logic sensible and persuasive. Dhimmi should disclose who their main account is, so 3RR violations can be properly applied to both, or, if that isn't done, I agree with the logic that the sockpuppet account should be indefinitely blocked. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Seems like good enough logic however I think that Dhimmi should get a chance to respond to this and a chance to list his main account and some time for some more editors can get a chance to comment on this before anything is enacted. Blocking indefinitely should not be done lightly.  Jtkiefer T  02:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I completely agree. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I've reblocked permanently, as the sockpuppet was created for the purpose of policy violation (in this case, 3RR and revert-warring). I've also warned the editor that if he creates another sockpuppet for the purpose of policy violation, I'll block the main account as well. Jayjg (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Kuban kazak
Reported by: AndriyK 19:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert
 * 4th revert

Comments In the 4th revert, User:Kuban kazak made a slight changes to the article apparently to avoid 3RR. It should be considered as a revert common sence, in my opinion. Please compare two edits and  they are almost identical.--AndriyK 19:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Mistress Selina Kyle
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * 1st revert: 01:18, 22 December 2005 result
 * 2nd revert: 02:52, 22 December 2005 result
 * 3rd revert: 07:12, 22 December 2005 result
 * 4th revert: 07:35, 22 December 2005 result
 * 5th revert: 18:46, 22 December 2005 result (note that the infobox parameter names and some body text changed during this time, so the revert is just related to her preferred image choice.)

Reported by: Netoholic @

Comments:
 * There may be more minor reverts hidden in the history. It's been very active, it seems. -- Netoholic @ 20:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

User:205.188.116.5
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: [20:49, 22 December 2005]
 * 1st revert: [20:39, 22 December 2005]
 * 2nd revert: [20:40, 22 December 2005]
 * 3rd revert: [20:45, 22 December 2005]
 * 4th revert: [20:47, 22 December 2005]

Multiple reverts, these are just the 4 most recent. Counted 13 reverts in less than 45 minutes.

Reported by: ERcheck 20:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * This appears to be an edit battle, with the reported user using "greedy" (POV) to describe the unions. His edit comments are highly inflammatory (name calling).  ERcheck 20:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I suspect that this anon IP was being used by . Two additional reverts after 20:49 by AmeriCAN! with similar inflammatory edit comments. ERcheck 21:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

User:64.12.116.5
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 21:18 22 Dec
 * 1st revert: 21:22 22 Dec
 * 2nd revert: 21:23 22 Dec
 * 3rd revert: 21:24 22 Dec
 * 4th revert: 21:28 22 Dec

Reported by: (ESkog)(Talk) 21:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Appears to be a copy of the above listing. Has been resolved through other communications with admins (the anon editor is currently blocked). (ESkog)(Talk) 21:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Robert I
Three revert rule violation on. :

Reported by:
 * Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
 * 1st revert: 09:40 22 December 2005
 * 2nd revert: 18:24 22 December 2005
 * 3rd revert: 18:48 22 December 2005
 * 4th revert: 21:32 22 December 2005

Comments:
 * Please fill in the version of the article that was reverted to, then make each revert diffs to that version. I'll try to figure it out the way this is written up, but no promises. -- SCZenz 22:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

User:85.97.17.88
Three revert rule violation on. :
 * Base version: 2005-12-22 17:41:41
 * 1st revert 2005-12-22 18:24:56
 * 2nd revert 2005-12-22 18:28:08
 * 3rd revert 2005-12-22 18:33:12
 * 4th revert 2005-12-22 18:39:51

Reported by Macrakis 00:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've warned the anon of the 3RR. I'll block if he/she reverts again. Deltabeignet 05:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Blocked for a week for yet more reverting.  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 07:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This anon and Khoikhoi have also been cross-reverting on Turkish Army, again violating 3RR. --Macrakis 20:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thats what my 1 week block was for.  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 12:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Khoikhoi
Three revert rule violation on. :
 * Base version 2005-12-22 07:29:21
 * 1st revert 2005-12-22 18:21:51
 * 2nd revert 2005-12-22 18:26:25
 * 3rd revert 2005-12-22 18:30:02
 * 4th revert 2005-12-22 18:36:21

Reported by Macrakis 00:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've warned Khoikhoi of the 3RR and will block if he/she reverts again. Deltabeignet 05:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Khoikhoi and the anon have also been cross-reverting on Turkish Army, violating 3RR. --Macrakis 20:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Petral
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Reported by: Travb

Comments: Petral continues to delete the redirect notice on the new article.Travb 03:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Two hours ago I started this article. In the space of two hours, Petral has added a POV tag and a deletion tag.  From the beginning (even before the deletion tag) I told Petral that this article is new, and the name may change, and asked him for suggestions After Petral added the deletion tag, I attempted to work on the article some more, to make it less NPOV and more encyclopedic.  I changed the name in the hopes that it would explain the article better and give it less chance for deletion, I added the new link to the Articles_for_deletion  which Petral deleted
 * Comment TravB continues to blank an article on an AfD, then created 2 other content clones, including the AfD message, page blanking was stopped only with the intervention of Requests for page protection, who stopped him from blanking again--Petral 05:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I continue to REDIRECT the page to the new page, remember Petral refuses to move this article, and has deleted my comments several times, even on my own talk page. Travb 06:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * also this same user keeps trying to place the main AfD page in Category:NPOV disputes--Petral 05:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * notice how [User:Petral|Petral]] provides no links for this statment, that is because it is untrue. Add this one to my list of questions for [User:Petral|Petral]].Travb 06:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Notice how user Petral provides links to all these things--Petral 06:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I've blocked Petral for 24 hrs for violating 3rr. FeloniousMonk 06:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Yuber and User:CltFn
and myself have both violated the 3RR rule in page Islam in the United States. We should therefore both be blocked according to Wikipedia policy.--CltFn 06:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Sounds fair to me. Both blocked for 24 hours. A request for page protection might be appropriate if this revert war springs up again. —BorgHunter (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Mistress Selina Kyle (2)
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Too many reverts to count, see history.

Reported by: Netoholic @

Comments:
 * There are no kidding about 20 reverts on this page, all over some silly photo. Please also see a separate 3RR violation a few sections above. MSK is about a 5-day-old account that shows an amazing amount of Wikipedia knowledge.  I think this is a sockpuppet acting in bad faith and needs to be watched.  -- Netoholic @ 08:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Concerted 3RR violation at Hare Krishna and Gouranga
Three revert rule violation on. Several IPs working in concert have reverted honest attempts to improve the article four times.

 * Version reverted to: 15:18, December 21, 2005
 * 1st revert: 10:49, December 22, 2005
 * 2nd revert: 16:02, December 22, 2005
 * 3rd revert: 19:11, December 22, 2005
 * 4th revert: 08:37, December 23, 2005

IPs involved so far are, , , and. The same also happens at Gouranga. All IPs seeem to by dynamic British Telecom IPs. Don't know if we could or should block, but semi-protecting the article might help. I don't want to do it myself, since I've made an attempt to find a "middle-ground" version, which was promptly reverted in the last revert given above, and could thus be considered "involved".

The IPs' reverts have been undone by several editors so far.

Reported by: Lupo 08:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Also add who previously edited as 81.139.7.159 to the above list of blind reverters involved. Lupo 09:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This has been going on for longer than shown above; and keeps going on currently. Lupo 09:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I reverted both pages and was reverted over. WP:SEMI is primarily to be used to combat vandalism on a very temporary basis. Since this seems to be a content dispute, page protection is the route to go. Can someone protect the pages as I am now a party to the content dispute due to my reverts.--MONGO 09:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:GourangaUK
Three revert rule violation on.

 * 1st revert: 08:53, December 23, 2005
 * 2nd revert: 09:23, December 23, 2005
 * 3rd revert: 10:10, December 23, 2005
 * 4th revert: 10:16, December 23, 2005

Reported by: Lupo 10:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Sigh. See above. Uncompromising POV-pusher who thinks he owns the page. See his edit comment in the fourth revert. Lupo 10:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Was warned but continued. Blocked for 24hrs. Dan100 (Talk) 22:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:68.161.86.144
Three revert rule violation on. :

Reported by:--Toffile 17:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Previous version reverted to: 00:47, 23 December 2005
 * 1st revert: 11:13, 23 December 2005
 * 2nd revert: 11:39, 23 December 2005
 * 3rd revert: 11:48, 23 December 2005
 * 4th revert: 12:48, 23 December 2005
 * 5th revert: 12:56, 23 December 2005
 * 6th revert: 12:58, 23 December 2005

Also Three revert rule violation on. : Reported by:--Tverbeek 18:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1st revert: 11:48, 23 December 2005
 * 2nd revert: 11:56, 23 December 2005
 * 3rd revert: 12:43, 23 December 2005
 * 4th revert: 12:55, 23 December 2005
 * 5th revert: 13:22, 23 December 2005
 * 6th revert: 13:29, 23 December 2005

Comments:
 * The anon is also inserting the same text into Infinite Crisis as well. He does not have the consensus to insert that paragraph after it has been removed by multiple editors. (Myself included) --Toffile 17:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Anon here: my understanding is that being anonymous has nothing at all to do with being able to edit artciles. Further, it's clear that rather than simply put down an opposing viewpoint on a piece of art, they would rather just delete mine.  Seems hardly fair as noneof edits deletes any part of the existing article.  I have asked for arbritration on this issue and will abide by it and have asked that the commentary (5 lines) stand until that time.  (previous comment by
 * Obvious violation of both the letter and spirit of Wikipedia policy. By the way, he hasn't actually requested Arbitration that I can tell; he did asked a random editor to help him. Very confused. Tverbeek 18:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Blocked for 24hrs. Dan100 (Talk) 22:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Tverbeek 22:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And he appears to have switched IPs. Latest edit by

User:Mistress Selina Kyle (3)
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 03:07, 23 December 2005
 * 1st revert: 12:04, 23 December 2005
 * 2nd revert: 12:11, 23 December 2005
 * 3rd revert: 12:20, 23 December 2005
 * 4th revert: 12:25, 23 December 2005

Reported by: Themindset 19:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User keeps labeling the edits the user doesn't agree with as vandalism, when it is clearly not. Themindset 19:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Latex and Special:Contributions/Themindset - this user has followed me from the Eminem article (then to Doggy style, then to here, Latex) and reverts me seemingly for no other reason than to annoy and harass me. He is blanking whole sections of the article (vandalism) because "they're to do with sex and therefore unencyclopedic" - He is attempting to censor Wikipedia. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  20:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Why would you put words I didn't write into quotations? - Also, I only made 2 reverts, so please refrain from Ad Hominem attacks.Themindset 20:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It was a paraphrase. See http://dictionary.com/search?q=paraphrase.
 * "I believe this kind of sex-obsessed content to be unencyclopedic."
 * ""Perhaps a sexwiki would be more appropriate for that kind of pervasively sexually-obsessed content" -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  20:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Once again, why would you put that in quotations? A paraphrase would be exactly the same thing, without quotations (which imply word-for-word cut/paste). For the last time: I am not vandalising, I am not censoring, I simply believe this info to be unencyclopedic (in its relation to the raw material), and I have repeatedly suggested the creation of a Latex clothing article in which you could not only include, but expand upon such content. Please note I only reverted twice, and I will let your fourth revert stand for now and I am no longer going to debate this here. Themindset 20:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. I further suggest you consider Requests for page protection if the edit war continues. —BorgHunter (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:24.11.91.3
Three revert rule violation on Rigoberto Alpizar by :

 * Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
 * 1st revert: 2005-12-23 06:28:24
 * 2nd revert: 2005-12-23 11:45:10
 * 3rd revert: 2005-12-23 14:53:03
 * 4th revert: 2005-12-23 14:59:42

Reported by: -- nae'blis (talk)

Comments:
 * User also had previous similar edits to the same article: at 2005-12-22 04:33:55 and  at 2005-12-21 02:06:00. They are convinced that the facts of the case support using the term 'murder' rather than 'death/killing'. More than half of user's contributions are to this article; we have gotten them to speak on the Talk page, but the article edits continue. I'm at 2 reverts myself...

 * Unlikely IP knew about the 3RR, so I've left a warning and elected not to block. Dan100 (Talk) 21:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Themindset
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 05:24, 23 December 2005
 * 1st revert: 08:07, 23 December 2005
 * 2nd revert: 19:14, 23 December 2005
 * 3rd revert: 19:23, 23 December 2005
 * 4th revert: 20:26, 23 December 2005

Reported by: 85.12.17.26 20:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * According to the report above by him he claims to have only reverted twice - is lying to admins deliberately against rules too?

His last revert breaking 3RR should be reverted back.
 * Um, take a look, only the last three are actual reverts, and third only after the 3RR violator was blocked. Themindset 21:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd also ask the administrators to note that this seems to be User:Mistress Selina Kyle retaliating for my reporting his/her 3RR violation. I ask you to carefully look at the reverts listed, and you will see that 1st revert and Previous version reverted to are have no relation to the 2nd to 4th reverts. Themindset 21:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1-This is not her, no.
 * 2-That the first revert was reverting a different edit is a moot point, you still made more than 3 reverts (4) and so broke 3RR. 85.12.17.26 21:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Anyone can see, looking at those difference links that they were in fact reverts.
 * 1 - Reverting the revert back that included the image
 * 2 - Reverting see also links and external links and other wiki links
 * 3 - Reverting see also links and external links and other wiki links
 * 4 - Reverting see also links and external links and other wiki links

 * It's sad that these things seem to be allowed to slip by unless brought attention to by an outsider. Whether the person you are arguing with also broke 3RR has nothing to do with it, you just proved yourself to be just as bad by also ignoring 3RR in the name of an edit war. 85.12.17.26 21:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * 85.12.17.26 - are you claiming not to be User:Mistress Selina Kyle? Themindset 21:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Obviously.

 * I just don't like people like you that use rules for their own advantage while breaking the same rules themselves.

 * You deserve just as much to be blocked as her. 85.12.17.26 21:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Cute. So you've never contributed before, how did you stumble upon this situation? Themindset 21:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I already replied to you on the admin Dan100's user page. I'm not going to argue any further, the case being irrelevant anyway and seems to be nothing more than an attempt to change the subject and weasel out of a block - The fact remains you broke 3RR with 4 edits just like Selina whom is now blocked. 85.12.17.26 21:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * So a brand new contributor... and their very first contribution is a 3RR violation notice? Coupled with a direct plea to an administrator for help? Wouldn't that seem slightly fishey? Themindset 21:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Please let me work through this evidence and discussion. BTW, I'd like to say that the IP is unlikely to be a blocked user - there is a system called the "autoblocker" that prevents blocked users from just logging out to continue to edit. Dan100 (Talk) 21:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, there have only been three actual reverts, so the 3RR has not been broken. Dan100 (Talk) 21:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * The first edit listed above IS a revert (as well as 2nd 3rd and 4th, based on several previous reverts in an edit war for keeping/removing the image:

 * 1st revert by User Mindset:
 * Previous revert before that
 * (and on, and on, and on)

 * So yeah, there were 4 reverts made 85.12.17.26 22:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There needs to be four identical reverts made in one single 24 hour period for a block to be considered. Clearly, this has not happened, so there will be no block. Please move on, and consider the guidance of WP:ROWN. Dan100 (Talk) 23:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Andrew Alexander
Three revert rule violation on by :

 * 1st revert: 18:59, December 22, 2005
 * 2nd revert: 19:56, December 22, 2005
 * 3nd revert: 06:48, December 23, 2005
 * 4th revert: 18:13, December 23, 2005

Reported by: Irpen 20:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments: In his 3rd revert (06:48, December 23, 2005) the user combined the undoing of all of my article edits since his previous revert (19:56, December 22, 2005) with throwing in some templates into the text. However, it should still be counted as a complete revert as per Policy which says:
 * Reverting doesn't only mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. It means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that mostly undo a previous edit and also add something new, page moving, admin actions such as protection, etc. Use common sense.

The other three edits in the list are 100% indentical reverts. --Irpen 20:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree. User has also been blocked for 3RR violation before, so I'm not inclined towards leniency. Blocked for 24 hours. Dan100 (Talk) 21:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Dark shadow
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 21:45 23 December 2005
 * 1st revert: 21:48 23 December 2005
 * 2nd revert: 21:51 23 December 2005
 * 3rd revert: 21:55 23 December 2005
 * 4th revert: 21:59 23 December 2005

Reported by: (ESkog)(Talk) 22:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Continues inserting POV rants about the forums on the site. Multiple users reverting him back - I stopped at 3 (and asked about it on Talk page after 1, with no response) (ESkog)(Talk) 22:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel new users should be warned of the 3RR before they are blocked under it. Therefore I've only warned on this occasion. Dan100 (Talk) 23:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:195.82.106.47, User:195.82.106.69, User:212.18.228.53 etc.
Three revert rule violation on. ,, :

 * Previous version reverted to: 17:03, 22 December 2005
 * 1st revert: 15:42, 23 December 2005
 * 2nd revert: 23:19, 23 December 2005
 * 3rd revert: 01:19, 24 December 2005
 * 4th revert: 01:35, 24 December 2005
 * 5th revert: 01:52, 24 December 2005
 * 6th revert: 02:02, 24 December 2005

Reported by: Viriditas 02:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * See list of suspected meatpuppets by IP address at Requests for comment/Canaen. 195.82.106.47, 195.82.106.69, and 212.18.228.53 are all the same user from static.mailbox.co.uk (Mailbox Internet Ltd.)  User has been informed about 3RR policy in the past  but continues to use dynamic IP's to engage in edit war on Veganism and has vowed to continue doing so during the Christmas break. --Viriditas 02:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * All 3 addresses blocked for 24 hours. I will leave a message on his/their talk page/pages. Nandesuka 04:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the user is posting from a dynamic address, and is currently posting to the Veganism page as Mitsu, so the block has no effect. At this point, a CheckUser request would be nice.  Mitsu has been linked to these IP's for quite a while.  See the RFC for further info. --Viriditas 04:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I just range-blocked his /24. Let's see if that takes. Nandesuka 04:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Wisesabre
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 11:22, 24 December 2005
 * 1st revert: 18:02, 23 December 2005
 * 2nd revert: 06:43, 24 December 2005
 * 3rd revert: 07:15, 24 December 2005
 * 4th revert: 11:22, 24 December 2005

Reported by: --DPSingh 11:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This guys only revert wars and nothing else.

Response: Wisesabre blocked for 24 hours. Fir  e  Fox  11:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

User:CltFn
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Reported by: Yuber(talk) 15:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC) Comments: Editor keeps adding back a xenophobic section entitled "Muslim disloyalty towards the United States".

 * CltFn has done this before, marking his large reverts as minor and adding information that was cited from racist sources to cause a revert war. Has not tried compromise either.-- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 15:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

 * He's been blocked for 24 hours. That's the maximum block for the 3RR, but the repeat offences suggest that it should really be more. Hedley 16:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * An anon informed me that I was wrong to block CltFn. However, upon looking through the diffs, he removed "According to some estimates, up to 30 percent of the slaves brought to the U.S. may have been Muslim, predominantly the African slaves." four times. This, in conjuction with past blocks for 3RR and thus reluctancy to ultimately sort things out without an edit war, means he deserves the 24 hour block to think about things. Hedley 16:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Damir Mišić
Three revert rule violation on. :

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

Reported by: millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * In this case user broke 3RR with reverts which broke compromise about the article content (mainly made using Bosnian and Serbian language on the talk page). This is not the first example of breaking 3RR by this user and some admin should warn this user for that. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Damir Mišić is waging a blatant revert war and has violated the 3RR. He's been here for two weeks, he should know about the 3RR by now. I have blocked him for 24 hours. Millosh, please report 3RRvios properly though. There is a template at the bottom of this page. Izehar 20:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

User:GMB
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
 * 1st revert: 15:37, 24 December 2005
 * 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communism&diff=32601338&oldid=32601167 16:00, 24 December 2005
 * 3rd revert: 16:18, 24 December 2005
 * 4th revert: 16:43, 24 December 2005
 * 5th revert: 16:51, 24 December 2005

Reported by:karmafist 17:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Was blocked by User:DavidGerard for 24 hours, and then for a further 12 by User:Karmafist due to personal attacks. Hedley 19:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Brazil4Linux via anon IPs. Again.
Three revert rule violation on.

User has been adding a rather nasty POV edit on the NeoWin page. He's reverted it (against the will of the editors) four times so far, utilizing his his old technique of anon ips, calling anyone who disagrees with his point of view a "sockpuppet". However, he's kept up the same mistakes he was traced by last time, and all the anon ips have been traced back to Brazil.

 * 1st revert: |19:03,24 December 2005

 * 2nd revert: |19:19, 24 December 2005

 * 3rd revert: |20:34, 24 December 2005

 * 4th revert: |20:40, 24 December 2005

Comments

 * Not quite sure what is to be done about Brazil4Linux. He's used this particular technique repeatedly; lately he's utilizing it in an effort to deface my user page. His changes are easily undone, but he just doesn't seem to be making any effort to "play nice".

Reported by Daniel Davis 02:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

 * I've blocked him for a month. This might be excessive, but (a) he's trying to game 3RR by using sockpuppets, and (b) he was already blocked for a week for this exact same behavior before, so it's clear that he has had ample and adequate warning, and simply refuses to reform.  If any admin thinks I am overdoing it, I will not complain at all if the block is reduced.  It might, however, be time to take this to RFArb, since ad hoc enforcement is having no apparently effect. Nandesuka 18:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Huaiwei
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Reported by: --Yuje 10:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * This is his second violation of the 3RR in 5 days. He already has an entry above. --Yuje 10:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Blocked for 24 hours. Izehar 22:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Doom127
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 05:00, 24 December 2005
 * 1st revert: 19:05, 24 December 2005
 * 2nd revert: 19:30, 24 December 2005
 * 3rd revert: 02:38, 25 December 2005
 * 4th revert: 13:15, 25 December 2005
 * 5th revert: 13:24, 25 December 2005

Reported by: ForeverWatch 13:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Looks like this user loves revert wars. --ForeverWatch 13:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

 * At it again, Brazil4Linux, huh? Daniel Davis 13:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

 * Doom127 is NOT engaging in a revert war. He is reverting VANDALISM. By YOU. You're blanking huge sections of text without referring to the talk page. You created your account today, and already you've continued your pointless vendetta against him because everyone outed you on the Talk:Ken Kutaragi page. You're an obvious sockpuppet of Brazil4Linux, and you're not fooling anyone.
 * -- Hinotori(talk) 14:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Do not use the word "vandalism" lightly. Doom127 is not reverting vandalism and ForeverWatch is not engaging in it. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 18:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Brazil4Linux (or whatever sockpuppet he's using this week) has a history of blanking text that portrays Sony, its executives, or the Sony Playstation in any sort of negative light. Even if the text in question is backed up by citations (listed in the article) from reputable sources.  That may not be strictly vandalism as defined by Wikipedia policies, but it approaches vandalism asymptotically. Ξxtreme Unction |yakkity yak 22:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't use the word "vandalism" lightly. To me, blanking 3 paragraphs for no reason other than the fact that you dislike their content counts as "vandalism." Doing this repeatedly without referring to the talk page and without paying attention to the overwhelming majority of editors asking you to stop is "obnoxious." Stalking another user like Doom127, vandalizing his user page (and THAT was undeniable vandalism, , , and ) and wasting lots of his time is "malicious." And creating half a dozen sockpuppets to carry out your attacks is "deceptive." Please refer to the Talk:Ken Kutaragi page to see this user's trackrecord. Two sockpuppets already blocked, and several more strongly alleged.

 * -- Hinotori(talk) 21:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Doom127
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 03:47, 24 December 2005
 * 1st revert: 18:20, 24 December 2005
 * 2nd revert: 19:11, 24 December 2005
 * 3rd revert: 19:23, 24 December 2005
 * 4th revert: 13:17, 25 December 2005
 * 5th revert: 13:25, 25 December 2005

Reported by: ForeverWatch 13:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Another Doom127 3RR violation.

 * Actually, I would say that provides more evidence as to your modus operandi of quickly switching between anon IPs, than anything else. Hey, at least you haven't recently vandalized my userpage this time, like you did with your last sockpuppet, Brazil4Linux. Daniel Davis 14:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

User:Sly100100
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 20:25, 25 December 2005
 * 1st revert: 20:29, 25 December 2005
 * 2nd revert: 20:33, 25 December 2005
 * 3rd revert: 20:34, 25 December 2005
 * 4th revert: 20:36, 25 December 2005

Reported by: feydey 18:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Total 8 reverts on Michelbytes (on the time of writing), see also reverts on Michelbites.

 * I am against blocking Sly100100. He had not been warned of the 3RR, nor has he ever been blocked for it before. You warn users with 3RR and 3RR2 before their first 3RRvio. I'll inform him of the rule now. IMO it would be unfair to block him for violating a rule he was not aware of. Izehar 18:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

 * 3RR policy gives no obligation to warn, and this user is being disruptive. Recommend immediate block. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 18:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * IMO he shouldn't be blocked as he could not have reasonably been expected to be aware of the rule. I have informed him. If he violates the rule again, then he may be blocked. I prompt you to read Please do not bite the newcomers - this user is a potential regular contributor. Inform him of our policy on vanity articles: Deletion of vanity articles, this may help. Izehar 18:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This user is being disruptive. If this was an edit dispute about a useful article that would be one thing. But this user's edits are questionable whether or not it falls under 3RR jurisdiction. If this user is a potential regular contributor, then this user can come back after 24 hours and make constructive edits. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 18:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF - I've checked his edits. If he reverts again before 18:02 26 December 2005 (UTC) then we will no longer have to AGF, as we will have proof that he violated the rule again while knowing about the rule. That is sufficient evidence of bad faith. According to WP:3RR: the policy is intended to stop edit wars, not mete out punishment. I have warned him, that should stop the edit war. If it doesn't, he will have violated the rule again while knowing about it. Izehar 18:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. Disruption of afd process, removal of user warnings and 3rr violation. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  22:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy
Gaming the system of the three revert rule on. reverted four times in under 26 hours, and has reverted a fifth time since:

 * 1st revert: 22:47, 23 December 2005
 * 2nd revert: 23:01, 23 December 2005
 * 3rd revert: 18:34, 24 December 2005
 * 4th revert: 00:11, 25 December 2005
 * 5th revert: 18:28, 25 December 2005

Reported by: Angr (t·c) 20:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments: The version he insists on reverting to uses an ad-hoc pronunciation guide instead of an IPA transliteration, in violation of WP:MOS-P. --Angr (t·c) 20:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

*Blocked 24 hours Jtkiefer T  23:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no 3RR violation here so a block is innapropriate (I blocked then immediately unblocked after rechecking the diff dates on the history) though someone should keep an eye on this since edit warring over formats is harmful. Jtkiefer T  23:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

 * User:Angr, from harassing comments left on my talk page, knew this was not a 3RR violation and reported it anyway hoping to trick people, like he apparently did do until User:Jtkiefer caught it. It would be nice if editors making knowingly false claims warned against making such baseless accusations to prevent such harassment from continuing. DreamGuy 20:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Dreamguy, yet again:

 * 1st revert: 16:32, 26 December 2005

 * 2nd revert: 17:18, 26 December 2005

 * 3rd revert: 17:27, 26 December 2005

 * 4th revert: 18:21, 26 December 2005

 * 5th revert: 18:31, 26 December 2005

 * 6th revert: 19:30, 26 December 2005

 * 7th revert: 19:47, 26 December 2005

 * 8th revert: 20:42, 26 December 2005

Reported by ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Yet another example of someone trying to change the rules... Codex here made the same change repeatedly, which I reverted not violating 3RR and then was assisted by other editors who also agreed that he was clearly out of line, but then when he no longer could make the same change anymore without violating 3RR himself, he purposefully switched to some other edits not approved by consensus solely to try to get the last word in. He thought he could game the system and lost. DreamGuy 05:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Whoah - I'm not trying to change the rules at all... The rules say you can't revert to the same identical thing eight times in one hour, even if your name is DreamGuy... Notice that my first three edits were to delete a dubious statement, then I switched to adding a disputed tag... How is that "gaming the system?" Your protectiveness over this article is outright crossing the 3RR line, which I did not do. You seem to think your opinion is so sacrosanct that it justifies reverting to your version eight times in one hour.  This is indeed a violation, and I invite anyone to investigate to their heart's content.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Commonsenses
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 08:31, 25 December 2005
 * 1st revert: 12:34, 25 December 2005
 * 2nd revert: 12:55, 25 December 2005
 * 3rd revert: 13:18, 25 December 2005
 * 4th revert: 14:16, 25 December 2005

Reported by: -- Миборовский U 22:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * In addition to these, see also this edit within the same 24-hour period which is basically his version without the accuracy and NPOV tags. -- Миборовский U 22:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Blocked for 24 hours. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  22:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

User:CltFn (2)
Three revert rule violation on. :

Reported by: Yuber(talk) 05:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC) Comments:
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * This editor keeps removing a sourced quote and has been blocked for the 3RR twice in the past few days.
 * NOT TRUE, those are not more than 3 reverts in 24 hours . And Yuber is doing his own reverts under sockpuppet IDs --CltFn 05:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, you started reverting on 16:58 december 25, and your last revert was on 5 something december 26. That's less than 24 hours. Yuber(talk) 05:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Edits are not reverts. If you even bothered to read the articles you trash, you would have noticed that the information is already covered in the INFLUENCE section. I simply deleted the duplicate information which you insist on reinserting.--CltFn 05:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. I would not classify the last edit as a revert, but from what I can see CltFn did revert four times in 24 hours. Additionally, I would caution all involved to remain civil in discussions. I have blocked CltFn for 24 hours.--Sean|Bla ck 05:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

User:James James
Abusive wiki stalker, making multiple reverts over all of my edits, too many 3RR violations to even count--Ytrewqt 05:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please cite which edits have violated the 3RR. I have cursorily examined his contributions and found none. FCYTravis 05:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And unlike the complainant, he hasn't created any articles about 20 inch chipmunks with skin on their faces extending from wrist to ankle. - Nunh-huh 05:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Martinrrodriguez
Three revert rule violation on.

 * 3rd revert: 06:32, 26 December 2005
 * 2nd revert: 06:30, 26 December 2005
 * 1st revert: 06:01, 30 November 2005
 * 1st revert: 06:01, 30 November 2005

Reported by: Ytrewqt 06:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

How about some diffs? Also, please ensure that the user is privy to the 3RR policy. Thanks. El_C 06:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but the three-revert rule states that a violation is made if MORE than three reverts are made in a 24 hour period, not singularily just three reverts in and of themselves correct? There doesn't seem to be four reverts here. Daniel Davis 06:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)
 * OK, slow down a little. Obvious newbie semi-vandal, has been warned of policy. FCYTravis 06:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * In this case, we are more interested in awareness of policy than its enforcement (i.e. Ignorance of the law is an excuse). El_C 06:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * um, it's vandalizing the template, and posting someones email into another article--Ytrewqt 07:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. That's unrelated to 3RR/AN3, then. Please place a notice at WP:AIV or WP:VIP next time. Thanks. El_C 07:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You're welcome--Ytrewqt 07:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice. 'Cause then you don't have to bother with counting reverts and so on (either on your or the vandal's part), while action will tend to follow much more quickly. Let me know if and/or when I'm rambling. El_C 07:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Yuje
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: 18:39, 24 December 2005
 * 2nd revert: 15:59, 25 December 2005
 * 3rd revert: 18:04, 25 December 2005
 * 4th revert: 18:34, 25 December 2005
 * 5th revert: 18:39, 25 December 2005

Reported by: --Huaiwei 01:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Considering he nominated me for 3RR violation above, I would believe he is fully aware of the 3RR requirements.--Huaiwei 01:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

 * It's not really a 3RRvio - if you check, he is not reverting to the same version every time. Izehar 11:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Reverts 1, 2, 3 and 5 all reinstate the same few entries. There is a slight difference in 4, but that was because I modified the page along the way, but the same entries are still reinstated. If these are not considered reverts, then I dont see why I was blocked in the above instance, coz I did not revert to the same version on more than 3 occasions either. Ditto for many other nominations in this list.--Huaiwei 16:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

 * "Reverting doesn't only mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. It means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that mostly undo a previous edit and also add something new, page moving, admin actions such as protection, etc. Use common sense." —BorgHunter (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the rule states: "If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally." A revert is defined as: "A revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical to how it used to be at some previous time." I think Yuje has undone all changes made by someone else more that three times within the same 24 hour period, so I have blocked him for 12 hours as he did not revert to the same version and according to WP:3RR 24 hours is the maximum. Izehar 17:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand that this may be a controversial move, so feel free to unblock him if you think it appropriate: link. Izehar 17:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If "in the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally", then I would question the rationale of blocking him for 12 hours compared to the full 24 hours I was blocked for. If I may refer to the nomination made against me previously, links pointing to reverts 2 and 3 were actually refering to the same one revert (just refer to the version numbers), so in actual fact, only three reverts were cited. In addition, revert 4 cited by him does not revert to the same version as the previous revertions too. Yet I was blocked for a full 24 hours despite the sloppy nomination, when the nominator himself is equally guilty of 3RR violation, if not more so. I do hope for a fair judgement here, in what I feel should have resulted in the same 24 hour block for both parties in the initial nomination made against me by Yuje.--Huaiwei 20:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

 * You violated the rule twice. Look at the reason I gave for your block: link. Izehar 20:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If you may refer to the above, I did not violate the 3RR rule going by your definition of what 3RR is. And if you may apply the same theory to the first nomination by Monicasdude, I have not violated the 3RR either, since practically all reversions mentioned points to a different version. In addition, I have proven that the first reversion cited was actually the "version reverted to", and not a reversion in itself, hence resulting in only three reverts, not four. Other admins who evaluated the case decided not to press the 3RR charge against me after looking at the overall situation at hand. Surely this should say something about the perculiarities between each case.--Huaiwei 20:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but then you decided to edit-war on another article as well. As both reports on you were rather watery, if only one had been filed, it would have been ignored. As you are obviously a chronic edit warrior, two 12 hour blocks (one for each watery report) seem to do. Both your violations are the same as Yuje's one violation. Izehar 20:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If being a chronic edit warrior is your justification for a 24 hour block, than I suppose the long-term edit warring I have had with Yuje in that same article for months on end (the evidence is all in the article's history) is not considered chronic on the part of both parties? The simple reason why I did not come forth to dispute my 3RR block at first, was that I do accept the fact that my revert warring was wrong, whether there were more than 3 reverts or not, since gaming the system is also justification for a block. However, I am greatly upset over what I feel was a lack of justice in the way the punishment was metted out, and that it actually took my counter-nomination before anything was done. Are nominators somehow given the benefit of the doubt, while their nominees are automatically half-gulty and easily thrown into the dungeon even with flimsy evidence? It is not my responsibility that both their nominations were watery. That they choose to nominate despite having weak justifications, and that both are also clearly revert warring and gaming the rules, demonstrates to me the lack of justice in this case overall. My primary concern is not to absolve myself of blame. I accept my violation of the 3RR. But I find it difficult to sit down knowing others who are equally guilty can have a lighter sentencing or even go scot-free.--Huaiwei 20:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You got off far too lightly. I think Yuje's actions were justified as reversions of simple vandalism, since you not only repeatedly deleted sourced text without explanation but also used misleading edit summaries to cover up your reversions You also edit warred pages related to China in violation of an ArbComm ruling. Monicasdude 21:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * A 68 kilobytes long talk page exists for National dish, most of which centers over the issue of these contested entries. I dont think that would be possible if I "repeatedly deleted sourced text without explanation" and didnt bother to discuss them. Please explain what "misleading edit summaries" refers to. How where you mislead? I may have edit warred pages related to China in violation of an ArbComm ruling, but does it mean others dont have to adhere to the 3RR rule?--Huaiwei 14:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The entries were included with the (disputed — see talk page ) tag (dubious), but they were removed altogether with the tag by Huaiwei, although he has been the only person to object the inclusion of those entries. — Instantnood 18:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have difficulty understanding what you are trying to say here. Seriously.--Huaiwei 03:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

From talk:national dish, one can tell User:Yuje was indeed acting in good faith to halt the POV-pushing edits by User:Huaiwei. Huaiwei had plenty of time (~12 hours) to explain his position, or/and to nominate Yuje (no matter as a revenge or not) after being nominated and before being blocked. — Instantnood 21:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * A highly POVed comment by instantnood when describing yuje's actions in the said talk page, which is more then expected considering they happen to share the same opinions, so I am not too sure if any nuetral reviewer is going to take his first sentence seriously without first reviewing the entire debate himself. As for the "time I have to explain my position", how then do you explain Yuje's lack in initiative to explain his reversion in the past 24 hours. May I further remind that the last revert happens to be executed by him, so who needs to explain the current version of the article? The lack of an explaination, btw, probably gives me more than enough reason to revert it back.--Huaiwei 14:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yuje is not a frequent editor as you do. Don't think he's lacking initiative to explain, for he has already done at the talk page, and was actually acting to halt POV-pushing edits that is getting close to vandalism. — Instantnood 18:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * How does the frequency of one's contribution to wikipedia has any bearing in this 3RR violation? Have I not done all the things you said he did, for I would consider your entries as POV-pushing as well, and I too am acting to halt them? Vandalism? Show how they are vandalism based on wikipedia guidelines. Disagreeing in a content dispute and calling the opponent's enforcement of his viewpoint as an act of vandalism demonstrates your gaming of wikipolicies and your unwillingness to negotiate and come to a resolution. Do you have any evidence to suggest the same in actions on my part?--Huaiwei 03:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Mistress Selina Kyle (4)
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Reported by: Yuber(talk) 03:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User keeps removing NPOV intro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuber (talk • contribs)

 * The above is a blatant lie by Yuber, see here: Islamofascism&diff=32833084&oldid=32832858 - Yuber is trying to insert his own POV into articles and adds a lot of uncited opinions of himself, some masquerading as "some critics say"/"some critics" - weasel words.. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  03:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Regardless how justified you both feel, neither should revert more than 3 times in a day, which you definitely have, Selina. Actually, given that you are getting nowhere by doing it, perhaps taking your dispute to the talk page would be a better approach. Lay out your concerns and talk them out. Simply reverting isn't working for either of you, unless you think having your POV represented for half the day is a success! James James 04:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This is getting silly. This user has been blocked twice recently for 3RR, and on this page there are two additional occurences that she hasn't been blocked for.  Can we please just skip ahead to a significantly longer block for disruption?  -- Netoholic @ 04:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What is it you have against me anyway? Stop following me around... -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  04:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Damir Mišić
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
 * 1st revert: 01:31, 27 December 2005
 * 2nd revert: 17:18, 27 December 2005
 * 3rd revert: 18:08, 27 December 2005
 * 4th revert: 19:29, 27 December 2005

Reported by: millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * This is the second time in few days. There is also fifth edit 19:33, 27 December 2005. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. Izehar 18:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Lessthankris
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 11:36, 23 December 2005
 * 1st revert: 23:09, 23 December 2005
 * 2nd revert: 11:44, 24 December 2005
 * 3rd revert: 12:16, 24 December 2005
 * 4th revert: 23:01, 24 December 2005
 * 5th revert: 01:11, 25 December 2005
 * 6th revert: 03:46, 25 December 2005
 * 7th revert: 09:07, 27 December 2005
 * 8th revert: 12:27, 27 December 2005

Reported by: LeFlyman 18:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User has been warned not to insert Original Research into the article; ignore multiple editors' clean-up, did not respond to User Talk or enter into discussion. Reverts are in excess of 3RR policy on multiple days. —LeFlyman 18:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Blocked for 12 hours (he's never been blocked before - the purpose of the 3RR is to stop edit-warring) Izehar 18:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Unblocked - he promised to stop edit warring. Izehar 19:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Miskin
Three revert rule violation on. :
 * Previous version reverted to: 18:11, December 26, 2005
 * 4th revert: 04:10, December 28, 2005
 * 3rd revert: 02:16, December 28, 2005
 * 2nd revert: 01:55, December 28, 2005
 * 1st revert: 01:31, December 28, 2005

Reported by: user: Macedonia

Comments:
 * Ignoring sources and proof about "Hellenization" taking place and is insisting that its an "unsourced POV".

 * is constantly deleting everyones edits since December 26, 2005, no matter how accurate or relevant it is.

 * Blocked for 24 hours. Despite minor differences in your edits, you also violated the spirit of the 3RR.  Because you haven't been blocked before, I've blocked you for 12 hours.  —David Levy 08:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Wow. Admin for three hours and a block already? ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 08:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Unblocked - promised to stop revert warring (he can't since I protected the page) and discuss on the talk page. Izehar 18:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Deathrocker
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 10:17, 27 December 2005
 * 1st revert: 23:40, 27 December 2005
 * 2nd revert: 02:01, 28 December 2005
 * 3rd revert: 07:01, 28 December 2005
 * 4th revert: 09:33, 28 December 2005
 * 5th revert: 09:48, 28 December 2005

Reported by: ChrisB 10:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Initially started as this edit, where he removed two paragraphs with little explanation. He had never edited the article before (one that's frequently vandalised), so I assumed he was just blanking the page, so I reverted.  I attempted one rewrite to try and include his point of view (which he refused to explain in detail), and he removed it.  Attempts to dialogue the issue on Talk were largely unsuccessful, as he argued points not made in the article.  I'll concede that I may have also violated 3RR in my actions. -- ChrisB 10:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Indeed, you did. I've blocked you for 12 hours.  Deathrocker has a history of revert-warring and refusing to discuss edits, and was explicitly warned about the 3RR in the past, so I've blocked him/her for 24 hours.  —David Levy 14:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

User:PeterZed
Three revert rule violation on. :

Reported by: 20:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Previous version reverted to: 19:19, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1st revert: 19:36, December 28, 2005
 * 2nd revert: 19:50, December 28, 2005
 * 3rd revert: 20:25, December 28, 2005
 * 4th revert: 20:28, December 28, 2005
 * 5th revert: 20:35, December 28, 2005

Comments:
 * User has already been blocked by User:Doc glasgow. This listing is being made purely for the sake of the record. Ξxtreme <span style="color:#006688; font-family:arial, helvetica;">Unction |<span style="font-family:arial, helvetica; font-size:x-small;">yakkity yak 20:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Edit summary here is clear evidence of gaming the system. --Doc ask? 20:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Comandante
Three revert rule violation in ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 04:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Comments:
 * 1st revert: December 28
 * 2nd revert: December 28
 * 3rd revert: December 28
 * 4th revert: December 28
 * 5th revert: December 28
 * User keeps deleting material from articles related to Cuba. Also he removes all admin notices from his talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Blocked for 24 hours --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  04:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

User:RJII
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 11:45, December 28, 2005
 * 1st revert: 22:24, December 28, 2005
 * 2nd revert: 22:44, December 28, 2005
 * 3rd revert: 23:32, December 28, 2005
 * 4th revert: 23:39, December 28, 2005
 * 5th revert: 23:42, December 28, 2005
 * 6th revert: 23:51, December 28, 2005
 * 7th revert: 00:10, December 29, 2005

Reported by: TomTheHand 04:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User is reverting move of article from economic fascism to economics of fascism against consensus on talk page. Also note reversions on economics of fascism.
 * And he's made a horrible mess of it by moving the article page (by cut and paste?) but not the talkpage. Please, let him cool off for a day and think about whether it's really worth fighting so hard over the title of an article. James James 04:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * These two guys are redirecting the article knowing full well that there is no conensus to do so. It amounts to vandalism. The 3RR doesn't apply to this kind of thing. (Also, check them out as they're doing more than 3RR as well). RJII 05:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We have demonstrated to RJII that there is consensus, asked him not to revert to his fork and in my case I have not personally breached the three-revert rule. I rarely do more than one revert, except in clear cases of vandalism, and I really take it amiss that this guy is calling me a vandal and trying to game the system by claiming that he can revert an edit as many times as he likes by doing so. James James 05:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the consensus is fairly obvious from the talk page, and neither James James nor I have violated the 3RR rule. Also note that we are not redirecting with loss of information, but moving the article to a more appropriate title according to consensus. RJII is literally the only person who feels the article should continue as it is, and has engaged other edit wars about it, notably with User:Firebug, resulting in an ArbCom case.  I believe he feels that he owns this article and should be able to do as he likes with it. TomTheHand 05:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I've demonstrated to both of the disruptive editors that there was no conensus, as revealed in the vote. Also, others besides me have put the article back when others have tried to redirect without a conensus. This is vandalism on their part. They should follow normal Wikipedia policy and try to get a consensus. Adminstrator Jtkiefer warned a couple other users a couple weeks ago for trying to redirect the article without a conensus. For example, "172, also if you would like the article to be redirected attempt to get a consensus on the talk page to do so. I like all people support being bold in certain situations but doing so without a consensus is against policy and is going to just lead to an edit war which should be avoided if at all possible. JtkieferT | C | @ 20:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)" This is my understanding of Wikipedia policy as well, so I'm just reverting the violation. RJII 05:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Can someone just block the guy so we can get on with editing? He's reverted eight, nine times now. As Tom says, he thinks he owns the article. No one has redirected the article! We've renamed it to a more suitable title with strong consensus on the talkpage. The article is still there. James James 05:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You should be blocked. YOu're violating Wikipedia policy. I don't think I own the article. Edit if you wish, but don't redirect it without a conensus. That's too drastic of a move to make without a consensus. RJII 05:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Admin response
 * I've protected the articles and am settling for warning RJII and James James. Discuss this on the talk page of the article(s?), please. On another note, the status of this article is an absolute mess...there's a redirect on a talk page, one article in two separate locations...egad. —BorgHunter (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * My (simltaneous) conclusion was that RJII did violate 3RR, because there does seem to be a consensus to move, but I also decided to warn and not block. I think BorgHunters suggestion for further discussion is an excellent idea. -- SCZenz 05:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

What exactly are you warning me for? I moved the page in line with consensus, discussed it with RJII, asked him not to continue reverting when he had breached policy, and supported the call to have him blocked for breaching policy here. The article is a mess because RJII c&p'd it back to the old title.

Please unprotect the article and block the user as requested. He has reverted many times more than three, and been warned and asked to stop.James James 05:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

What's the use of doing the right thing, working with consensus and sticking within policy when admins don't support that? The guy reverted nine times, and now his version is the protected one because he broke the 3RR and I wouldn't'. It's now impossible for anyone to edit the article because he knows that all he needs to do is revert it nine times and accuse everyone who disagrees with him of being a "vandal" and voila! he gets to own the article. James James 06:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The current situation is not permanent—article protection virtually never is. Certainly the article won't be permanently forked.  But an ugly edit war shouldn't be solved by admins ruling in favor of one side or the other.  Anyway, I'll look at the talk page more tomorrow, and maybe unprotect based on that. -- SCZenz 06:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Please read the protection policy. I'm not endorsing anything or anyone. I'm not letting him "own" anything. Please understand also that I'm trying to be as fair and impartial as I can be here, as I can under Wikipedia policy. I have no opinion as to which version of what is better...to be honest, I haven't looked at the content of the reverts and such and make no judgment on them, for NPOV or anything else. What I see is a conflict between one user and what seems to be a group of at least two. I can't take sides. (Well, I could, but then my protection and such would be against policy.) I could block RJII for 24 hours under policy, as he did violate the 3RR, but I chose not to. I did protect the article(s), which were undergoing a heated edit war. Finally, I suggest (again) either mediation (if that step has not been undertaken) or arbitration. Unprotecting the article would be letting the edit war continue anew, after 24 hours (the maximum block admins can give under the 3RR). I think my actions are entirely appropriate, and fairest to all users involved. —BorgHunter (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop talking down to me. I have read the 3RR policy several times. That's why I'm here, asking for action against someone who has breached it. If he continued reverting after 24 hours, then protect the page, why not? I'm not asking for you to resolve an edit war. This page is for editors to request action against other editors who revert more than three times. We didn't ask for the page to be protected and don't want that. We want the editor who is in breach of policy to be blocked, so that he can think about whether he can edit within the policy. You are supposed to take sides! The idea of this page is for the side that has not breached the 3RR to ask for action against the side that has. What's the point of the page otherwise?

Please block RJII and unprotect the page, so that editors who are working within the policies of Wikipedia can continue to work on it. James James 06:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Could a more experienced editor please look at this? The admin who has acted here won't block the guy who's in clear breach of the 3RR because he/she doesn't want to "take sides". Can someone who doesn't mind taking the side of Wikipedia's policies please take a look? This admin has even protected the fork as well as the page, without reading the discussion and without reviewing the edits! Could someone please unprotect both pages, so that we can fix that? James James 06:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Another admin came to the same conclusion at about the same time I did, that is, to warn and not block RJII. (He does disagree about the protection, which I am having second thoughts about and do welcome other admins to comment on. I've already left a note on User:Woohookitty's talk page.) I think the issue of whether or not to block RJII for the moment is more or less settled. The page protection is under dispute, and again, I'm having second thoughts about it. —BorgHunter (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * He's been warned. I warned him more than once. He was well aware that he was breaking the policy. The issue of whether to block him is absolutely not settled. You're basically saying that there's no point asking for action here because you won't take any. That's surely not right. Editors rely on admins backing up the policies of Wikipedia. If you let an edit-warrior make a POV fork against consensus, and then back it up with multiple reverts, and won't give him a day off for doing it, it tells the rest of us, don't bother with the policy, you won't get help if you're up against serial reverters, no matter how egregious they are. As for warning him, unprotect the article, let it be reverted and watch him do it again! He'll just call it vandalism and expect to get away with it again. James James 06:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm inclined to agree with James here. RJII reverted six times, and I know he has behaved like this elsewhere, and has been blocked twice for it. Protecting rather than blocking seems unfair to the other editors. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 06:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Disregard this editor. Slimvirgin is baised against RJII because he took part in an arbitration case against RJII, based in lies, that failed. RJII 06:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not biased against you, RJII; it's just that I know you make a habit of this. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 07:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I've now unprotected the articles. I'm sorry, it was probably a bad idea to begin with. Apologies to James's side, and many compliments from me regarding your behavior so far, especially from TomTheHand, who was been incredibly civil with me from the start. I guess I should have thought that one through more. —BorgHunter (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Now he is working on the fork he created and was able to establish by reverting way in excess of policy. "Just protect all the pages and let them talk it out" just doesn't work as a response to a violation of 3RR. Very disappointed. SlimVirgin, could I ask you to either block the user in question or to revert the page to the redirect, so that he can acquire himself another revert in excess of the policy, which might perhaps stir some of your peers into taking action? James James 07:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * James, I'll take a look, but in general, I prefer not to interfere with other admins' decisions. However, I hope Borghunter will reconsider. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 07:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I did unprotect the articles. I don't support blocking him unless he does more uncouth things; he seems to be leaving the one article alone and is just editing "his." That would be against the spirit of what I told him on his talk page, which was to shape up and quit violating the 3RR. Besides, what would be the point? If he isn't doing anything bad or untoward now, why goad him into doing so? We want people to be positive contributors, not prod them into getting themselves blocked. —BorgHunter (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Breaking 3RR on TWO articles and working on a POV fork that he created by breaking it are not "uncouth" enough for you? There is no his, by the way. It's because he tried to own the article in the first place that we asked for your help!James James 07:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Borg, as you were the original admin who dealt with this, I'll defer to your judgment and won't block him. I don't agree with your decision, however, because RJ11 is a serial reverter who rarely gives up once he gets an idea fixed in his mind; he knows about 3RR; has been warned many times; and has been blocked twice for it. Anyway, I've reverted to the redirect so at least he doesn't benefit from the violation, and I've protected it so he can't revert back and continue with his fork creation. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 07:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, SlimVirgin. It would probably be better not to protect it and let him revert it again. Perhaps BorgHunter would then realise that blocking him would be a good idea. James James 07:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The goal is not to goad people into getting themselves blocked, it's to help people be constructive editors as best we can. -- SCZenz 07:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Allowing an editor to revert nine times to support a POV fork probably isn't the best way to make a constructive editor out of them. The only reason he's not reverting the page again is that it's protected. He's expressed no interest in working collaboratively, and is looking forward to restoring his fork. James James 07:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) I concur with and support SlimVirgin's action on this. My judgement is there was a pretty clear consensus on moving the page, and that we shouldn't allow positive results for a blatant 3RR violation.  -- SCZenz 07:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * So what? My point is, he's not harming anything right now by not being blocked. Blocking him now would accomplish nothing except revenge and punishment, and neither of those things are what blocking is for. I have his contributions page up and am keeping an eye out for anything bad, and I suspect I'm not the only one. I'm sure he knows that a few admins are watching him, as well. That's just as effective as a block, and it allows him more freedom, as well. (A good thing.) Again, blocking now would accomplish nothing. —BorgHunter (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with that too. -- SCZenz 07:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I don't. The only reason he is not reverting again is that the page is protected. He will revert to his POV fork as soon as it isn't. He's said so on the talkpage. What you've got across to him is that he can revert with impunity to get his way because a/ other editors will not break the 3RR and b/ you won't act to protect other editors and allow them to work. Luckily, SlimVirgin was willing to do something to help out, but frankly, if someone breaches the 3RR so badly, we expect action. Otherwise, what's the point of reporting it here? I haven't at any point asked for punitive action, merely protective action to allow other editors to work on the page without constantly being reverted. The same outcome was achieved by protecting the fork on a redirect, but as soon as the protection is lifted, wham, you're on again. James James 07:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * James, you just violated the 3RR rule on economics of fascism. And, damned right I'm going to restore economic fascism when I can do so without breaking the 3RR rule. The only reason I broke it is because I thought it didn't apply to fixing an article that was moved without consensus --so it was done in good faith. It's within my rights to move the article back. If you want to move an article you should get a consensus first. All you're doing is causing an unnecessary edit war. RJII 08:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Now the guy is rewriting the article to match his fork, so he's reverting in stages instead of all at once. I've tried to get him to collaborate, and I've outlined some of the problems as a beginning. But all he's doing is reverting back to his POV version.

Thanks for your help. It's impossible to work on the article. I'm just going to leave it to RJII, and work on something else. James James 08:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Borg, you said there was no point in blocking RJ because he had stopped, but he hasn't. He's continuing to impose his changes, reverting in stages so it's harder to accuse him of 3RR, which is what he often does. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 08:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Both of you are full of it. I am doing no such thing. I request that the Adminstrator see for himself that these claims are false. And the "fork" is the economics of fascism article, not the economic fascism one. You guys are really stooping low to make such claims. The moved article was already IDENTICAL to the prior titled article so it makes absolutely no sense to say I'm reverting to that version in stages! RJII 08:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked RJII for 24 hours for (severe) violation of 3RR, disruption (forking article rather than discuss issue of what the title should be) and associated personal attacks (notably, describing other editors' actions in a content dispute as vandalism). In an editor of his experience, his behaviour is simply unacceptable. Rd232 talk 11:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

So ultimately he created another title, the same as previous but with the word "political" added in. He didn't discuss his problem with the new title. He circumvented discussion instead. I would like the article moved back to economics of fascism and RJII to be censured for circumventing discussion and refusing to collaborate. I for one refuse to work any more on the article. It's incredibly POV and there's no hope of making it NPOV when an editor is permitted to run wild, breaking the rules and then perpetuating the same sterile move war by other means. James James 05:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm going to block him for 48 hours, and if he keeps at it, he can get another, per WP:BP, Disruption. Any further incidents regarding this user, please report on WP:ANI. —BorgHunter (talk) 05:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I appreciate it. Would you be willing to do the complicated move to return the page to the previous title? The end result ought to be a revert to the version he forked from, but with his work not lost, even if not included. James James 05:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Antidote
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: 18:51, 28 December 2005
 * 2nd revert: 18:55, 28 December 2005
 * 3rd revert: 19:10, 28 December 2005
 * 4th revert: 23:32, 28 December 2005

Reported by:--Pecher 10:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments: The user made slight changes on the last revert, apparently to avoid being blocked. The user has recently been blocked for a violation of 3RR on the same article.--Pecher 10:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * He did not revert to the same version in the fourth revert so I have not blocked him. I have protected the page List of Ukrainians though; this is a long standing edit-war and Antidote always when he violates the 3RR, evades the block, so a protection seems to be more effective in stopping the edit-war. Izehar 11:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Ghirlandajo
Ghir reverted the article on Khotyn by calling it "shameless irrendetism". He removed the part where it said that the Romanians of Bukovina voted to reunite with Romania. I tried to revert back, but he was persistent enough to revert it back three times in a matter of 17-minutes. On the talkpage, where I asked him why he reverted, he insulted me by saying that this is about "Romanian Imperialism" and he also said that "this is not a cheap Romanian prop booklet but an international encyclopedia". When I said that he is being insultive, he called me a troll and threatened to have me reported. --Anittas 11:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Only three reverts, each time accompanied by admonitions to provide refs for his POV-pushing, which Anittas ignored. Now attempt at defamation on the Admins' noticeboard. Trolls will be trolls. --Ghirla | talk 11:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Revert 1: 11:07, December 29, 2005 Ghirlandajo (rm shameless irredentism)
 * Revert 2: 11:19, December 29, 2005 Ghirlandajo (guys, explain your grievances at talk; revert warring is not the way to push your nationalist agenda)
 * Revert 3: 11:24, December 29, 2005 Ghirlandajo (go to the talk page and provide your refs; if you persist in blatant reverting, you will be reported)

There is not POV in saying that the Rmoanians of Bukovina voted to unite with Romania. This is a fact. I posted the link to the actual declaration, word by word. Ghir was the one who started to revert back and he violated the 3RR. And why is he calling me a troll? Who was the one who made the insulting? --Anittas 11:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Ttas, go to the appropriate talk page and discuss. Attempts to spread your nationalist hysteria to the admins' noticeboard is a sign of trolling. --Ghirla | talk 11:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I am not blocking as this is not a strict 3RRvio. I have protected the page Khotyn to deal with the edit-warring though. Please discuss on the talk page. Izehar 12:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Anittas
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * 1st revert: 14:33, 29 December 2005
 * 2nd revert: 14:59, 29 December 2005
 * 3rd revert: 01:36, 30 December 2005
 * 4th revert: 01:38, 30 December 2005

Reported by:--Ghirla | talk 11:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments: The user pushes Romanian POV in a number of articles, with a strong penchant for revert warring, ignores pleas of several users from different countries to provide refs or discuss his grievances on appropriate talk page. In this case, he four times restituted the same sentence: "prompted Romanians from Bukovina to vote for unification with Romania, which made Khotyn Romanian territory". --Ghirla | talk 11:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I encourage the admins that consider to take action on me to go to the Khutyn talkpage and see for themselves that I tried to discuss things with Ghir. You will see that he insulted me and my country. I did not insult him, yet he called me a troll. --Anittas 11:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * In light of the fact that both this report and the above report are not strictly speaking 3RRvios as the they are not reverting to the same version I am not blocking them, but have protected the page Khotyn. Izehar 11:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you please ask him to stop insulting me and my country, and if possible, to retract his insults? --Anittas 12:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I am watching the Khotyn page and have left a message for Ghirlandajo at Talk:Khotyn. I agree that he has acted quite uncivily in that dispute. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 08:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Ronline, I repeat it for the umpteenths time. Either you Romanian admins moderate your trolls, or I will have to moderate them myself. Removing my comments from a notice board with an edit summary "we don't need your comments here" is simply unacceptable. By conniving Anittas' michief, you spur him to further trolling. --Ghirla | talk 09:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ghirla - I reverted Anittas' removal of your comment. I do not agree with it, sine it goes against freedom of speech. Yes, removal is unacceptable, and yes, that removal was reverted. However, other than that, I don't think Anittas has acted like a troll at the Khotyn dispute, which is why I think some of your edit summaries and comments weren't warranted. The Khotyn case was a pure content dispute, nothing more. So, no, I'm not spurring anyone on or connving mischief, I'm simply being fair. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 10:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * He made a threat and was reverted by Vasile. One way or another, he was very rude, and was reverted. What's the problem? --Anittas 10:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It sure is acceptable, because we don't need your comments. You have made enough insults for us to start a RfC on you. If you persist with your abuse, you might get your wish. --Anittas 09:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Izehar, please note that "both" and "them" in your statement do not apply here. I reverted 3 times and not 4. Anittas reverted 4 times and this is a crystal clear 3RR violation strictly or loosely speaking. These four are 100% reverts with no changes between versions whatsoever:

 * 1st revert December 29 0:15
 * 2nd revert December 29 0:41
 * 3rd revert December 29, 11.18
 * 4th revert December 29, 11.20

This was followed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Romanian_Wikipedians'_notice_board&oldid=33225166#Conflict_cu_Rusii this messages] at Romanian board and translation of some of this is available here. The rest is sometimes worse. Finally, take a look at the repeated removal of the statement of the same board ,  and you will get the picture.

In any case, there is a clear 3RR violation followed by offensive postings to the notice boards while there is no violation on my part. Whether you choose to let Anittas get away with this or not, I just wanted to set the record straight on this. --Ghirla | talk 09:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC) You violated the 3RR, too. --Anittas 09:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, only you violated the 3RR on this article. Ghirlandajo violated the 3RR on a different article, so I've blocked both of you for 24 hours.  —David Levy 18:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Battlefield
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 11:19, 2005-12-29
 * 1st revert: 19:18, 2005-12-26
 * 2nd revert: 21:18, 2005-12-27
 * 3rd revert: 23:04, 2005-12-27
 * 4th revert: 02:53, 2005-12-29
 * 5th revert: 11:19, 2005-12-29

Reported by: ST ○ 17:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * see also: Village pump (assistance) / Template talk:GermanGov
 * No 3RR violation here I'm afraid. Izehar 17:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Instantnood
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Reported by: User:SchmuckyTheCat

'Comments: These are "complex" reverts because I was actually editing the article instead of just revert warring. Pay attention to the wikilink to China/mainland China, that's the revert.
 * Can I also get a page ban against 'nood on this article? SchmuckyTheCat 17:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This is messy business (gaming the system). What he has done may qualify as a Revert in the sense that he has undone someone's edit. I am reluctant to block him and it will become more clear why if one were to compare all his versions. I have protected that article though. As both parties are obviously interested in discussing on the talk page (from their edit summaries), this should agree with them. Also, only Arbitration can issue a page ban I'm afraid. My advice to you though, is not to go there. Izehar 18:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not gaming, look at my edits. I actually went out and researched the types of trains to add something to the article.  And, Instantnood (and myself) are already under probation.  Any admin can page ban either of us from Chinese related articles. SchmuckyTheCat 18:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not too sure if this is the right course of action to take. So for someone violating the 3RR, the page gets protected and everyone gets "punished" by being barred from editing the said article? I further note that it was the 3RR violator's preferred version which was protected. If the page can only be unprotected when a resolution materialises, than the violator would probably think it sensible not to negotiate.--Huaiwei 19:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it is best to negotiate. I strongly advise you to consider mediation - if this behaviour has been subject to restrictions before, then edit-warring will only make things worse. I know I have protected the page in the wrong version from certain editors' point of view, but Instantnood has contacted me and asked me to unprotect it. As no one wants the article protecting, I'll unprotect it, but no more edit-warring. Izehar 19:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * User:SchmuckyTheCat had in fact been gaming right after the article was unprotected, by trying something different from his previous reverts . It was not a good sign to show he wanted to negotiate. — Instantnood 09:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Update: I have blocked Instantnood for 24 hours - after I unprotected the page, he continued the edit war and did violate the 3RR. Izehar 20:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Mistress Selina Kyle 5
Three revert rule violation on. :

Reported by: Yuber(talk) 20:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Comments:
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * This user has reverted 6 times in the past 24 hours, and this is his/her's 5th report for a violation. Yuber(talk) 20:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * See here where discussion was already made (I pointed this out to Yuber but he ignores discussion, as usual and just revert wars): User talk:FayssalF

 * here for an example of Yuber's recent conduct - is following me around reverting every change I make on Islam-related articles, along with his friends - he's enlisting the help of other editors to create revert wars.

 * He's been consistently removing any links to articles or sites that contain criticism of Islam and using his personal clique of other editors to revert war too: I've noticed all the people reverting are Muslim, it's getting to be really quite an epidemic..

 * Perfectly NPOV, sourced material and links to relevant articles is being routinely censored out of Islam-related articles by Yuber,, and co who are trying to bully anyone opposing their point of view out of editing.. --20:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * It's definitely a violation and the user has been warned before and blocked twice for it. I've therefore blocked for 24 hours. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

User:SoM
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: | 22:27, December 28, 2005
 * 1st revert: | 22:41, December 28, 2005
 * 2nd revert: | 10:47, December 29, 2005
 * 3rd revert: | 17:16, December 29, 2005
 * 4th revert: | 18:09, December 29, 2005

Reported by:--DrBat 22:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User reverted over 3 times in a span of 24 hours.--DrBat 22:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry, not a 3RRvio. Izehar 22:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Aren't there more than three reverts? --DrBat 22:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * No - there are exactly three reverts. Revert 1 is not a revert. Izehar 22:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * The first revert was reverting the new image back to the old one. --DrBat 22:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * DrBat is correct; SoM reverted to the earlier image four times, and that last edit summary (containing the rationale "I was here first") is quite troubling. SoM recently reported DrBat for a 3RR violation, so there's no excuse.  Blocked for 24 hours.  —David Levy 23:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Goodandevil
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 20:50, 29 December 2005
 * 1st revert: 20:53, 29 December 2005
 * 2nd revert: 21:02, 29 December 2005
 * 3rd revert: 21:03, 29 December 2005
 * 4th revert: 23:00, 29 December 2005

Reported by: Nandesuka 23:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * There was also a separate slew of 3RR violations wherein the user kept restoring the POV tag, despite the consensus that the tag was being misused.  I didn't cut and paste those because I wanted to avoid carpal tunnel syndrome.  Looking at the history I count at least four of those. Nandesuka 23:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hedley says he already enacted a 48 hour block; check the block log. --Cyde Weys votetalk 23:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep, looks like it was done. Thanks. Nandesuka 23:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

User:70.49.95.237
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 16:22, 29 December 2005
 * 1st revert: 05:50, 30 December 2005
 * 2nd revert: 06:05, 30 December 2005
 * 3rd revert: 06:12, 30 December 2005
 * 4th revert: 06:25, 30 December 2005

Reported by: Nandesuka 06:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User is removing validly sourced information that she or he disagrees with. Was warned on her or his talk page. Nandesuka 06:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Huaiwei
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * 1st revert: 14:11 30 Dec
 * 2nd revert: 15:57 30 Dec
 * 3rd revert: 16:22 30 Dec
 * 4th revert: 18:36 30 Dec

Reported by: novacatz 12:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Huaiwei keeps on removing the HK entries for the national dish article. This is not the first time he has been removing the entries (see page history -- 25th Dec, 12 Dec).
 * Incidentally, he has been listed above twice already. novacatz 12:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As per a recent ArbCom ruling, any administrator can ban Huaiwei from any China related article. I think some more experienced admins may want to look into this. Izehar 12:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, 10:36, 30 December 2005 is not a Revert - for it to be a revert, he would have had to have undone all the anon's edits - he didn't do that. Izehar 12:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Cberlet
Three revert rule violation on.

 * Previous version reverted to: 14:28, 30 December 2005
 * 1st revert: 14:30, 30 December 2005
 * 2nd revert: 14:57, 30 December 2005
 * 3rd revert: 15:06, 30 December 2005
 * 4th revert: 15:14, 30 December 2005
 * 4th revert: 15:14, 30 December 2005

Reported by: User:Jbamb 14:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Have tried working with this user, he simply refuses to allow certain content in the page, despite its clear relevance, that it would make the article be more NPOV, and that it is factually correct. Have tried several different wordings and nothing is acceptable. -- Jbamb 15:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry, that's not a 3RRvio - he only reverted twice (see Revert to see what a revert is). Izehar 15:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * So you mean you can just manually undo the changes and then you can violate 3RR all you want? Awesome.  -- Jbamb 15:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You know, I really don't know. In this case, he has only reverted twice:
 * 14:30, 30 December 2005
 * 14:57, 30 December 2005
 * They are the only reverts - a revert means undoing all of someone's edits. He has done that in the above two edits. I can protect the page to stop the edit-war if you like. Izehar 15:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Pardon me, but the request by Jbamb is not only misapplied, but I urge any administrator to actually read the talk page Talk:Right-wing politics and look at the recent page diffs and the page history before protecting the page or taking any other action. I have supplied cites and links to justify my edits, while Jbamb just makes uncited assertions.  This whole discussion belongs on Fascism and ideology in the first place.--Cberlet 15:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Ghirlandajo (2)
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Reported by:

Comments:

Such guys deserve to be blocked for a week or two. He was warned 3 times but he continued his revert war. Bad behaviour. Severe block. --156.17.130.10 16:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Huh, this is the funniest nomination of all. Find two things in common between first pair of edits and the last one. Don't feed the trolls. --Ghirla | talk 16:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I suggest that you read the three-revert rule. You're prohibited from reverting edits made to the same page more than three times in a 24-hour period; these needn't be the same edits.  And don't think that a few minor variations (dispute tags, etc.) make a difference.

 * 1, 2, 3, 4 . Blocked for 24 hours.  —David Levy 18:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * For evading the 24-hour block, blocked for 48 hours. —David Levy 22:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I have reset the block to 24 hours. No policy provides that a block evasion results in doubling of the block. Izehar 22:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I did not double the 3RR block. Block evasion is a type of disruption (itself a blockable offense), so I combined the original 24-hour block with a separate 24-hour block for that additional infraction.  This is well within the range of administrative discretion, and you should not have reset the block without allowing me to explain my rationale.  —David Levy 22:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I'm afraid I have seen no precedents for that kind of thing (has it ever happened before? 3RR blocks are violated every day) and if you are considering resetting it, please leave a notice on WP:AN/I - that is where discretionary actions are usually reported for review by more experienced users. Izehar 22:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Here's a random example. (Here's a record of the actual block extension ).  —David Levy 23:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

User:168.233.1.6
Three revert rule violation on.

He edits the articles more than hundred times without any discussion. Bomac 17:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry, not a 3RRvio under any circumstances. Izehar 17:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * May I ask why? Bomac 17:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Because he has not reverted even once - he makes a different edit every time. He has not reinserted the same edit (any same edit) four or more times. Izehar 17:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * But, according to policy: --Do not revert any single page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours.--, it is a 3RR violation. Bomac 18:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * He has not reverted more than three times. Can you produce diffs like everyone else - I can't find evidence. Izehar 18:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Deathrocker
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 09:45, 30 December 2005
 * 1st revert: 15:28, 30 December 2005
 * 2nd revert: 18:26, 30 December 2005
 * 3rd revert: 19:06, 30 December 2005
 * 4th revert: 19:54, 30 December 2005
 * 5th revert: 20:47, 30 December 2005

Reported by: ChrisB 21:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Deathrocker added content to the article that three different editors tried to remove and/or edit. Refused to discuss the problems with the content, referred to its removal as "vandalism".  (Second incident by Deathrocker this week.) -- ChrisB 21:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Blocked for 24 hours. Izehar 21:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

User:S9arthur
Very disappointed to have to do this. S9arthur has reverted Melungeons many times to remove a link to an interesting and useful article on the subject. He refuses to discuss it on talk. Maybe not a surprise to read his reason for contributing to WP on the talkpage: "I've made it my business since about 1999 to fight the BS on the Internet about the Melungeons".

Reverts in last 24 hours:

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

Then more sneakily by rewriting text, as in:

7th

8th

And again:

9th

He has been warned by DavidWBrooks and by myself, so I think he's well aware that he's transgressed. James James 05:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

User:KDRGibby
Three revert rule violation on. :

I am posting this to avoid any accusations of bias. The editor claims that just because makes a change with each re-addition of a text he keeps adding, it doesn't make it a reversion. I think this is wikilawyering and does count.

 * Previous version reverted to: 13:45
 * 1st revert: 13:50
 * 2nd revert: 14:06
 * 3rd revert: 14:10
 * 4th revert: 14:20

Reported by: Natalinasmpf 06:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Natalina's patience with users like Gibby is remarkable. While he has insulted and ridiculed her, she has offered to go through mediation with him. However, she should not have to tolerate the abuse; and I will not tolerate it. There is no reason to tolerate a user who posts obscene X-rated comments, which are grapic enough to be illegal to utter in the presence of polite company and minors (such as Natalina, who says she is 15 on her user page) in some corners of the world:

 * Wiki needs dicks, it needs dicks to fuck the assholes (if you saw Team America you know what I'm talking about) who keep deleting information because they dont like what is presented but offer no clear or well reasoned arguement as why it should be offered...that means stoping spinmasters like yourself and 172 who make sure carefully edited material makes it through.(Gibby 06:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC))

Gibby is suggesting the possibility of him coming to my place of work (thankfully I am anonymous!) to disrupt an academic environment, just as he is disrupting Wikipedia:

 * oh and its no personal essay, you are just a sore loser with no ability to rationalize an arguement on his or her own. please for godsake come up with something! Tell me where you teach, I'll even come visit you to argue with you in person!!!!!!! (Gibby 06:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC))
 * real reason = don't want to be embarrased by someone who might make better points than them in front of their impressionable students (Gibby 06:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC))

A 24 hour block is in order for the 3RR. Moreover, the way he has chosen to disrupt Wikipedia is so unacceptable that a much longer block for disruption is needed promptly. 172 07:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocked by me. This editor needs a lesson in civility, but I wouldn't call his conduct disruptive as yet. android 79  07:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I failed to post a sufficient amount of evidence. Similar behavior has gone on for weeks on the communism article, which I failed to make clear in my summary above. 172 07:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll be watching now, so any continued uncivil/disruptive behavior will be noticed. And, just so everyone knows, it's impossible for me to take sides in this debate, because I can't even tell what the sides are. I know about as much about communism as Jessica Simpson knows about sea life. android  79  07:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hum, then it sounds as if you know more about communism than a lot of users who actively work on the subject. At any rate, my quips aside, I should have made it clearer earlier that I was not expecting administrators to take sides in the dispute, but to consider the incivility on the talk page. Again, that it my fault for failing to be sufficiently clear. Thanks for your involvement. 172 08:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That was more for KDRGibby's benefit; already I've gotten some nasty emails accusing me of some sort of favoritism. android  79  08:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not that anybody asked, but I definitely support android's block, though I wouldn't have been as charitable. Probably would've made it for even longer for incivility and disruption. Absolutely appalling behavior. · Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 08:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Now that I've received email from the guy, I'm regretting the short length as well. android  79  08:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * More potty mouth talk, I bet. 172 08:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You guessed it. Now I'm getting the "you have no life, and you're power-tripping" defense on his talk page. Yawn. Time for bed. android  79  08:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Waleeed
Three revert rule violation on.

 * Previous version reverted to: 21:14, 30 December 2005
 * 1st revert: 21:17, 30 December 2005
 * 2nd revert: 01:02, 31 December 2005
 * 3rd revert: 01:31, 31 December 2005
 * 4th revert: 01:41, 31 December 2005
 * 5th revert: 01:49, 31 December 2005
 * 5th revert: 01:49, 31 December 2005

Reported by: <font color="#2f4f4f">Jwissick <font color="#2f4f4f">(t) <font color="#2f4f4f">(c) 08:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Has objections to a photo and refuses to discuss his changes before he makes them. <font color="#2f4f4f">Jwissick <font color="#2f4f4f">(t) <font color="#2f4f4f">(c)  09:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Commonsenses 4th
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 05:25, 29 December 2005
 * 1st revert: 01:53, 30 December 2005
 * 2nd revert: 07:04, 30 December 2005
 * 3rd revert: 22:16, 30 December 2005
 * 4th revert: 01:01, 31 December 2005

Reported by: -- <font color="#FF0000">Миборовский U 09:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * 4th violation on the same page in 10 days, doing the same thing (removing two photographs). See his talkpage. Been warned once, blocked twice. Since I was involved in a content dispute I don't think I should protect the page, but here I think he should deserve a longer block, and would someone please protect the page too. Thanks. -- <font color="#FF0000">Миборовский U 09:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3rd:
 * 2nd and 1st:

 * Blocked for 24 hours. Izehar 11:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * He's been blocked for 24 hours 2 prior times already, surely a longer block is in order? -- <font color="#FF0000">Миборовский U 12:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, the policy states that whoever violates the 3RR may be blocked up to 24 hours. Izehar 14:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Serhio
Three revert rule violation on.

 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 9th revert:

Reported by: --203.188.144.62 09:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments: Has deleted important parts of text. Also, he insults other users as "MF". Bad behaviour. Severe block. --203.188.144.62 09:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Quite a revert war going on. Blocked, , and for 24 hours each for violating the 3RR on Republic of Moldova -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Addendum: made 3 reverts,  made one additional identical revert. I assume these two to be the same user, but another admin may unblock if in doubt. User 203.188.144.62 was also spamming multiple user talk pages with the same message as here, i took the liberty to revert these. -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Vasile
Three revert rule violation on by :

 * 1st revert: 02:08, December 31, 2005
 * 2nd revert: 02:24, December 31, 2005 but also see
 * 3rd revert: 17:46, December 31, 2005 but also see
 * 4th revert: 20:02, December 31, 2005

Reported by: Irpen 20:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments: In each of these four edits user:Vasile deleted a well referenced paragraph staring from: In some of the edits above this was supplied by some other edits to the article while others were just 100% reverts. However, each of these edits should be counted as a revert with respect to the 3RR rule because the policy clearly says:
 * "Since Romania's gaining of independence in 1878, it became...".
 * Reverting doesn't only mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. It means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that mostly undo a previous edit and also add something new, page moving, admin actions such as protection, etc. Use common sense.

In this sense each of these edits removed an exact same paragraph from the article and the actions of the user constitutes a clear 3RR violation. --Irpen 20:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Vasile has no history of blocks, and does not appear to have been warned before. I've added the standard 3RR notice to the user's talk page.  —David Levy 20:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile this Irpen made revert war here Anti-Romanian discrimination --163.20.85.7 20:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Admin making revert war on Transnistria, Hertza, Anti-Romanian discrimination --163.20.85.7 21:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

User:XGustaX
3RR on Costa Rica. Original version *. Wsa warned here but removed the warning, SqueakBox 21:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert
 * 4th revert.

 * Blocked for 24 hours. Izehar 21:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm unblocking. I'll come back with an explanation very very soon, so plesae wait. --HappyCamper 21:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Please see below (in the SqueakBox entry) --HappyCamper 22:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

User:SqueakBox
Three revert rule violation on Costa Rica (talk · history · watch). SqueakBox (talk • contribs):

Previous version reverted to: [Link Time] 1st revert: cur) (last) 18:45, 31 December 2005 SqueakBox (am not disputing its truth but its importance, moved to top of culture section,) 2nd revert: cur) (last) 18:53, 31 December 2005 SqueakBox (revert) 3rd revert: (cur) (last) 19:33, 31 December 2005 SqueakBox (→Culture - rv it is not seen thjat way other by Costa Ricans and a tiny minority of others) 4th revert: (cur) (last) 19:39, 31 December 2005 SqueakBox (→Culture - no you have to source your extreme POV, I don't have to source it is wrong) Reported by: XGustaX

Comments:

He has repeatly reverted the Costa Rica page to what seem to me baist. He has also threated to report me after he also broke the 3 revert rule.

 * Indeed - SqueakBox has also been blocked for 24 hours (I checked the revision history of Costa Rica; much more clear there). Izehar 21:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm unblocking. I'll come back with an explanation very very soon, so plesae wait. --HappyCamper 21:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmm....well, I wrote about 8 paragraphs of text offline, after which I noticed these posts:  -- I think these speak for themselves then - both editors seem happy :-) Let's enjoy the rest of 2005 as we welcome 2006! --HappyCamper 22:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

User:mikkalai
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: [] see his history
 * 1st revert: []
 * 2nd revert: []
 * 3rd revert: []
 * 4th revert: []

Three revert rule violation on.

 * Previous version reverted to: []see his history
 * 1st revert: []
 * 2nd revert: []
 * 3rd revert: []
 * 4th revert: []

Reported by: --202.175.180.151 00:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User:Mikkalai insists edits to impose his POV ot the articles.

can you watch Anti-Romanian discrimination? Mikka makes revert war there, I reverted once. --203.188.144.61 23:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And here Transnistria --203.188.144.61 23:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

 * (cur) (last) 23:36, 31 December 2005 203.188.144.61 (I report you 3RR)
 * (cur) (last) 23:26, 31 December 2005 Mikkalai m (Reverted edits by 82.112.114.133 (talk) to last version by Node ue)
 * (cur) (last) 23:05, 31 December 2005 82.112.114.133 (rv vandalism from node ue)
 * (cur) (last) 22:15, 31 December 2005 Node ue (Umm... Tag, it's antipolicy to re-introduce copyvio material. (other changes as well))
 * (cur) (last) 21:49, 31 December 2005 Mikkalai m (Reverted edits by 163.20.85.7 (talk) to last version by Mikkalai)
 * (cur) (last) 21:29, 31 December 2005 163.20.85.7 (rv)
 * (cur) (last) 21:05, 31 December 2005 Mikkalai (→Economy - rm repetition)
 * (cur) (last) 21:01, 31 December 2005 Mikkalai (→Others (in Romanian language))
 * (cur) (last) 20:57, 31 December 2005 Mikkalai m (Reverted edits by 203.167.27.254 (talk) to last version by Mikkalai)
 * (cur) (last) 18:05, 31 December 2005 203.167.27.254 (stop it right there ASSHOLE)
 * (cur) (last) 17:46, 31 December 2005 Mikkalai m (Reverted edits by 161.53.9.188 (talk) to last version by Mikkalai)
 * (cur) (last) 08:05, 31 December 2005 161.53.9.188 (rv BBC reference Transnistria:"Misery in a pariah state")
 * (cur) (last) 07:26, 31 December 2005 Mikkalai (→Names)
 * (cur) (last) 07:18, 31 December 2005 Mikkalai (→Administrative regions)
 * (cur) (last) 07:15, 31 December 2005 JarlaxleArtemis m
 * (cur) (last) 07:13, 31 December 2005 Mikkalai (→Bibliography)

revert war made by mikka. He was warned once. He refused to cooperate. He erased valid sources. --202.175.182.76 23:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't care his reasons. He as contributor should know not to revert more than 3 times and to edit in the same time. --202.175.182.76 23:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

He as admin tries to impose his POV. Instead of talking on the talk page he wants to impose his POV version. Very bad from an Admin to do that. Looks very bad. --202.175.180.151 23:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment: Do not feed the trolls. Izehar 00:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I've blocked Mikkalai for 24 hours for violating the 3RR at Anti-Romanian discrimination (1 2 3 4. 3RR is enforced without bias, so I'm not making any judgement calls on his edits here. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 13:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

 * If 3RR allows such superior editors as User:Mikkalai - one of the top ten most active wikipedians ever - to be blocked from editing, this rule should be rephrased speedily. The only side that will be punished and will lose in the case of blocking valuable contributors is Wikipedia itself. As long as the established wikipedians are treated in the same way as prankster trollish anons, Wikipedia will keep losing its best editors. I will not be surprised at all if in a few months the only contributors to the Eastern European topics will remain a couple of nationalist archtrolls like Bonaparte (the one who nominated Ronline to adminship BTW). --Ghirla | talk 19:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So much to tell about you Ghrila...Mikka knew the rules very well. He even applied them when it was not the case. And stop harassing me and talk about me everywhere...They might say I pay you for advertising...Your hatred towards others then russian is well known consider your RfC... Bonaparte  talk  19:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

User:CJK
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Reported by: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Persistent removal of any reference to Cuban electoral system (whether on WP or external) because it does not sufficiently support his anti-Castro POV. Reversions are not to whole page, but to Castro entry.

1st one not a revert. Nice try. CJK 19:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with CJK. Bonaparte   talk  19:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry - no 3RRvio here. Izehar 19:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Reversions are not to whole page, but to Castro entry. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

User:MateoP
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 06:31, 1 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 12:23, 1 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 14:25, 1 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 02:08, 2 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 05:25, 2 January 2006

Reported by: Mark1 22:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Just to be clear, the first three reverts were removal of content from the article; the fourth revert was re-adding an inaccurate NPOV tag. Mark1 22:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

 * It is a three revert rule violation see this. his final revert is still a revert. I have blocked MateoP for 24 hours. Izehar 22:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

User:SavvyCat
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 22:40, January 1, 2006
 * 1st revert: 22:55, January 1, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 23:35, January 1, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 00:22, January 2, 2006
 * 4th revert: 00:33, January 2, 2006

Reported by: Krich (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments: SavvyCat was warned in advance that another revert would place her in violation of WP:3RR - she immediately reverted anyway. --Krich (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Krich, has she ever had 3RR explained to her, and was she warned anywhere apart from the edit summary that she was about to violate it? Also, her first edit was a revert to a previous version only in the sense that, in removing something, she by definition reverted to a previous version (one that didn't contain the thing she removed). For both those reasons, I'm inclined to warn her for this only, unless you can show me that she's been warned already. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 04:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I've left a warning and I've reverted to the pre-3RR version. Hopefully that'll be enough. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 04:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

 * No, you are correct, she was not warned in advance, prior to this incident, about 3RR. I did warn her in my edit summary that if she reverted again, she would be in violation - I even informed her I would be in the same boat, and thus wouldn't revert again. I'm not sure how to answer this concern, in that SavvyCat has shown no interest in learning or abiding by Wikipedia rules, processes, or conventions since she arrived, despite several attempts to rationally and politely discuss it with her. She can't be warned in advance of every possible violation she could commit, and doesn't appear to care to listen regarding the things she has been warned about. I understand her emotions are high on this subject, but that's also why it's a bit hard to deal with her.
 * In answer to your other comment, I'll note that the item she started reverting today was an item that she has removed as part of several large deletions a few days ago. Most of her deletions of citations have not been challenged. When this one item was replaced today, with an explanation in the edit summary (as well as previous discussion on the talk page), she simply reverted my edits without comment, and then three more times in quick succession. In ordinary circumstances I might have cut more slack, but she's not even attempting to follow a civil editing process with the rest of us. Thanks for your attention to this, --Krich (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

User:71.193.42.0 aka User:BigBug
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 12:35, December 31, 2005
 * 1st revert: 21:58, January 1, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 22:02, January 1, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 22:07, January 1, 2006
 * 4th revert: 22:18, January 1, 2006
 * 5th revert: 22:25, January 1, 2006
 * And now 6th: 22:49, January 1, 2006

Reported by: DreamGuy 04:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Editor admits on his user page that he created the blog that he keeps adding to the External links section of Dennis Rader. He has also admitted to being the anon editor (see comments on his talk page) using the IP address above that was making the same edits (and also vandalized my userspace previously) on. His sole edits to Wikipedia, minus one where he lists actual books as sources, have been to try to promote his own site. It is clear that unless some action is taken that he will continue to spam his site to this article until the cows come home. DreamGuy 04:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, apparently the him is actually a her, and she "obviously [has] far more knowledge of this case than you" is justification for her linking to her own blog repeatedly. And I'm out of reverts, and User:Nunh-huh bowed out earlier... so the spam I guess will stay for now, ugh. DreamGuy 04:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The pair blocked for 24 hours. -Splash talk 04:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the account for 48 hours for persistent spamming despite warnings. Will 24 hour more appropriate? --BorgQueen 05:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the 3RR doesn't provide for a 48 hour block (they are usually reserved for successive 3RRs), and simple vandalism, if this is such, normally only earns a 24 hour block too. Start at 24 and work up is usually best. My 24 hour block will automagically override your 48 hour one at the moment, anyway. -Splash talk 05:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think in all honestly that the most effective thing would be clear notes from more than one editor that the spamming is not going to be accepted. She, like a lot of people, seem to think if it's just one person (or, considering the number of likeminded complaints from spammers and POV-pushers on my talk page, which these people see when they go look me up, me specifically) complaining that they can ignore it. A clear show that Wikipedia policy is against her on this would be good. DreamGuy 05:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

 * By the way, it was pointed out to me that I screwed up some of the diffs there -- Sorry about that, I stupidly thought just clicking the diff link would show the change, forgetting about a couple of random edits inbetween here and there that made the diff link not show the actual revert. Thanks for paying attention to it anyway. DreamGuy 05:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Wgfinley
Three revert rule violation on Template:User GWB (talk · [ history] · [ watch]). User:Wgfinley (talk • contribs):

Reported by: 63.22.13.168 05:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Previous version reverted to: 06:58, 30 December 2005
 * 1st revert: 05:09, 2 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 05:11, 2 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 05:15, 2 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 05:18, 2 January 200606
 * 5th revert: 05:19, 2 January 2006

Comments:

User:James James
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
 * 1st revert: 06:00
 * 2nd revert: 06:05
 * 3rd revert: 06:17
 * 4th revert: 06:45

Reported by: User:RJII

Comments:

This guy is just too much. Very disruptive. User:RJII

 * Actually, it's you who's being disruptive, RJ. I've left a warning for James James and have invited him to revert himself. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 06:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. And I'm tired of your harrassment. You have an antagonism against me based on experiences in the past and are being highly biased, unreasonable, and dishonest. RJII 07:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no way I reverted anything more than three times. I've been very careful because I know this guy, rather than working collaboratively, is trying to bully me from the page. He came back from a block for disruption and immediately started the same behaviour that had him blocked. I despair. James James 07:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Don't despair. He is sailing very close to the wind in terms of a block for disruption. Just edit within the rules (no matter how frustrated you get) until the issue with him is sorted out. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 07:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I challenge you to point out a "disruption." You need to be more honest. James James has reverted 4 times and is deleting sourced information. Why won't you put a block on him? Either prove you have a shred of integrity and block him, or stay out of this and let a non-biased admin take care of this. RJII 07:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out jamesjames was warned that he had already made is second revert. So, he can't use the excuse of not knowing what he was doing. (Note Slimvirgin there trying to make excuses for him saying he didnt know what he was doing). RJII 07:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * He didn't realize that reverting to different versions counted as a violation. He has now been told. End of story. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 07:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm a non-biased admin and I'm dealing with it. I could have blocked you a few days ago for 3RR but I didn't. Today, I could perhaps have blocked James for it, and didn't. But this is a final warning to you that any more disruption at that article, whether in the form of reverting, (including system gaming) or personal attacks, will result in a block. Your behavior means that no one else can edit it. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  07:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * A non-biased admin?? LOL! That's the funniest joke I've heard this year! And stop accusing me of being disruptive without proof. You should be demoted. What is it ..you're going to ban me if I edit the article? You're WAY out of line. RJII 07:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * James James has now reverted himself, so the issue is closed. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 07:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue is far from closed. Provide proof that I was disruptive in that article during this ordeal. Don't make an allegation like that unless you can back it up. You are a horrible adminstrator. RJII 07:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Insulting SlimVirgin is hardly conducive to achieving the aims of Wikipedia. If I were you, I'd call it quits and consider yourself lucky if another admin doesn't block you for your continued disruption and personal attacks.James James 07:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Dishonesty is even more insulting. RJII 07:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention, SlimVirgin. I've noted my misunderstanding of the policy on 3RR and I'll be more careful in future. James James 07:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

User:219.95.31.87
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 11:07, December 31, 2005
 * 1st revert: 08:30, January 1, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 09:10, January 1, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 04:13, January 2, 2006
 * 4th revert: 04:54, January 2, 2006

Reported by: --BenjaminTsai Talk 10:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * May not really violate 3RR as it was done from two different IPs (219.95.31.87 and 219.95.255.246). --BenjaminTsai Talk 10:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Jtdirl
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 12:34, 1 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 02:03, 2 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 02:10, 2 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:08, 2 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:24, 2 January 2006

Reported by: Netoholic @

Comments:
 * Long-term edit war. User prefers a version that has missing borders around the infobox, contrary to several other editors and talk page participants. User is an admin and should know better. -- Netoholic @ 18:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, bu I only see three reverts on Jan 1 and two reverts on Jan 2 in the history. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey! relax and continue your discussions at talk:Template:Infobox Pope, and not here. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Incorrect in all fronts. One user, Netoholic, has been trying to change the box against a decision on the talk page to use a particular structure. As he is famous for, Netoholic is intent on forcing his version onto the page through threats if necessary. Re the above, another user made a serious of erronious changes to the commands. The user then admitted that the changes were an error and apologised here. That was at issue in the reversions, a misunderstanding over codes in which one user, with the best of intentions, tried to change the page to a form with wrong codes. The changes were reverted. The only issue on this page is Netoholic's ungoing behaviour in trying to bully his way against a consensus to force his demands through no matter what.  FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)  19:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Your comments when you reverted TBSDY were "rv to agreed format" and "try reading". Both times you revert him within 5 minutes.  His version worked, so you weren't reverting out of some higher ideal.  You were reigniting the revert war you waged in August on that page.   No matter what the reason, except for vandalism, which none of this is, you should never violate 3RR. -- Netoholic @ 19:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Jtdirl did violate the 3RR, but Netoholic violated the terms of his parole. The only valid responses are to block both or neither, and the former option would punish the community.  I've explained this on Netoholic's talk page, and requested that he please stop getting himself involved in disputes unrelated to the meta-templates issue.  —David Levy 20:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I reverted that template only once today. I edited it twice.   In any case, I would rather us both be blocked than to have Jtdirl's 3RR violation go unanswered.  He reverted two editors today.... and has been waging that revert war since at least August on that template.  As admin, he should be held to a higher standard. -- Netoholic @ 22:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The mind boggles at the self-dilusion!!! For the record, a consensus exists as to the form the infobox should take. One user, Netoholic, disagrees and has been trying to force his version, even though that design was rejected. I suppose the one good thing is that, in a break with tradition, Netoholic hasn't used the f-word in his abuse yet. Maybe a change of year has changed his linguistic tendencies. lol FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)  22:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't care one way or another about the format of the infobox., but the statement 'One user, Netoholic, disagrees' isn't correct. Ta bu shi da yu has also reverted the infobox: .  I'm inclined to start applying blocks to all the involved parties for subsequent violations of WP:DICK. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * My mistake; I earlier read and then forgot about the exchange with TBSDY. I stand by my final statement, however. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that you violated the 3RR. Having consensus on your side is not a valid defense.  Quoth the policy, "any reversions beyond this limit should be performed by somebody else, to serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which of two competing versions is correct."  Also, I'm disturbed the misleading defense that you posted above.  Ta bu shi da yu mistakenly believed that Netoholic's functional improvements were being removed, but did not make "a serious [sic] of erronious [sic] changes to the commands" or "change the page to a form with wrong codes."  I try to assume good faith, but your reversions were all about aesthetics, and you know it.  —David Levy 23:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Snowspinner
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
 * 1st revert: 23:26, 2 January 2006Redirects to WP:DICK, a disruptive edit
 * 2nd revert: 23:34, 2 January 2006WP:NOT/Soapbox essay

Deletions/Recreations

 * 4 of them, 3 in regards to the shortcut at 15:11, 2 January 2006, 23:41, 2 January 2006(the second one, he yells in the edit summary) and 00:41, 3 January 2006, 1 to the RFC as a whole refering to the redirect at 23:31, 2 January 2006, and 1 recreation to the RFC at 23:33, 2 January 2006.

Protection
Reported by:karmafist 00:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1, at 23:34, 2 January 2006

Comments:
 * Snowspinner has made a number of regular reverts as well as administrative edits(protections, deletions, etc.) to WP:RFC/KM(a shortcut), and Requests for comment/Kelly Martin to squelch further discussion. As stated on WP:3RR...

''Reverting doesn't only mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. It means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that mostly undo a previous edit and also add something new, page moving, admin actions such as protection, etc''

As I have put a statement at Requests for comment/Snowspinner 3, i'd prefer if someone else blocked Snowspinner for this. karmafist 00:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't quite know what to say - it isn't a typical 3RRvio. Snowspinner clearly has reverted more than three times on the same article within the same 24 hour period (that is if we strictly follow the guidelines at WP:3RR and WP:RV), so a block can be issued under policy. However, I don't really feel comfortable issuing it myself (technicalities), so I'll be leaving this to someone more experienced. Izehar 00:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

 * BTW the protection wasn't a revert according to WP:RV, as he didn't undo someone's change. In the protection log of this page, the only revert was by karmafist, as he undid the changes of another person. Izehar 00:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I recommend against blocking for this. This mess is more than ugly enough as it is. -- SCZenz 00:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've put a comment on Snowspinner's talk page about this. That's all that needs to be done. -- SCZenz 00:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

 * It isn't a 3RRvio - IMO Snowspinner did not revert even once on WP:RFC/KM, he made different edits. According to WP:RV: The result [of a revert] will be that the page becomes identical to how it used to be at some previous time. This is clearly not the case, so I recommend against a block and retract what I said above. Izehar 00:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

 * This is the thinking Snowspinner had since he's familiar with 3RR as well as many other rules, thus gaming 3RR via breaking WP:POINT which is far less enforced. It was a very creative gaming, but still gaming since there was no justification other than disrupting discussion on Kelly Martin's RFC. karmafist 00:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Whatever he did, he can't be blocked for a 3RRvio as he didn't violate the rule. Izehar 00:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's called "gaming the system". FYI: He just vandalized the page again. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

 * He just deleted and protected again. Even through the protection technicality, he's reverted 4 times(2 edits, 3 deletions). karmafist 00:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't that actually use of administrative powers to gain upper hand in a content dispute as well? Perhaps WP:ANI would also be appropiate, despite the faux pas of crossposting. -  brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  01:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we ever decided that deletions counted towards the three revert rule. I'm not sure it has ever come up. Of course I'd argue that they do however I don't think a block should be placed. Yet.Geni 01:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't wish to comment on this particular situation, but I will quote the 3RR: "This policy does apply to repeatedly moving, renaming, deleting, undeleting, or recreating a page. All of those, if done excessively, are forms of edit warring." —David Levy 02:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That was put there by User:Radiant! at 17:04, 29 October 2005 with no disscussion on the talk page. I don't think the issue has ever realy come up before (other than in regards to page moves where I'm pretty sure the answer was yes) so there hasn't been much disscussion on it).Geni 03:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been at the rough end of "it wasn't discussed but never removed" before, so I'd have to say that a couple of months and a several edits makes for a de facto case. I'll make a discussion starter, though.  brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  03:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * A spot. - brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  03:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Tombseye
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_people&oldid=33665191* 2nd revert: [DiffLink Time]
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tombseye
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_people&oldid=33665777

Reported by: XGustaX

'''Reverted more then three times.

User:Lumiere
Three revert rule violation on transcendental meditation. Lumiere:

 * Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transcendental_meditation&oldid=33546332
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transcendental_meditation&oldid=33647132
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transcendental_meditation&oldid=33654609
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transcendental_meditation&oldid=33657885

Reported by: Sethie 04:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Blocked for 24 hours. Izehar 09:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Leyasu and User:LGagnon
I am going to block these 2 myself for 12 hours since neither were warned about the 3RR, but on the other hand, 6 reverts and 5 in a 24 period is excessive and needs to be strongly discouraged.

2 Three revert rule violations on grunge music.

User:Leyasu:

 * Version reverted to : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grunge_music&oldid=33660269
 * 1st revert : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grunge_music&diff=33660269&oldid=33621693
 * 2nd revert : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grunge_music&diff=33668708&oldid=33668523
 * 3rd revert : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grunge_music&diff=33670361&oldid=33669684
 * 4th revert : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grunge_music&diff=33671564&oldid=33671146
 * 5th revert : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grunge_music&diff=33682782&oldid=33672758

User:LGagnon :

 * Version reverted to : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grunge_music&oldid=33669684
 * 1st revert : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grunge_music&diff=33548338&oldid=33545033
 * 2nd revert : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grunge_music&diff=33621693&oldid=33571179
 * 3rd revert : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grunge_music&diff=33669684&oldid=33668708
 * 4th revert : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grunge_music&diff=33671146&oldid=33670361
 * 5th revert : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grunge_music&diff=33672758&oldid=33671564
 * 6th revert : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grunge_music&diff=33692235&;;;oldid=33682782

Reported by: --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Miskin
I want to inform you that Miskin has violated the 3RR in this  article. Many regards, Bomac 12:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Some people need to find out what 'reverting' means. Miskin 18:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

User:87.202.25.88
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Reported by: Miskin 19:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * I wouldn't have reported him if it hadn't been for this outrageous personal insult.

 * Blocked for 24 hours. Izehar 19:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Cberlet
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 21:39, November 30, 2005
 * 1st revert: 18:03, January 3, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 18:07, January 3, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 18:19, January 3, 2006
 * 4th revert: 18:33, January 3, 2006

Reported by: DTC 01:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

 * In some of these I actually edited text. Not 3RR in my view. Willing to be advised otehrwise and take a penalty, but I purposefully did not exceeed 3RR in my understanding. TDC is using death of Magdoff to start an edit war that has a longstanding background of which TDC is well aware.--Cberlet 01:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Diffs are done wrong. They track back to an edit on December 1, 2004.--Cberlet 01:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Actual Diffs:

 *
 *
 * Edit rather than revert here---
 *
 *

So this is not an accurate complaint.--Cberlet 01:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes it is an accurate complaint, see links above. You made four edits today, each one erased my contributions, and returned the article to the 'exact same state that it existed on since 21:39, November 30, 2005. DTC 02:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment - Cberlet, it looks like User:TDC's is in the ballpark of a correct 3RR report. See WP:3RR, specifically the sentence "If the effect of your edit is to...", or however that goes.  Is there any reason why this edit-war isn't being discussed amongst multiple users?  Do you feel so much urgency about editing this article that you should be blocked until you cool off?  Jkelly 02:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment - Nice job on the 3RR report. The diffs were done perfectly.  I have no comment about the content that Jkelly is dealing with.  :)  Wikibofh(talk) 03:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible page protection needed...one more revert from either one and I'll block that editor...cleanup the mess on the talk page.-- MONGO 03:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Listen, I don’t think that the article needs to be protected, I just think that Cberlet needs to come to talk with more than questions about the timing of my changes calling challenging my fairness. DTC 15:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Really confusing presentation of diffs (I understand the rational behind it, but still). El_C 15:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

 * There are three pages in question where disputed text appears, and two pages were actively being edited by both of us: Harry Magdoff and Harry Magdoff and espionage. The issue is what quotes from which skeptics should appear on what pages. There was not an intent to produce--nor do I believe an actual-3RR violation on my part as I understood the rule. There was an attempt to find a balance among three pages concerning a number of quotes (the third page is Significance of Venona. I was actively discussing the matter and showing in my editing that if skeptical quotes were removed from one page, but the bulk of the material critical of Magdoff was unchanged, then we had to make some decisions about NPOV and balance by moving quotes around. It does matter that three pages were in play here. It does matter that there was actually editing going on involving the other page. I removed the challenged Navasky and Schrecker quotes and the other material on espionage from the Harry Magdoff page at Revision as of 23:18, 3 January 2006 and then restored the clipped quotes on the Harry Magdoff and espionage page at 23:19, 3 January 2006. The discussion was where the quotes belonged. Now we see that the intent of DTC was to remove the quotes from both pages, which is simply unfair and highly POV. DTC has just misrepresented an editing compromise and removed quotes from two skeptics (Schrecker & Navasky) from Harry Magdoff and espionage instead of removing the agreed upon quote by Schrecker. This is the type of behavior that I am dealing with. Calling skeptics names like "blind Stalinist hacks like Navasky," and blasting "Magdoff's KGB lap-doggery", and then clipping quotes in a POV way. Please review the timing of the edits and the talk page discussions on both pages before ruling this a 3RR violation. This was a complicated situation.--Cberlet 20:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

 * What's the point? It is clear that DTC is not willing to actually engage in a serious discussion of the quotes by scholars he considers "wrong" and "Stalinist Hacks." This is just a waste of time. Just block me for a 3RR violation and get it over with.--Cberlet 21:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you stopped edit-warring yesterday immediately after this report was filed. We don't block as punishment, only to stop edit-wars.  Are you telling me that if you aren't blocked you are going to escalate the dispute?  Jkelly 21:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Good grief. No. I meant that I would rather just be blocked than continuing to have a pointless discussion about the incident on this noticeboard page. I see that the issue is being treated in a mechanical way, that probably makes sense on the surface, and understand that I misunderstood how my attempts to forge a reasonable compromise on the quotes ended up with the appearance that I was just reverting blindly in an edit war, rather than trying to edit three pages at the same time to allow a fair selection of quotes from two skeptical scholars to remain. The debate over the validity of the Venona documents and the attempt to turn Wikipedia into a repository for dubious claims and suggestions that hundreds of Americans are/were known Soviet spies is not going to go away. There is already another edit war involving DTC at List_of_code_names_in_the_Venona_papers . I am actually trying to find a reasonable NPOV way to deal with this subject matter, by including not only the accusations, but also at least some text skeptical of the accusations. This involves literally scores of pages created by Nobs01 for the sole purpose of accusing the person named in the biographical entry of being a Soviet spy named in the Venona papers according to some scholars--a claim that is disputed by other scholars. It is a mess. Anyway, I am suspending myself for 48 hours as pennance. I am only responding here for the duration.--Cberlet 16:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Will Beback
3RR violation by User:Will Beback at Biff rose four edits in a row january 4th timed at 07:17,07:47,07:47,07:51. PLease note. A temporary ban seems to be in order.Jonah Ayers 08:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

also a previous edit on january 4th @ 00:38 by User:Will Beback I believe consitutes five edits on one article in a 24 hour timespan. Jonah Ayers

 * |1
 * |2
 * |3
 * |4
 * |5

 * Apparently this editor is confusing edits with reverts. -Will Beback 09:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Sojombi Pinola
also abusing the 3RR wiki standard at biff rose edits on january 4th-timed at 06:19, again at 06:22, again at 07:02, and again at 07:09. These warrant a temporary editing block. Jonah Ayers 08:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

 * |1

 * |2

 * |3

 * |4

 * Explained the difference between reverts and edits to the user. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Tai Streets
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 08:19, January 1, 2006 Chunitaku
 * 1st revert: 13:41, January 3, 2006 Tai Streets
 * 2nd revert: 19:25, January 3, 2006 67.129.121.254
 * 3rd revert: 03:35, January 4, 2006 172.130.30.135
 * 4th revert: 04:30, January 4, 2006 Tai Streets
 * 5th revert: 04:40, January 4, 2006 Tai Streets
 * 6th revert: 05:23, January 4, 2006 Tai Streets
 * 7th revert: 19:30, January 4, 2006 67.129.121.254
 * 8th revert: 21:24, January 4, 2006 67.129.121.254

Reported by: Will Beback 21:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * This is material from a deleted article, Articles for deletion/Gang stalking, which was recreated several times. The material has now been userfied at User:Tai Streets/Gang stalking. Several accounts and IP address are being used in this effort, though they appear to be sock puppets. -Will Beback 21:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, the user has indicated that he will keep restoring the material every time it is removed.
 * If vandals keep deleting it, then I have to keep restoring it. As of this morning, there was no hint of this text anywhere because people using various Web resources like Usenet & Google & the personal information search engines to cyberstalk have a vested interest in keeping the substance of a cyberstalking article out of the public eye. If you wish to delete it elsewhere, fine, I won't complain as long as it remains here.

 * I have now deleted the user page; user pages do not exist to re-create afd'd articles and thus thwart the afd process. -- Karada 03:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Benapgar
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
 * 1st revert: 15:57, 4 January
 * 2nd revert: 16:39, 4 January
 * 3rd revert: 16:51, 4 January
 * 4th revert: 17:11, 4 January

Reported by: FeloniousMonk 00:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Ben's disruptive actions are part of a long-running campaign of his extending back to November, and the subject of a user conduct RFC: Requests_for_comment/Benapgar, which he continually ignores.

 * Blocked for twenty-four hours. Jkelly 00:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

User:209.248.254.66 and socks
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
 * 1st revert: 20:11, 4 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:21, 4 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 21:33, 4 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:01, 4 January 2006

Reported by: Heah talk 03:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * also uses socks and ; is in all likelihood affiliated with a commercial website advertising poppers use (allaboutpoppers.com) and constantly spams this article.  has been blocked for 3rr violations once in the past as user:allabout2006.  somewhat irrelevant here, but also incredibly obnoxious and makes constant personal attacks, see Talk:Alkyl nitrites and alkyl nitrites history.
 * has just been blocked for 3rr vio by Nlu. If he starts with the socks i will post that here.  --Heah talk 03:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Lengis
Three revert rule violation on Jesus. :

 * Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
 * 1st revert: 03:53, 5 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 04:01, 5 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 04:19, 5 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 04:23, 5 January 2006
 * 5th revert: 04:27, 5 January 2006

Reported by: KHM03 04:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * The community has asked the user to cite sources; he has refused, and keeps reverting. KHM03 04:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * User blanking own talk page to remove 3RR warnings --> reverting restores. —ERcheck @ 04:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked, for the 3RR and vandalism. -- Essjay ·   Talk 00:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Pokey5945
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: 20:33, 2006 January 4
 * 2nd revert:  00:44, 2006 January 5
 * 3rd revert: 01:30, 2006 January 5
 * 4th revert: 01:35, 2006 January 5

Reported by: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Repeated reversion to POV, badly written, and inaccurate characterization to push anti-Churchill agenda. Specifically, insertion of the unmellifluous phrase: charge Churchill with exaggerating the death toll and fabricating his evidence for genocide.
 * I left a note about WP:3RR on his talk page as it doesn't appear he/she has been notified and has only been an editor for about a month so may not be familiar with the rule.--MONGO 06:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Mostafa bakry
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: 23:04, 4 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 23:09, 4 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 23:12, 4 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 23:15, 4 January 2006

Reported by: <font color="#2f4f4f">Jwissick <font color="#2f4f4f">(t) <font color="#2f4f4f">(c) 06:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Refuses to discuss changes. Artical in question is up for debate and is being discussed and voted upon. Yet Bakry refuses to participate and insists on revert wars for several days now. <font color="#2f4f4f">Jwissick <font color="#2f4f4f">(t) <font color="#2f4f4f">(c)  06:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Blocked. This is such a trivial issue, it could qualify for WP:LAME. Elle <font color="#CC9920">vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant  (Be eudaimonic!) 07:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Khoikhoi (2)
Has instigated several edit wars through iflammatory or uncivil comments. He has been around under the current ID and as User:Hottentot since April 2005 and should be well aware of WP:Wikiquette. He was blocked four times for 3RR violation under User:Hottentot and one time for alleged pagemove vandalism.

Reverted the Georgian people article 8 times in slightly more then one hour:

 * revert 1st time: 1
 * revert 2nd time: 2
 * revert 3rd time: 3
 * revert 4th time: 4
 * revert 5th time: 5
 * revert 6th time: 6
 * revert 7th time: 7
 * revert 8th time: 8
 * revert 9th time: 9

Jbetak 07:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Bad behaviour. should be blocked. Bonaparte   talk  08:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to revert because I can't block the anon who keeps messing the page up... You don't understand. I've tried talking with them, but they refuse to listen. I think they're trying to change the picture, but instead, they're changing all the statisitcs and other unrealted stuff. And may I also add Bonaparte that you have violated the 3RR more times that I have on Moldovans. You don't really have any right to say that I should be blocked. --Khoikhoi 08:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I was never blocked for 3RR. One can check this. Bonaparte   talk  08:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * To my eye, the edits he was reverting do not constitute clear vandalism. They seem to be personal preference.   Even if it was vandalism, he should never revert war ad nauseum... he should have sought out an admin to assist. -- Netoholic @ 09:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe Khoikhoi was under pressure with these reverts, but should have found other users to help out so as not break 3RR. I don't see any need for a block now: the 3RR block is not used for punishment. The nature of the changes is controversial. I believe Khoikhoi was trying to maintain a neutral line, but a number of anons (probably the same person on different IP addresses) was trying to bring the article around to a Georgian point of view. I think a sensitive compromise was reached. The lesson is that to avoid 3RR when reverting controversial edits that are not simple vandalism get other to help. --Gareth Hughes 12:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * He has done the very same thing in numerous articles, see German people for example. Jombo 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * He has resisted the efforts of some to make Wikipedia a collection of nationalist diatribes. LuiKhuntek 06:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This user is a revert machine, on many fronts. The same was true in his previous incarnation as .  I really hope admins start to take notice. -- Netoholic @ 07:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't you get that your Template:Infobox Language has been rejected by everyone? Why must you continue this? People on Template talk:Language have been trying to work things out, but you continue to add your template to all these articles. --Khoikhoi 07:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Theathenae
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * 1st revert: 15:15, 6 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:30, 6 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 16:06, 6 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:13, 6 January 2006

Reported by: Rex(talk) 16:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Theathenae is blindly reverting as you can tell from his edit summaries. His edits have been refuted on the talk page, but he persists. Rex(talk)[[Image:Flag of Albania.svg|25px]] 16:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Theathenae should be blocked. That's the "reward" for blindly editing. Bomac 16:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Theathenae has just started another edit war on Macedonians (ethnic group). Rex(talk)[[Image:Flag of Albania.svg|25px]] 16:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Blocked for 24 hours. Izehar 17:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Doire
4 reverts on St Michael's Mount.

 * Version reverted to
 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert
 * 4th revert

He slightly changes the wording in the 4th revert but he is still doing the identical revert of removing England as in Cornwall, England, and reverting against 2 separate editors today. As he is new I warned him about the 3RR rukle here to which he responded by removing my comment here. It looks to me like he read the 3RR rule and tried to game the system by slightly changing what he changed to but leaving the esserntial revert because he doesn't want to see Cornwall labelled as a part of England, SqueakBox 17:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Blocked for 24 hours. He undid your adding the words "Cornwall, England" more than four times within the same 24 hour period and he had been pointed to the rule. According to WP:3RR:
 * Reverting in this context means undoing the work of another editor. It does not necessarily mean going back into the page history to revert to a previous version. The passage you keep adding or deleting may be as little as a few words, or in some cases, just one word.
 * He certainly did that more than four times within the same 24 hour period. I also don't approve of him calling the work of his fellow editors "vandalism". Izehar 18:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

User:RJII (2)
Three revert rule violation on.

 * Previous version reverted to: 09:02, January 6, 2006
 * 1st revert: 15:35, January 6, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 03:15, January 7, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 03:48, January 7, 2006
 * 4th revert: split between 04:23, January 7, 2006 and 04:39, January 7, 2006
 * 4th revert: split between 04:23, January 7, 2006 and 04:39, January 7, 2006

Reported by: <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 04:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User:RJII and User:MrVoluntarist, both libertarians, are performing various edits on Capitalism that violate Neutral point of view. I have requested an article RFC. RJII has violated the three-revert rule by performing four reverts in less than 24 hours. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 04:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi Crotalus, can you supply the diffs, please, showing the actual changes, and also which version he reverted to, because the versions you gave above (1st revert 15:35 to version at 09:02) are not the same. If they are complex, partial reverts, which is what RJII usually does, please say which word(s) he keeps reverting to. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  04:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your concern, SlimVirgin. I have adjusted the revert links above to point to the relevant diffs. You are correct - they are complex reverts, not all straightforward. But the effect of all of them is that he is removing any attempt to differentiate laissez-faire from other forms of capitalism. He insists that only laissez-faire is capitalism and anything else is not, and removes or reverts any edits that contradict this. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 04:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, Crotalus. I see what you mean now. I'll block him for 24 hours. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 06:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * RJII says this was not a 3RR violation. If there's someone around who's willing to review the diffs, that would be appreciated. He was making complex, partial reverts, by removing that "strict unalloyed capitalism" or "unfettered capitalism" is called laissez-faire, and replacing those phrases to read that capitalism is called laissez-faire (without the qualification). RJII's habit is to make lots of small edits so it's hard to see whether he violated 3RR or not. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  07:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked them over. Assuming he's aware that the policy exists at all, the block seems entirely fair to me.  Reversions don't have to be to the exact same wording, if the net effect is altering the language in the same fashion, even if semantically different. · Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 07:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking it, Katefan. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 04:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

User:193.193.195.72
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 15:29 4 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 12:47 7 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 15:27 7 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 15:57 7 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 16:20 7 January 2006

Reported by: Skinwalker 22:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User editing under IP addresses in the 193.193.195.xxx range continuously reverts the article to an outdated and non-NPOV version, without edit summaries or commentary on the talk page. This has been going on for quite some time; please refer to the article history.

 * It's obviously a dynamic IP. If there is a serious problem, ask for semi-protection at WP:RPP. Izehar 22:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Already done :). Voice of  All T 03:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Holdek
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * 1st revert: (21:40, 6 January 2006)
 * 2nd revert: (21:49, 6 January 2006)
 * 3rd revert: (18:45, 7 January 2006)
 * 4th revert: (20:38, 7 January 2006)
 * 5th revert: (23:45, 7 January 2006)
 * 6th revert: (00:55, 8 January 2006)

Reported by: BenBurch 01:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've blocked User:Holdek, User:BenBurch, and User:202.75.41.46. Edit warring is bad, and all parties should be treated equally. Also, please provide diff links, not oldid links in the future, they make it easier to investigate. --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 02:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

 * That was entirely fair as I did it too. Holdek, however, seems to make a habit of it, and I will be monitoring his reverts henceforth.  He seems to think that nothing ought to go into that entry except things he himself approves of, and that is just wrong.  BenBurch 02:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Hello. Holdek seems to be a chronic breaker of this rule on the Free Republic article too and may be "gaming the system" under the rule that is stated here. His first revert today was also his 4th revert in a succession yesterday in just over 24 hours, and he's been reverting virtually all of my edits to this article and the edits of several others. Please look at them cause he seems to be trying to run this article. - Antimetro

 * I just unblocked the anonymous ip, as it only made one revert...the anonymous reverts were from seperate ips. --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 05:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Abeseed
Three revert rule violation on. :

Three revert rule violation on. :
 * 1st revert: 14:06, 1 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 01:02, 7 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 14:38, 7 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 21:50, 7 January 2006
 * 5th revert: 12:28, 8 January 2006

 * 1st revert: 00:49, 7 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 14:35, 7 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 21:45, 7 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 11:57, 8 January 2006

Reported by: KHM03 13:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User is engaged in constant reverts to include a spam link, and has not been very cooperative. I am not asking for action at this time, as I hope we can work this out and encourage the user to follow policy and engage in constructive dialogue.  I simply wanted to document these violations should things ever get out of hand.  Any adminiatrator is, of course, welcome to remind User:Abeseed of WP policy on his talk page, which he continually blanks to remove any negative commentary.  Thanks...KHM03 13:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Blocked for 24 hours. Izehar 13:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Zorro redux
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Reported by: Movementarian 13:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Zorro redux, a sock puppet of Robertjkoenig, has engaged in constant edit warring with multiple users on articles relating to USAA. He was previously blocked for inserting the same POV material into an article numerous times.  He uses Wikipedia as a blog to air his dissatisfaction with USAA and either reverts or reinserts his edits when they are removed by any user.  I am attempting to resolve the difficulties with the user through the proper dispute resolution process, but thus far am not having any luck.  Thank you in advance for any help/advice you are willing to provide.  Movementarian 13:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Blocked for 24 hours for violation of the three revert rule. I would be inclined to protect some of the pages but I will wait for feedback from other administrators before I do. Elle <font color="#CC9920">vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant  (Be eudaimonic!) 13:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: I have nominated the article the violation is occurring on for deletion: violator is the creator of the page and I feel the scope is narrow. Elle <font color="#CC9920">vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant  (Be eudaimonic!) 14:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

User: 81.178.224.140
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * 1st revert: 04:45, 9 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 04:51, 9 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 05:25, 9 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 05:41, 9 January 2006

Reported by: 81.178.224.140 06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User 81.178.224.140 keeps unreasonably insisting that the article be both factually accurate and not minimise criminality
 * The page has been protected. · Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 21:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Davidpatrick
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * 1st revert: 04:41, 9 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 04:49, 9 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 05:22, 9 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 05:30, 9 January 2006

Reported by: 81.178.224.140 06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User:Davidpatrick fails to accept reality and will not refer to outside documentation to obtain justified true belief

Mikeabundo
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * prior to revert:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:

Reported by: Mirshariff 06:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Mikeabundo, has for the past few days, been engaged in an edit war with several people in the Cosplay article. He has been removing a website link from one of the community sites links because the site being deleted by him seems to be a competitor of a Philippines-based cosplay site he already owns, which has already been listed. Everytime one person attempts to re-add the site, Mikeabundo deletes it immediately without explanation. Attempts at dispute resolution using talk pages and actually contacting him online have failed. The person in question is aware of the attempts to contact him, because he had been re-adding the link he previously deleted into the page, and then removing them again after a certain period of time. If you look at his recent reverts, he is now leaving the site's link up on the page, but describing it as an 'old' site (which is untrue, given that the site is still very much active) in hopes to deter visitors. Mirshariff 06:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The page has been protected. · Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 21:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

AladdinSE
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Reported by: Pepsidrinka 17:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Incidently, this user and Khalid!, the other user taking part in this edit war, seem to be having edit wars in various other articles, though it seems to have calmed down in those other articles. Pepsidrinka 17:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked AladdinSE. I chose not to block User:Khalid!, but to warn him...he was trying to come to a compromise. --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 17:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

User:70.89.208.242
Three revert rule violation on :

Too many reverts to report.

Reported by: 70.89.208.242 21:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * GraemeL and I had a dispute over content on the XDCC page. He then decided to remove all External Links from the page, which I have succedded in getting back on by another admin.  GraemeL then decided to search the entire site and remove everything I have ever added in retaliation.  I have not reported the three or more reverts above because there are over 20 I believe.  Too many to post. - 70.89.208.242 21:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Violation of 3RR requires more than three reverts in 24 hours for a single article. On which article did this occur? XDCC only has two reverts by User:GraemeL. - Evil saltine 22:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This only happened twice because I was blocked after this. Also how about over 20 reverts in less than 10 minutes on over 20 seperate articles?  He has accused me of spamming which is a gross slanderization.  He reverted everything I have ever edited because he got his panties in a bunch over XDCC. 70.89.208.242 22:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Note, 70.89.208.242 has been blocked by me for threatening to vandalise. The request has been discounted, unless someone wants to raise it again. Elle <font color="#CC9920">vécu heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 11:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Nixer
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 23:36, 8 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 19:24, 9 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 19:45, 9 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 19:57, 9 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 21:15, 9 January 2006

Reported by: Izehar 21:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Nixer keeps on moving Stalin to the top of the table, despite extensive and patient discussion on the talk page of why he is wrong. He knows he is violating it and that is why he makes minor edits alongside his reverts and makes misleading edit-summaries. H won't listen and he has a history of 3RR blocks, look at his block log. I would block him, except I think it would be inappropriate, as I am in an editing conflict with him. Izehar 21:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Nixer blocked for 3rr violation. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 21:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your swift and decisive action. --Ghirla | talk 22:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Holdek
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * 1st revert: (01:43, 8 January 2006)
 * 2nd revert: ( 05:42, 9 January 2006)
 * 3rd revert: (18:13, 9 January 2006)
 * 4th revert: (22:06, 9 January 2006)

Reported by: BenBurch 22:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * YOur first revert is from Jan. 7th. These are four reverts, but over longer than a 24 hour period. However, if he reverts once more this evening, that'll be a violation.  Since so many anons are reverting, though, I'm inclined to just protect the page. · Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 22:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Terryeo (Fair Game (Scientology))
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 09:39, 8 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 01:20, 9 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 04:07, 9 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 05:07, 9 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 06:23, 9 January 2006
 * 5th revert: 20:00, 9 January 2006

Reported by:  Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  00:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Church of Scientology member (official part of the organisation as per his statement that he has access to Church statements and documents) attempting to rewrite history.. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  00:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I have blocked for 24 hours for the 3RR violation. DES (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Theodore7
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * 0th revert:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Reported by: —Ruud 09:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Please see discussion on the talk page: Talk:Algorithm.
 * Blocked for 48 hours. This user is a repeat offender, 4th block already, so I am blocking him a little longer this time. Please let me know if any admin disagrees with this. --BorgQueen 09:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just for reference - I just discovered the user violated it on Astrology as well. --BorgQueen 10:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

User:195.144.64.17
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 13:23, January 4, 2006
 * 1st revert: 13:48, January 9, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 16:09, January 9, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 16:40, January 9, 2006
 * 4th revert: 01:19, January 10, 2006
 * 5th revert: 11:29, January 10, 2006

Reported by: Rhobite 17:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

 * I have blocked him for 24 hours. Tom Harrison Talk 17:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Version reverted to: 16:54 8 January 2005
 * 1st reversion: 06:37, 9 January 2006
 * 2nd reversion: 23:39, 9 January 2006
 * 3rd reversion: 06:01, 10 January 2006
 * 4th reversion: 07:13, 10 January 2006

Reported by: Septentrionalis 17:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I see no evidence for the claimed "consensus"; Dreamguy's solitary objections do not constitute one. The first two reversions are exact, the second two include a minor format change by Alkivar. Septentrionalis 17:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The reverts were not all made in a 24-hour period. This dispute seems to have a history; I'll be protecting the page. Please use the talk page to settle this or consider mediation. android 79  17:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24 hours and 36 minutes has been considered abusive before now. dmcdevit has attempted to mediate informally, and DreamGuy has ignored him. What Mediation service is presently functioning? Septentrionalis 18:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You were both revert warring, as far as I can tell. When there's abuse on both sides of a good-faith dispute, protection is the best solution, IMO. android  79  18:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I repeat, it would be nice if editors were punished in some way for knowingly filing false reports. This is nothing but harassment, and his claims for not seeing consensus are bizarrely deceptive (the talk page is right there) and irrelevant for 3RR reports anyway. If he wants a general ban on edit warring, he should get banned for that himself, as he started up reverting back to the exact same content that was discussed and settled against their inclusion MONTHS ago. DreamGuy 23:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, several of my edits were not reverts, but progressive edits in response to Walter Siegmund's comments, as the diffs will show. As for the falsity of the report, I quote policy: The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique; and I have quite commonly seen 3RR bans as a result of 4 reverts in just over 24 hours.

 * What I would like, however, is for DreamGuy to stop using "reversion as an editing technique". Septentrionalis 23:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Nn-user
Three revert rule violation on.

 * Previous version reverted to: 19:47, 10 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 20:06, 10 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 20:08, 10 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 20:11, 10 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:19, 10 January 2006

Reported by: <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 20:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Revert warring on Template:User GWB. He is gaming the 3RR by varying his wording slightly each time and claiming that this therefore does not count as a revert. This account was created just today and immediately started on editing AFD discussions and getting in revert wars. I suspect sockpuppetry. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 20:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. Izehar 20:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No need to - the page has been protected. Izehar 20:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Anakinskywalker
Three revert rule violation on.

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

Reported by: Ardenn 23:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User will not listen to the consensus of the other editors. Ardenn 23:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem to be a 3RR violation. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Tony Sidaway
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Five deletions of this template,, and thus four reverts, from 11:20-23:36, 10 January.

Reported by: Alai 00:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Twice blocked for this, and twice unblocked, which is getting to be a bit silly. (As I've restored the template myself, I'm not going to do any blocking on this, or come to that any further restoring.)  Alai 00:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * It seems that there is soem question as to whether multiple deletions (or undeletions) are coverd by teh 3RR. I think that they should be. I called the 3RR issue to Tony's attention after the fourth deletion, but before either block. DES (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * The deletion war seems to have stopped anyway. Izehar 00:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * If people want to apply 3RR to deletion, I don't see why they shouldn't. There's been enough wheel warring lately, so whatever can be done to discourage it is probably a good thing.  I don't think the blocking and unblocking is that silly- it looks like there were plausible reasons for each action; it wasn't just fighting. Friday (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, I don't mean Monty-Python-style silliness, but rather, the unfortunate state of a deletion war then being displaced into an arguably even more lamentable block-unblock war, on an equally ad hoc basis ('the appropriate process' being currently highly unfashionable, by all accounts). Alai 01:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * The 3RR applies to deletion/undeletion warring. It should be enforced in this case if Tony has violated the 3RR (I haven't checked in detail). I will not do so due to my wiki-history with Tony, but someone else should. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Both WP:3RR and Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule clearly show that written policy and consensus support this application of the 3RR. - brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  01:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I think blocks should be deferred (with the clock suspended) the outcome of the RfC --- Charles Stewart 02:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

User:192.45.72.27
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Reported by: Gryffindor  03:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User:192.45.72.27 has been continuously disregarding warning about the changes. Continues to do the same on Trentino-South Tyrol, Bolzano and Italy, I am starting to loose counts how many times the edits had to be reverted. Someone please put a stop to this, I cannot keep on reverting forever. Gryffindor  03:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty clear-cut to me, and the user seems to have responded to earlier warnings with gratuitous incivility. Blocked for 24.  Alai 03:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * User:71.106.187.188 continued . -- User:Docu

 * I'm struggling hard not to assume this is simply the same editor under a different IP address (and it really is a struggle). Alai 07:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Gryffindor
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1sd revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Reported by: 71.106.187.188 03:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments: He changed names to reflect a German point of view. He changed names from Italian to German. He is an Austrian who is bringing politics directly to WIKI. He keeps reverting multiple pages to what he demands the translation should be, even though it is different from every major reference. Are his changes somehow HOLY? 71.106.187.188 03:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Multiple reverts by Gryffindor. He originally moved pages without prior authorization or voting.

 * Where are the diffs? El_C 03:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * *posted, sorry for the delay. WIKI needs to  make it clearn how one user can make a change, and then if another person corrects that change to what is Internationally given in references, that previous users changes are now somehow Holy, because he says so?  Gryffindor is manipulating the system to push a German agenda.  Its frightening that people use WIKI this way. 71.106.187.188 03:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Also looks pretty clear-cut as regards being 5 reverts in <24h (though please, include timestamps as well as diffs, thanks). Nor do I think the edits being undone rise to the level of vandalism, though screwing around with an article bold title looks dubious to me.  No prior warnings in this case, but if he's savvy enough to report 'em, should be savvy enough to avoid making 'em, so blocked for 24 hours for the sakes of parity.  Alai 04:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * IP 71.106.187.188 continued . -- User:Docu

User:Gryffindor
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1sd revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Reported by: 71.106.187.188 04:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

 * User Gryffindor POV that the region of Italy is Trentino-South Tyrol. All major references cite this as Trentino-Alto Adige in both English and Italian.  Wiki should not ever be used as a political tool...
 * User dealt with as per above. Your own pattern of edits inclines me to suspect you're the 192... anon, editing via another IP address.  If so, desist, the block applies to you, not to the account or IP.  And in any event, desist from edit warring.  Alai 04:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

User:68.159.20.189
Three revert rule violation on and  so that he can paste commercial spam links in external links. Ten total reverts of spam links :

In Reggaeton: '''Reverts only stopped because we got it ed
 * Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
 * 1st revert: 21:41, 7 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 22:48, 7 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 20:29, 8 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:29, 8 January 2006
 * 5th revert: 21:41, 8 January 2006

In Latin rap:
 * 6th revert: 11:12, 10 January 2006
 * 7th revert: 23:31, 10 January 2006
 * 8th revert: 07:58, 11 January 2006
 * 9th revert: 08:02, 11 January 2006

Reported by: Urthogie 08:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * This IP's main purpose is external link spam.
 * Edit summaries also offensive, calling me a "latino hater" for removing spam.
 * User also reverts spam warnings on their talk page.

 * Please number reverts per article, not in total; they're not "cumulative" as such.  I don't know if they're spam, or great links, but 3RR it certainly is:  blocked, 24h.  Alai 09:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Nightstallion
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Reported by: Infinity88 09:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

 * POV abuse Infinity88 09:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Was I really on my third? If so, terribly sorry. Either way, there is a sock puppet problem, and having only been an administrator shortly, I need help to deal with it. — Nightstallion (?) 09:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * That would be a violation of the one revert rule, by my arithmetic. Sockpuppetry indeed.  Alai 09:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Urthogie
I just want to warn administrators in advance that a 3rr may be posted against me out of vengeance by the spammer who I posted up here(68.159.20.189). I had to revert multiple times, as did other editors to get rid of his link spam(which he posted 10 times), which he backed up with insults instead of discussion. We tried to discuss at first, but then found he was intent on simply posting it again and again, so we began to respond with simple reverts of his spam, as if it were vandalism(of course we checked if he added any valuable content in advance, but that has never been the case). Just an advance warning. Thanks, --Urthogie 10:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Nixer (2)
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 10:07, 11 January 2006 (actually this one was his revert as well)
 * 1st revert: 10:31, 11 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 10:46, 11 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 11:05, 11 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 12:10, 11 January 2006
 * 5th revert: 15:51, 11 January 2006

Reported by: --Lysytalk to me 11:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: There is also a pretty obvious 3RR breach on

Comments:
 * Notorious 3RR abuser. Has been warned in an edit summary by Izehar, but I don't think this was necessary in this case anyway. The same article again. --Lysytalk to me 11:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Look at Nixer's block log - are you sure that a longer block for trolling and disruption cannot be used. Nixer also has a long history of gaming the 3RR. He was blocked on Monday for violating the 3RR on the same article and now he is back and did it again! Izehar 11:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Please read the article's talk page before banning me. A had nothing againsg Lysy's edits. Also I was several times reverted without explaination. Now nobody of my opponents answer me in the talk page, they only revert me. I think a long-term block cannot help to state the truth. I only invite to discuss the contents of the page. Unlike my opponents I explained all my edits in the talk page. I asked them give their sources, but they refused, simply deleting all information I add.--Nixer 12:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Wrong Nixer, I don't know who you think you are. You must think that the 3RR doesn't apply to clever people such as yourself, but applies to everyone else. You have been blocked countless times for 3RRvios, but you won't stop - havn't you understood it yet? We have explained why your edits are wrong on the article talk page and your talk page when you were blocked. There is no way that the most senior military officer of one country can outrank the most senior military officer of another. You are in the minority, there are three users reverting you. Until you cite a source, you will simply be trolling the article and you will probably end up being reverted each time. You have no idea how peaceful the article was last time you were blocked - discuss on the talk page, don't edit war. When all other editors disagree with you, there is no way, edit warring will get you anywhere. Izehar 12:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * 3RR need to prevent edit-warring. Since there begun and is going on a purposeful discussion on the talk page (thanks to Kirill Lokshin), the 3RR ban would be pointless.--Nixer 14:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Nixer is one of the people who Just Don't Get It until repeatedly hit with blunt implements. With his history of 3RR blocks, longer disruption blocks should be an option. Can an admin with no previous involvement look into this and comment please? dab (ᛏ) 14:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ah, I see he was blocked for a week by Rdsmith4 on Dec 30. This is about what I would have judged myself. Another week would seem appropriate, with the warning that blocks can get even longer than that. dab (ᛏ) 14:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, he made a fifth revert 5th revert: 15:51, 11 January 2006 and has also violated the 3RR on Basque language. Izehar 15:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Blocked for 1 week. No other violators of 3RR on Basque language.  Will check the others and block if appropriate.  Wikibofh(talk) 16:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No obvious other violators of 3RR at Comparative military ranks of World War II. Wikibofh(talk) 16:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

User:81.213.123.54, User:85.101.16.207, User:85.102.128.108, and User:213.112.171.248
Three revert rule violation on – Talk:Europe:

 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * et al.
 * see history

Reported by:

 * E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC) (also reported to User:Nightstallion, new Admin)

Comments:

Over the last couple days, various POV edits made by the various anon IPs User:81.213.123.54, User:85.101.16.207, User:85.102.128.108, User:213.112.171.248, et al. (the same user?) regarding Turkey, Cyprus, other arguably European territories, table figures and provisos – inconsistent with recent discussions/efforts for NPOV have been irksome, haven't at all been discussed (despite requests), and remain largely unsourced. (Mind you, some of the contributions are valid.) The editor(s) have recently indicated that they believe the figures are inaccurate (according solely to Turkey and the CIA factbook), but provisos and links to sourced information and NPOV attempts have been overlooked or ignored throughout.

Also note a similar MO with different editor(s) recently. I'm loathe for reciprocating (and acknowledge I might have also violated 3RR) and will refrain hereafter, but until there's a groundswell supporting this, request investigation and or that some sort of action be taken. Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Update – this situation has apparently abated, but will be monitored. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Extc
Three revert rule violation on. :

User:Extc has four times restored a disputed section of Islamist terrorism:

first

second

third

fourth

I'd appreciate it if somebody could take a look. Tom Harrison Talk 20:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Blocked for 24 hours. Izehar 20:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

User:68.35.247.133
Three revert rule violation on. :.

 * first
 * second
 * third
 * fourth
 * fifth

In addition, check edit histories for blatant violations of WP:CIVIL. Also check history for vandalism, particularly on my talk page, and on articles about Pope Benedict XVI and Mahatma Gandhi. Thanks for your help! -Rebelguys2 02:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Blocked for 24 hours. Elle <font color="#CC9920">vécu heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 06:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Stacyshell
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
 * 1st revert: 18:20
 * 2nd revert: 18:37
 * 3rd revert: 19:17
 * 4th revert: 19:30

Reported by: Kingturtle 04:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * maybe someone can help resolve this. i am going to bow out. Kingturtle 04:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Pretty straightforward. Blocked for 24 hours. This is borderline vandalism IMO. Rhobite 05:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

User:195.56.21.166
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: 08:30, 12 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 09:37, 12 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 10:33, 12 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 11:17, 12 January 2006
 * 5th revert: 11:52, 12 January 2006
 * 6th revert: 12:01, 12 January 2006
 * 7th revert: 14:25, 12 January 2006 as
 * 8th revert: 17:30, 12 January 2006 as

Reported by: StuffOfInterest 16:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Please note, this user comes in every day or two from another IP on the same class-B network to reinsert the same spam link. Discussion has been held on the talk page regarding this link. --StuffOfInterest 16:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked for spamming, 3RR, and personal attacks. Rhobite 17:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Switched to a new IP address and started up again on 7th revert. --StuffOfInterest 19:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I blocked the new IP for 24 hours. Would longer have been appropriate? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Being that the spammer changes to a new IP address every day (or less) I doubt a longer block will help anything. What is really needed is a block on site any time an IP address in this class-B (195.56.x.x) edits the Linux article. --StuffOfInterest 19:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I would certainly think any admin should block-on-site any IP in that range that makes the same reversion, since that is certainly a case of avoiding a block. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but do you have to give him three free spams each day before catching him on 3RR? Being that this guy adds the same link every day or two the behavior is quickly approaching abusive beyond the 3RR procedure.  --StuffOfInterest 20:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think when you add up the spamming, the personal attacks, and the revert wars, there is nothing wrong with quickly blocking him if he returns. Semi-protection would be another option. Rhobite 20:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And yes, he is back again from yet another address (195.56.9.34). --StuffOfInterest 22:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

User:KDRGibby
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 10:04, January 11, 2006
 * 1st revert: 14:06, January 11, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 00:15, January 12, 2006
 * 3rd revert: 01:25, January 12, 2006
 * 4th revert: 12:12, January 12, 2006

Reported by: Rhobite 17:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * KDRGibby has been blocked twice before for 3 revert rule violations. He's well aware of the rule, and he's aware that adding bullet points before every paragraph deviates from the WP:MOS. Rhobite 17:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I have blocked User:KDRGibby for 24 hours. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 17:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Grazon
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 04:39, 2006 January 11
 * 1st revert: 19:35, 2006 January 11
 * 2nd revert: 16:55, 2006 January 12
 * 3rd revert: 17:18, 2006 January 12
 * 4th revert: 17:29, 2006 January 12

Reported by: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Repeatedly adds name Paris Hilton without meeting request for citational support of list inclusion.
 * Obnoxious as hell and edit warring, but I'm not sure if this falls under WP:3RR I'll leave a stern warning and see what happens.--Tznkai 02:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does, but after being reminded, he/ she has apparently stopped. --MONGO 02:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Thames
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 11:33, 12 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 15:22, 12 January 2006 see
 * 2nd revert: 19:27, 12 January 2006 see
 * 3rd revert: 20:59, 12 January 2006 see
 * 4th revert: 21:27, 12 January 2006 see

Reported by: Tznkai 02:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User warned on User talk:Thames
 * For full disclosure see above conversation and Template talk:Christianity. I believe I discussed, made attempts to incorperate changes, etc. This is possibly an issue of article ownership, but I'll leave that to others to decide. I am also open to suggestions myself.--Tznkai 02:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I warned him again. Lets see if that works. Voice of  All T 02:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why this didn't earn a block. It's a pretty clear 3RR case, from an established editor who shouldn't need warning and who had already been warned. Am I missing something? -Splash talk 02:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to mention it didn't work. I'm all for discussing, but that doesn't mean we freeze work on the template in question in the mean time last I checked. Is there some rule I don't know about?--Tznkai 02:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours as a result of continuing to revert. -Splash talk 02:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Tznkai, you are perilously close to 3RR yourself. I don't think you've quite hit the 'electric fence' since your most recent edits have not been reverts. Your earlier ones do appear to be, though. -Splash talk 03:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll admit to it, but I've stopped. If you think I'm in violation though, go ahead and block me, and I won't dispute.--Tznkai 03:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think you are, and I've looked carefully through the history. Bear in mind, that it may be necessary to request full protection of the template while things are worked out. That's better than handing out a bunch of blocks. -Splash talk 03:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

User:71.139.108.125 and User:66.208.55.3 on Stephen Schwartz (journalist)
Multiple Three revert rule violations on {{Article|Stephen Schwartz (journalist)]] by two anon users, User:71.139.108.125 and User:66.208.55.3 since 10 Jan 2006.

All but 3 of the 39 edits are edit warring by these two anonymous editor over the same two pieces of text. A very unconventional 3RR vio, since each editor is achieving their reverts in pieces, perhaps trying to give the impression they are not really reverting. --- Charles Stewart 02:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Hmmm. Neither of them are close to 4 in the last 24 hours. Multiple contiguous edits to achieve a revert are usually viewed as a single edit for 3RR purposes, since they could as well have been executed in one go with exactly the same end result. However, I've full-protected the template since there is clearly an edit-war in full swing. (Semiprotection not appropriate for an editorial dispute, even between anons.) -Splash {{sup|talk}} 03:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Could the article be reverted to its 24 Dec 2005 status (ie. before the first anon edited)? One of the anonymous editors appears to have been Schwartz and he is threatneing me, Wikipedia and my university with libel.  (crossposted from Splash's talkpage) --- Charles Stewart{{sup|(talk)}} 06:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Hybridlily
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 19:41, 12 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 07:35, 13 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 08:03, 13 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 08:17, 13 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 08:39, 13 January 2006

Reported by: Khoikhoi 08:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User knows about the 3RR because he/she has been blocked before for violating it. --Khoikhoi 08:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Blocked for 24 hours. Izehar 11:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Urthogie
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 12:25, 13 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 13:50, 13 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 14:02, 13 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 14:35, 13 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 14:45, 13 January 2006

Reported by: ulayiti <font color="#226b22"> (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * I've already blocked this user for 24 hours for the violation, but I thought I'd report it here anyway because of the unusual nature of the reversions. The last two reversions were done over several edits, and they were not exactly the same (just mostly). The user is also threatening me on his talk page, so I would appreciate some neutral feedback over my actions. - ulayiti <font color="#226b22"> (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Good action to take. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 19:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Increadible volume of vandalism on List of ethnic slurs
(Comment moved from Administrators' Noticeboard for faster response.)

Upon review it appears 155.84.57.253 has reverted the edits of several users on the List of ethnic slurs entry giving the explanation non-notables, repairs, version by ---, last credible version, or reliable, , , , , , , , , , (as if one can distinguish reliable versions in an article with almost no citations). And this is only in the last 12 days! Thus, it appears as if many quite possibly valid entries have been deleted. This anon has been editing just this page since November, 2004. Most of his reversions appear to remain unfixed. --Primetime 22:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Upon further review, it appears as if the anon has deleted comments on their talk page warning them to stop reverting other people's changes . It also appears as if they were given a 24-hour ban on January 6, although they have continued their ways unabated. --Primetime 23:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Removing content from an article is not by itself vandalism, and 11 edits in 12 days does not violate 3RR. What is the maximum number of reverts they have done in any 24 hour period (excluding the period you say they have already served a ban for).  Thanks, Johntex\talk 23:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any example of the user doing that at any time. In any case, they're pretty prolific. I can't revert to the version before them because so many people have edited the page since the vandalism, so I'm having to manually copy their deleted entries back in. Thus, again, look at one of the examples I cited: . There is no excuse for such widespread blanking. They gave no explanation, just vers by Impel. The definition of vandalism given here is "any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia." I'm not going to revert them again, because this is too much work. This isn't even accounting for their previous edits that have gone un-reverted. This is arguably worse than Willy on Wheels because most of his damage was corrected. --Primetime 01:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello Primetime - thanks for your reply. I have looked again at that one specific example.  It seems the user reverted to a previous version by Impel.  I don't know why they would do that.  Perhaps anon is Impel.  Perhaps anon just thought Impel's version was a better version.  Either way, it still looks like a content dispute, and there does not seem to be a 3RR violation.  I think you have done the right thing by soliciting discussion on the article Talk page, I suggest you also place a similar message on the anonymous user's talk page.  If the user(s) mail to engage in discussion over their changes, then a block might be warranted.  However, blocking a shared IP address is a serious step.  I for one, am not willing to take that step unless other remedies have been exhausted. Johntex\talk 02:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Sqrjn
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: [07:42, 14 January 2006]
 * 1st revert: [06:59, 14 January 2006]
 * 2nd revert: [02:48, 13 January 2006]
 * 3rd revert: [00:41, 13 January 2006]
 * 4th revert: [ 20:56, 12 January 2006]

Reported by: Storm Rider 08:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * This editor refuses to use the discussion page to explain his reverts, just reverts. I think he also uses a sock, [70.136.198.203] given that both users only edit this specific article.  She/he ignores requests for dialogue (he just entered his first comment today) and has had multiple problems with at least three separate editors in the last two weeks on this article.

I have repeatedly used the discussion page. My comments can be seen there. Sqrjn 09:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a 24-hour caveat, which this falls outside of, IMO. I have left a warning for Sqrjn on his/her talk page, but will monitor the article closely.

Please resolve disputes before making edits after two reverts on a topic. Either leave the article alone and use the talk page to get things worked out, or take a short Wikiholiday. -Visorstuff 11:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

193.6.218.9
Three revert rule violation on Mark Ames. by :

 * Previous version reverted to: 18:43, 13 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 19:45, 13 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 21:32, 13 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 22:59, 13 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 03:24, 14 January 2006
 * 5th revert: 07:17, 14 January 2006

Reported by: Dsol 15:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC) Comments: IP has been warned. Voice of  All T 20:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

On Turkish people page
85.214.19.157 has broken the Three revert rule by reverting 4 times on January 14, 2006 on the Turkish people page. Tombseye 19:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User refuses to engage in discussion. User is almost certainly the same as 69.253.195.228 and 82.141.187.170, and has used multiple IPs to circumevent 3RR for several days.  Refuses to vote in call for consensus on talk page, and continues to blank article page despite 100% votes against him. Dsol 15:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Also I want to state that Dsol's reverts were completely acceptable as they were in response to the consensus that deleting/blanking those parts of the page was not acceptable, and even vandalism, and no editor besides this anonymous user(who seems to have sockpuppets) agrees with their reverts--Urthogie 18:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have warned the IP. Voice of  All T 18:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Zen-master
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 22:37, 12 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 04:10, 14 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 16:15, 14 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 17:39, 14 January 2006
 * 4th revert: 20:06, 14 January 2006
 * 5th revert 20:36, 14 January 2006

Reported by: Carbonite | Talk 20:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Zen-master has reverted the addition of the "rejected" tag (by three different editors) five times in the past 16 hours. In addition to blocking him for the 3RR violation, I also ask that an admin ban him from editing this page for at least two weeks, per the terms of his probation. Carbonite | Talk 20:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Voting just began on version 2.0 of the proposal so it can't possibly be rejected. I interpret this as an attempt to stifle a serious consideration of the Title Neutrality proposal, Carbonite's vote for "voting is evil" is another apparent example of intentional befuddlement of the core issue here (lack of neutrality for the phrase "conspiracy theory" in descriptive contexts). zen master T 20:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You're well aware that your reverts were not exempt from the 3RR, yet you continue to revert war. This isn't acceptable behavior, no matter how much you'd like to continue your crusade against "conspiracy theory". Carbonite | Talk 20:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You are well aware you sought to vandalize the Title Neutrality proposal by errantly adding the {rejected} tag to it, reverting vandalism is not covered by the 3RR. I have committed 0 non-vandalism reverts here. zen master T 21:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. Izehar 22:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

User:64.34.168.70
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 03:09 Jan. 12
 * 1st revert: 00:55 Jan. 14
 * 2nd revert: 20:37 Jan. 13
 * 3rd revert: 12:28 Jan. 13
 * 4th revert: 23:15 Jan. 13

Reported by: Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 06:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Link is being added against consensus. This is slightly outside 24 hours, but not by much. I leave it to another admin's discretion. Thanks. Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 06:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

User:207.200.116.10
Three revert rule violation on.

Too many to list. See the history page for this article. The IP address is an AOL address probably used by Jason Gastrich. A discussion of criteria to determine notability is under way, but Gastrich and his mysterious AOL partner insist on Gastrich's exact list being entered over and over again. Recommend removal of the listing and locking the page until concensus can be reached. See the talk page of the article for additional. WarriorScribe 06:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Hybridlily 2
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 19:53, 14 January 2006
 * 1st revert: 22:33, 14 January 2006
 * 2nd revert: 07:48, 15 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 08:47, 15 January 2006

Reported by: Khoikhoi 08:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User knows about the 3RR because he/she has been blocked before for violating it on Turkish people. The only problem is that the user uses sockpuppets when he/she is blocked. I'm not sure what to do about it. --Khoikhoi 08:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Sorry you need more than 3 reverts to report a 3rr. There are only 3 there. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 17:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Nrcprm2026
Three revert rule violation on.

 * Previous version reverted to: 15:31, January 14, 2006
 * 1st revert: 18:09, January 14, 2006
 * 2nd revert: 07:48, 15 January 2006
 * 3rd revert: 11:52, January 15, 2006
 * 4th revert 12:22, January 15, 2006

Reported by: DTC 17:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User reverting the inclusion of tags and the removal of original research. DTC 17:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Blocked for 24 hours. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 17:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I have unblocked after an email request from the user about not knowing what the 3rr was, and have protected the page instead. All of you need to discuss more. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 19:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Report new violation
Place new reports ABOVE this header, using the template below. Do not edit the template itself. See the example at the top of the page for full details. Take the time to do the job right to get the quickest responses. From the article's History page, use diffs (links labelled "last"), not versions, and the "compare versions" button to clearly highlight the changes between versions of the article and show what has been reverted.

===User:USERNAME===

Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
 * 1st revert: [DiffLink Time]
 * 2nd revert: [DiffLink Time]
 * 3rd revert: [DiffLink Time]
 * 4th revert: [DiffLink Time]

Reported by: ~

Comments: