Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:44, 20 February 2007

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

Violations

Please place new reports at the bottom.

User:81.155.34.127 reported by User:Mais oui! (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on John D. Mackay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 81.155.34.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 16:00, 24 November 2006 - note phrase "in pawn to"
• 1st revert: 09:27, 17 February 2007 - reverts to "in pawn to"
• 2nd revert: 09:57, 17 February 2007 - reverts to "in pawn to"
• 3rd revert: 10:11, 17 February 2007 - reverts to "in pawn to"
• 4th revert: 10:50, 17 February 2007 - reverts to "in pawn to"

• Diff of 3RR warning: 10:25, 17 February 2007

Comments: You have violated WP:3RR as well. Have you filed for checkuser to confirm that it is a sock of the user you are alleging it to be? Should we block you as well? — Nearly Headless Nick 11:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I have not: please supply the diffs.

This User was banned last night, yet again for making personal attacks on me. They have used over 80 IP sockpuppet accounts to date. We did do a CheckUser several months ago, which confirmed that it was him, and the pattern of behaviour has continued, indeed degenerated, since then. Please review the actions of those IP addresses. CheckUser specifically says that we must use our common sense in establishing who is using multiple IP addresses. --Mais oui! 11:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

, , , . The first edit explictly says that it was a revert. Three revert-ruled breached. You should not revert-war even when you are reverting sockpuppets. I cannot take any action against the other user even if he is a sockpuppet, unless you provide evidence and are ready to get blocked yourself. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not a 3RR: please note that the first diff is at 08:12 on the 16th February, not the 17th. They are not within a 24 hour period.

I have provided the evidence that the IP adress did a revert to "in pawn to" 4 times in a 24 hour period: a crystal clear breach of WP:3RR. --Mais oui! 11:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

A difference of two hours? This can be equated with gaming the system. WP:3RR does not give you the right to keep reverting without trying to initiate discussion. Get other involved users to comment here. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is "gaming the system" it is User:Mallimak.

But OK, I will make a request that Admin User:Wangi (who, you will note, has also repeatedly reverted Mallimak's sockpuppet IPs) comments at this 3RR, and the Admin who blocked him last night. Anyone else you would like to get a comment from? Many, many Admins have had to deal with Mallimak's multitude of IP addresses. I am not going to waste my Saturday any further by spamming them all. --Mais oui! 11:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and on your point of "trying to initiate a discussion": we have tried on literally hundreds of occasions to reason with Mallimak. But you just look through his contributions and IP contributions: does that look like someone who is open to discussion to you? --Mais oui! 11:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I am responding both because MO posted a link to this discussion on my talk page, and in light of "Get other involved users to comment here" posted by Nick - given I was one of the reverters (on MO's talk page attacks made by the user) and someone who has followed this sitation from the start, it is probably useful I give my view. I have to say this one has gone on too long. A user who was attempting to push some sort of Orkney separatist view and running socks to do it. The user was found out, and has since, over numerous months, attempted to troll, goad and make personal attacks. To counter the "MO was gaming the system" type chatter doesn't sit with the facts - he is attempting to deal with someone who has a new IP address every day - has no interest in discussion and is now only interested in a personal attack and vendetta campaign. Hiding behind dynamically assigned IP addresses the person runs around making a fool out of the rules/policies/guidelines which all the rest of us follow. Frankly I don't know why this is allowed - I would say it is getting into the "contact his ISP" territory. The person isn't interested in discussion - if they were they would stick to their original account rather than hiding behind dynamic IP's. I can't say MO has handled the situation perfectly either, some of his actions have probably exacerbated rather than calmed the situation - that being said it doesn't excuse the blatant breaches of rules which Mallimak has consistently shown on countless occasions. Something has to be done. SFC9394 12:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This was going to go on Mais oui!'s talk page, but it's going here instead. MO suggested on his talk page an indefinite ban of Mallimak. Here's the problem with such a proposal as I see it:

1. Bans are not imposed likely. More evidence than supposedly coincidental editing patterns (a CheckUser, for a start) is needed, especially since there is the potential for a lot of collateral damage. It is somewhat unfair to block out most of wherever they might be editing from just to tackle one user.
2. Practicality. The ban would provide for no further punishment than can already be meted out for vandalism.
3. The principle of clean hands. MO's own behaviour is not exactly stellar, such as seemingly reverting any edit they disagree with on sight, or labelling other users as "abusive" without actually presenting any evidence (don't need to look far through the history to see accusations levelled at another user - get a RFCU done before throwing that around). There's even evidence of revert warring where the edit summaries are to the effect of "stop revert warring". It's a bit like telling someone to stop shooting at you while you unload an Uzi into their shin.
4. (*puts on devil's advocate hat*) At some point, someone is going to ask why it always seems to be MO on the receiving end of the "personal attacks" (given most of our long-term vandals don't discriminate), and if perhaps it's actually MO that has a problem. (*removes hat*)

Given this has gone on for 4 months, it's probably safe to say MO is fairly deeply embroiled in it, so much so that some might consider reverting such edits to be a potential conflict of interest. If the edits really are that bad, I would suggest MO flag it up and let someone else deal with it. Vandalism cannot be condoned, but there are some serious WP:OWN issues here. Chris cheese whine 13:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I admit that I am a sock puppet, but a sock puppet out of necessity, because Mais oui! got me blocked by repeatedly accusing me of being a sock puppet of Mallimak, and the admins believed him. I am in fact Orkadian. I just cannot stand by and watch Mais oui! be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to continue with his behaviour. Here is a pertinent quote from my user page

I would agree that Mais_oui does indulge in edit warring, and attacking the contributions of other users. After I had nominated a Scottish template for deletion in favour of the British one- he responded by reverting all my recent edits with the comments- "rv English Nationalist" (see for example- ). Also any attempts to engage with the user and avoid edit wars is usually met with personal abuse- eg . Astrotrain 13:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is littered with such comments about Mais oui! from independent users who are not sock puppets of some grand anti-Mais oui! sock puppet master. 81.158.167.80 15:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It would be nice if I, Orkadian,could be unblocked and allowed to edit under my own name, but then again, on past experience, Mais oui! would simply track me and revert my every edit. Here is another relevant quotation:

I don't wish to be drawn into the specific complaint raised by Mallimak. However, Mais oui! has also falsely accused me of sockpuppetry and now routinely reverts my edits simply because they are my edits, without any discussion or attempt to reach consensus. He is the only user against whom I have encountered these problems....Normalmouth 06:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I do wish the "Mais oui! problem" would be resolved. 81.158.167.80 15:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be a shame to have a prolific and well informed editor such as Mais oui! driven away or "disciplined" when simply trying to protect himself and the Misplaced Pages project as a whole from the constant vandalism and sustained attacks of one particular person, the attacks against him appear to have reached the ridiculous stage, the attacker appears to behave as if they are suffering from some form of OCD. Fraslet 17:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Fraslet, I believe you are confusing victim and perpetrator here. Mais oui! is far from being a well-informed editor, he is an ardent POV pusher who does not hesitate to attack any contributors who gainsay him. For example, Mallimak (whom Mais oui! has constantly accused me of being a sock puppet of, until the admins blocked me) initiated many well-informed Orkney-related articles, and was all set to add many more to Misplaced Pages (all to the encyclopaedia's benefit) until he fell foul of Mais oui!'s attacks, abuse and destructive editing. I am acquainted with "Mallimak" in true life, and I met him a few weeks ago in the Orkney Archive researching for one of his local newspaper articles. He told me that he has totally given up on Misplaced Pages, and since his experiences here advises everyone to be wary of the accuracy of its articles. This is all down to Mais oui!, I am afraid. 81.156.60.8 22:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC) (actually Orkadian)

I am not keen on being quoted in this matter- I have never called for him to be banned or blocked. In anycase, these matters are not relevant to 3RR and should be continued elsewhere. Astrotrain 17:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no time at all for "users" which show contempt for our policies, guidelines and procedures and continually come back from a multitude of IPs to continue making the same edits. If they want to be taken seriously then they should seek to discuss, not constantly repeat edits and aggravate. Thanks/wangi 10:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wangi, You say "If they want to be taken seriously then they should seek to discuss, not constantly repeat edits and aggravate." Please tell this to Mais oui!. I have been forced to contribute via IPs as Mais oui! constantly accused me of being a sock puppet and the administrators (you, maybe) blocked me. 81.156.63.168 12:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC) (actually Orkadian)

Please note that the above series of redlinked IP addresses admits to being a sockpuppet of Orkadian. Please note that Orkadian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked for being an abusive sockpuppet of Mallimak (talk · contribs): CheckUser - Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mallimak. See also Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Mallimak. --Mais oui! 08:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:NYScholar reported by User:Armon (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on Middle East Quarterly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). NYScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 10:16, 16 February 2007
• 1st revert: 18:08, 17 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 18:39, 17 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 23:50, 17 February 2007
• 4th revert: 23:55, 17 February 2007
• 5th revert: 00:04, 18 February 2007
• 6th revert: 11:31, 18 February 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning:

Comments

NYScholar has made some minor changes to the version he reverts to which appears to be gaming. How minor they are becomes hard to tell because he marks all of his edits, including his reverts, this way. He been asked to stop that here and on the article talk page here.

The user is taking advantage of the current backlog in 3RR report enforcement, and reverting yet again, while continuing to deceptively label his edits as "minor". Isarig 22:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Withdraw Report I think it's too late to action this now, plus I inserted a terrible factual error here. This was not pointed out at the time, but I withdraw the request. <<-armon->> 02:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Armon and User:Isarig reported by User:NYScholar (Result:)

• I just saw the above report re: me (NYScholar): The two users above have actually been reverting all my changes to the article continually over a period of over 3 days now: I have been documenting the changes and being reverted anyway; then they have the nerve to complain that I am reverting them. If they hadn't continually reverted reasonable changes to the article countering consensus, there would be no issue with the article at all. Other problems were easily resolved.--NYScholar 14:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments in my own self-defense (NYScholar)

Misplaced Pages:3RR

From the editing history: Isarig's and Armon's consorted reversions of my contributions to the article:

1. 16:41, February 17, 2007 Isarig (Talk | contribs) (rm POV pushing and irrelevant material. see Talk.)
   
2. 06:00, February 17, 2007 Armon (Talk | contribs) (rv please stop see talk)
   
3. 05:53, February 17, 2007 Armon (Talk | contribs) (rv apparent blind revert -see talk)
   
4. 05:38, February 17, 2007 Armon (Talk | contribs) (poisoning the well)
   
5. 05:36, February 17, 2007 Armon (Talk | contribs) (→Criticism of the journal and contexts of its publication - Waaay too much based on one cite. WP:UNDUE)
   
6. 00:16, February 17, 2007 Isarig (Talk | contribs) (Please participate in the discussion on Talk before reverting agian.)
   
7. 15:45, February 16, 2007 Isarig (Talk | contribs) m (→Criticism - typo)
   
8. 15:45, February 16, 2007 Isarig (Talk | contribs) m (→Criticism - technical correction)
   
9. February 16, 2007 Isarig (Talk | contribs) (→Criticism - reduced criticism section to part that actually discusses MEQ, rather than Pipes)
   
10. 14:37, February 16, 2007 Isarig (Talk | contribs) (rv POV-pushing - see Talk.)
    
11. 12:45, February 16, 2007 Isarig (Talk | contribs) (let')

There are the number of reversions; mine were attempts to restore deletions that were part of Isarig's and Armon's continual reversions; their reversions appear to be part of an editing war that pre-existed my editing of this article; they appeared also to be done in consort with each other to get around 3RR. Alone and together they engaged in over 4 reversions of my work over and over again within 24 hours. --NYScholar 08:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

>> After February 17, User:Isarig continued to revert my changes to the article, over four times within 24 hours. The editing history makes that clear too. I will not display it, unless it is needed.

Apparently User:Armon has withdrawn his 3RR complaint against me (NYScholar); however, I am going on record here to say that each of them--Armon and Isarig--have themselves engaged in multiple violations of 3RR. For more information, please see Talk:Middle East Quarterly. I hope that these reversion and editing wars have ceased. Thank you. --NYScholar 14:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Isarig also escalated the reversions behavior by continually (over and over) wrongheadedly deleting an established fact in the article Lewis Libby (that Lewis Libby is a "Jewish American lawyer") despite notable verifiable and reliable sources establishing its pertinence and relevance to the article and even the already-existing reference to his being born to Jewish parents in his biographical section. There is a category in Misplaced Pages for Jewish lawyers that is included at the end of the article, and Libby is included in the category (factually). The category pre-exists Isarig's continual deletions (objected to by more than one editor prior to my editing the article: see the talk page). The editing history will bear out that the talk page discusses the rationale for the inclusions of the fact (inserted originally by earlier editors and continually removed by Isarig, despite my provision of a source). The talk page discusses the rationale for its inclusion. Talk:Lewis Libby#Citations supporting notability and pertinence of Libby's being a "Jewish American lawyer". --NYScholar 14:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Nssdfdsfds reported by User:Catchpole (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on Anne Milton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nssdfdsfds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

First time I've done this so bear with me.

• Previous version reverted to: 14:39, 15 February 2007
• 1st revert: Revision as of 21:22, 15 February 200
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 10:56, 16 February 2007
• Second Previous reversion reverted to : 11:53, 16 February 2007
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 16:30, 16 February 2007
• 4th revert: Revision as of 21:10, 16 February 2007
• warned: , see User talk:Nssdfdsfds for earlier warnings.
• response: further revert (after 24hr)

The first revert is not the same as 2,3 and 4.

"1st revert": I removed content that referred to an attack blog created against Anne Milton, asking Catchpole to "direct me to this consensus with a URL link? thanks". He left a message for me with the link at 21:46 , and added back the content. Having read this, I made no further edits to the page, while continuing to edit other articles that evening.

The next day user Fys added to Catchpole's edit a link to that attack blog:

In reverts 2, 3, and 4 left the content in that was removed in revert 1, but removed the URL that had been added by Fys.

So there are two completely separate issues here. Issue 1, in revert 1 was mentioning the blog. Issue 2 in revert 2, 3 and 4 was including the URL of the blog. There's nothing whatsoever in common between 'revert 1' and reverts 2-4. This can easily be verified - the edit before revert 1 had no URL in it, and the edits before reverts 2-4 did. Revert 2-4 did not remove anything that was removed in revert 1, so they are not the same at all. Note that Catchpole was happy on 15/2/07 with mentioning the attack blog, but not linking to it, but following Fys' addition of the URL has decided more recently that the URL *should* go in there. These are separate issues, and responding with false allegations of breaking 3RR isn't helpful.

Catchpole left me a warning on my talk page claiming I'd broken the 3RR. I responded pointing out that this was wrong, as although I'd made four sets of edits within 23 hours and 48 minutes, the first was different from the other three, so there was no breach. After getting my response explaining this, he has for some reason still decided to waste my time by adding this report here that I've now had to respond to. Nssdfdsfds 18:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Deeceevoice reported by User:strothra (Result:Already blocked 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Black People (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Deeceevoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 09:01, 14 February 2007
• 1st revert: Revision as of 14:20, 16 February 2007
• 2nd revert:Revision as of 16:38, 16 February 2007
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 04:37, 17 February 2007
• 4th revert: Revision as of 06:34, 17 February 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: Revision as of 09:47, 17 February 2007. An established editor anyway with a long block history for 3RR vios.

Comments

• Has already been blocked for 24. Heimstern Läufer 03:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Skyring reported by User:BenAveling (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Pauline Hanson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Skyring (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: For eg. I can't say that there is a single version being reverted to. We've been trying to add some information for days, in different ways, and they all get reverted. This has been going on for days. Just FYI, is the source that Skyring thinks is unacceptable. And yes, he has been warned about 3RR on the talk page of the article in question. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: Revision as of 17:43, 18 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) (→Current Events - Remove poorly sourced and untrue rubbish again. As for the other, see Talk)
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 12:50, 18 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) m (Remove poorly-sourced, untrue material under WP:BLP. If you want to reinsert challenged material, gain a consensus first, please.)
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 12:05, 18 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) (→Attempted return to politics - She didn't attribute it to rape and pillage. This is quite untrue.)
• 4th revert: Revision as of 10:00, 18 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) (This doesn't address the problems identified with the source, and the "attributed to" construction
• 5th revert: Revision as of 09:24, 18 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) (→Quotations - remove rubbish. It's not notable, it's poorly sourced, and the quote is misleading.)
• 6th revert: Revision as of 15:17, 17 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) (→Quotations - Rewording of DNA stunt quote doesn't overcome the problems. See talk.)
  • Blocked for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer 03:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Somethingoranother reported by User:Gsd2000 {Result:48 hrs)

Three-revert rule violation on United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

• 1st: Revision as of 18:11, 18 February 2007
• 2nd:
• 3rd:
• 4th:
• 5th:
• 6th: Revision as of 20:06, 18 February 2007

Warning about reverting re England (user is simultaneously reverting UK and England):

This user has already been blocked several times for 3RR violations.

Gsd2000 00:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked for 48 hours. User:Majabl also violated 3RR; has been warned. Heimstern Läufer 02:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This user is now using a sockpuppet to make the same edit Gsd2000 04:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Kevin Murray reported by User:Ultramarine (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kevin Murray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 21:12, 17 February 2007
• 1st revert: 02:08, 18 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 20:08, 18 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 20:38, 18 February 2007
• 4th revert: 20:41, 18 February 2007
• 5th revert: 20:47, 18 February 2007
• 6th revert: 21:00, 18 February 2007
• 7th revert: 04:39, 19 February 2007
• 8th revert: 04:43, 19 February 2007
• Diff of 3RR warning: 20:55, 18 February 2007

Comments

First 5 reverts are not identical, but all involve restoring the long table at the end of the article seen in the first revert. Four of the reverts are simple reverts: Ultramarine 05:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly edit warring against the consensus: 24h. yandman 11:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:MoeLarryAndJesus reported by User:Athaenara (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on Seth Swirsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MoeLarryAndJesus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 19:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 19:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• 2nd revert: 21:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC) (User inserted own username in this revert.)
• 3rd revert: 22:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• 4th revert: 22:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• 5th revert: 22:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• 6th revert: 05:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• 7th revert: 07:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Diff of 3RR warning: 08:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• 8th revert: 17:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• 9th revert: 18:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• 10th revert: 20:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

This article and its talk page are the only pages the user has edited since registering the ID 18:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC). The user has generated incalculable disruption, incivility, POV-warring in less than 48 hours. Misplaced Pages:Third opinion was to no avail. Problem posted on Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts#19 February 2007; user misrepresented situation there 04:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC) (though that noticeboard guideline specifically asks that discussion remain where it began).   Athaenara 05:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The warning was given an hour after the last reversion. As this is a new editor, maybe he was unaware of 3RR. Have we got anything showing he was made aware of it before the last reversion? yandman 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

8th, 9th and 10th reverts followed 3RR warning. Athaenara 20:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, My name is Seth Swirsky. Someone made an article of me which is quite extensive now (and of course, very flattering). Although I write songs and am an author, I also write political articles that "MoeLarryJesus" isn't a fan of (his vitriolic personal emails to me attest to this). Someone alerted me to his description of me as a "self-described conservative", which I am not. Nowhere on the internet do I describe myself this way. Actually, I am a self-described "Democrat in the Henry "Scoop" jackson tradition". There are two cites that I offer for this in the now long "talk section" regarding this dispute. I changed back, probably clumsily, as I don't really "know" wikipedia, the original description of myself, which is the correct one. He has reverted to what he claims I said I am, at least 7 times. Another editor has reprimanded him for this -- and Yandman suggested MoeLarryJesus needed to be made more aware that his constant reversions were not right. But, of course, today he has already reverted it back. I even offered a compromise to all of this just to stop wasting everyone's time, but he will have no part of it which leads me to suspect that he is obsessed with me personally --I'm the only page he reverts in the last 3 or 4 days. Scary (coupled with the emails). Can someone please read the talk pages and please (hopefully) ban him --it's really getting a bit distressing. Thank you for reading this. -- Seth Swirsky 18:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It is completely false that I have sent "SethSwirsky" any e-mails, and I consider that accusation to be libelous.

Yes, I am a new user, and I am reverting the edits both because an editor ruled* in my favor - see the history - and because MY EDIT is being reverted continually. Why does this "no revert" rule apply to me but not to this "Swirsky"? Is it simply because his ally Athaenara is more familiar with the system and complained first? His/her bias and unfairness is obvious, beginning with the fact that he/she is allowing "Swirsky" to post this unsupported allegation of "harrassing e-mails" on his/her talk page while deleting my responses denying same. MoeLarryAndJesus 22:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

→ There have been no rulings.* This was explained. The user's replies: first; second. — Æ. ✉ 03:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Athaenara writes: And yet Athaenara has no qualms whatsoever about carrying on a conversation with "SethSwirsky" on Athaenara's own talk page about the same discussion, while deleting my own attempts to respond there. The hypocrisy is positively mind-boggling! MoeLarryAndJesus 22:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like reversions from this user have continued onto the 20th. Sancho McCann 16:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, reversions have continued. User SethSwirsky has been busy doing reversions, also, and so have Sanchom and Athaenara. Again, why do only my edits seem to be an issue here? I have provided voluminous evidence and arguments for the accuracy of my edits. Isn't accuracy the end result Misplaced Pages desires? MoeLarryAndJesus 17:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Tedblack reported by User:Nareklm (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on Great Fire of Smyrna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tedblack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert: Nareklm 11:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm seeing reverts by other users, not the reported one. Heimstern Läufer 04:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Nomenclator reported by User:Skinwalker (Result:31 hrs)

Three-revert rule violation on Veganism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nomenclator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 08:44, 18 February 2007
• 1st revert: 00:12, 19 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 07:38, 19 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 08:12, 19 February 2007
• 4th revert: 08:34, 19 February 2007

Comments

User is making controversial edits that are opposed by all other editors on talk page. He was blocked last week for 3RR as well. Thanks! Skinwalker 14:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Blocked for 31 hours. Heimstern Läufer 04:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Wrestlinglover420 reported by User:SaliereTheFish (Result:2x24h)

Three-revert rule violation on Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SaliereTheFish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 16:01, 19 February 2007
• 1st revert: 13:51, 19 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 13:55, 19 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 14:59, 19 February 2007
• 4th revert: 14:27, 19 February 2007
• 5th revert: 15:13, 19 February 2007
• 6th revert: 15:16, 19 February 2007
• 7th revert: 15:20, 19 February 2007
• 8th revert: 16:17, 19 February 2007
• 9th revert: 16:28, 19 February 2007
• 10th revert: 16:32, 19 February 2007
• 11th revert: 16:40, 19 February 2007
• 12th revert: 16:44, 19 February 2007
• 13th revert: 16:50, 19 February 20
• 14th revert: 16:52, 19 February 2007
• 15th revert: 16:54, 19 February 2007
• 16th revert: 16:58, 19 February 2007
• 17th revert: 17:02, 19 February 2007
• 18th revert: 17:28, 19 February 2007
• 19th revert: 17:31, 19 February 2007
• 20th revert (Yes, really): 17:39, 19 February 2007
• 21st revert: 17:42, 19 February 2007

Comments

User repeatedly deletes verified information, not because he thinks this information is unverified but as a vendetta against me for removing information he put in the article that was unverified. I have challenged him frequently for his irresponsible vandalism, and he merely hurls abuse at me. The member has been banned from editing this article before, and has a history of abuse towards others. He claims that he joined Wiki 'beacuse i refuse to back down'. I would suggest banning him from Wiki outright. SaliereTheFish 16:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is clearly a content dispute, so 24h each. yandman 18:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Kurt Leyman reported by User:Potaaatos (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on Battle of Stalingrad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kurt Leyman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to:
• 1st revert: 15:51, 18 February 2007]
• 2nd revert: 23:16, 18 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 11:12, 19 February 2007
• 4th revert: 16:41, 19 February 2007

Comments

The user has been blocked several times before for violating the 3rr rule. All of the users edits in the past several weeks have been reverted by many people in many articles. And the user is locked in an edit war in those as well. The user shows no understanding for[REDACTED] rules or policies. The user inserts material without a reliable reference, in this specific case "a movie that he saw". The user has made several personal attacks including calling me "ignorant". The user fully knows about the 3rr rule because he has been blocked several times for breaking it yet he continues to do so again and again Potaaatos 17:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm too involved to rule on this one but I will point out that there is more than 24 hours before the first and last revert. And really, both users are at fault here. There's about 2 days between Potaaatos' 1st and 4th revert but he's also been edit warring on that article. , , , . Honestly, I think both should be blocked. Kurt is labeling legit edits as vandalism and Potaaatos keeps citing policy and not always correctly. it's a typical edit war. --Woohookitty 23:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If I may point out that I have never violated the 3rr rule and thus should not be blocked at all, and I have never been warned for anything ever. The main difference here is that he has several times violated the 3rr rule where as I have not. The policy which I have linked shows that all information that is added without a source may be removed. The User Kurt has been blocked several times, he is right now involved in several edit wars, and has been involved several times on this specific page and gotten reverted every single time in the past, like most of his edits do. Lets not get carried away by other things. Kurt has violated the 3rr rule several times and keeps on doing it over and over again. I myself have not violated it or been warned about it and my edits unlike Kurts were not within 24 hours but several days apart. And it is not a typical edit war at all. He, a user who has been blocked several times and has been reverted on every article he has edited in the last 2 weeks, has added unsourced and unverifiable information which I have removed. And am allowed to do so by wp:verPotaaatos 00:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually blocked him indefinitely as a sock of User:SuperDeng. This edit made it obvious. The "Woohookitty is evil!" and "Woohookitty is chummy with Kurt" stuff is pure Deng. It's like well if I am so chummy with Kurt, why did I just recommend his blocking above? Sigh. --Woohookitty 01:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Kurt Leyman is up to 6 reverts now. He does not appear to have any intention to stop nor to add a ref to the disputed addition. Disruptive. El_C 15:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:81.227.105.32 reported by User:Montco (Result:1 week)

Three-revert rule violation on Geoff Hurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and George Best (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

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

and

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

Comment User is adding links to sites that sell products related to the players in question. Neither site is affiliated with the players. Have attempted reverting the links, but failed. Finally left a warning and brought this here. I plead guilty to have violated it myself in dealing with this individual. My bad. I throw myself on the mercy of the court.Montco 17:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The user wasn't warned for 3RR. Why?--Wildnox(talk) 18:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I reverted 2 of his edits, as they do appear to be linkspam.--Wildnox(talk) 18:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fugghedaboutit, he's clearly a linkspammer. 1 week as I'm not sure how static his IP is. If he crops up again, tell me. yandman 18:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:194.144.111.210 reported by User:Wildnox (Result:4 months)

Three-revert rule violation on Nu metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 194.144.111.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 18:40, 16 February 2007
• 1st revert: 14:20, 18 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 21:23, 18 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 21:32, 18 February 2007
• 4th revert: 13:13, 19 February 2007

Comments

User has been blocked for 3RR four times and two times for vandalism. He has never entered a user or article talk page save for his own talk page to remove warnings and block notices. I don't think he has any intention to anything other than edit war on wikipedia. --Wildnox(talk) 17:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Waste of everyone's time. 4 months. yandman 18:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:88.110.12.67 reported by User:Gsd2000 (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 88.110.12.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

User:Somethingoranother was already blocked for 48 hours for 3RR violations, and is currently blocked . They then proceeded to use their anon IP to make the same reverts:

• 1st Revision as of 01:18, 19 February 2007
• 2nd Revision as of 14:22, 19 February 2007
• 3rd Revision as of 18:06, 19 February 2007
• 4th Revision as of 20:41, 19 February 2007
• 5th Current revision (20:44, 19 February 2007)
• 6th Revision as of 21:53, 19 February 2007
• 7th Revision as of 22:10, 19 February 2007
• 8th Current revision (22:24, 19 February 2007)

Comments

User:83.19.173.202 reported by User:HongQiGong (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 83.19.173.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: 2007-02-19 16:53:04
• 2nd revert: 2007-02-19 17:12:18
• 3rd revert: 2007-02-19 18:00:15
• 4th revert: 2007-02-19 18:15:57
• 5th revert: 2007-02-19T18:19:02

• Diff of 3RR warning: 2007-02-19 18:09:46

Three-revert rule violation on Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 83.19.173.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: 2007-02-19 17:13:54
• 2nd revert: 2007-02-19 17:16:20
• 3rd revert: 2007-02-19 18:04:33
• 4th revert: 2007-02-19 18:21:15
• 5th revert: 2007-02-19 18:28:41
• 6th revert: 2007-02-19 18:55:41
• 7th revert: 2007-02-19 18:59:12

• Diff of 3RR warning: 2007-02-19 18:12:54

Comments

• I guess this is supposed to be a personal attack, but I've been called a "communist" in one of his edit summaries. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:FunkyFly reported by User:MatriX (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on Yane Sandanski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). FunkyFly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: 00:22, 16 february 2007
• 2nd revert: 03:08, 16 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 18:41, 19 February 2007
• 4th revert: 18:47, 19 Febryart 2007
• 5th revert: 18:53, 19 February 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: He/she has been warned of 3RR violations many times before:, , etc.

Comments

User FunkyFly has made 5 reverts on this page in the period between 16 and 19 February. Although he/she was careful not to make fourth revert, it is an obvious case of edit warring. He/she is not a new user and is aware that the 3RR is not an entitlement to three 'free' reverts per day. Edit warring is his/her style and that can be seen in the following articles history: , , etc. MatriX 19:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No actual 3RR. Absolutely analogous edit pattern of MatriX.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly a pottle-ket issue here. But boy, are they both black. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I am caucasian.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Per Fut.Perf.'s observation, the choices here are to block neither or both. I'll invoke the rule of lenity and block neither, but both parties are warned and reminded to avoid edit-warring. Newyorkbrad 02:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Ideogram reported by User:Badagnani (Result:Warning, temporary article editing ban)

• Ideogram (talk · contribs) - 4RR at Dizi (removing valid Wikilinks despite requests to stop) (diffs: 1 2 34); repeatedly insulting other editor with "idiot" (1, 2, etc. Badagnani 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

First diff is not a revert. Sorry for calling you an idiot. --Ideogram 21:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: It's the same edit (i.e. removal of valid wikilink) four times. Badagnani 21:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not the way things work here. And it wasn't a valid wikilink, it was a double-redirect. --Ideogram 21:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You made the same edit four times within one hour. That is 4RR. It was not a double redirect but a simple wikilink to List of traditional Chinese musical instruments. In fact, it's not a redirect of any sort. Badagnani 21:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixing a double redirect multiple times would be housekeeping and would not violate 3RR in my opinion, but I don't see how this was actually a double redirect, so there is a violation. Still, it's not quite the same thing as edit-warring over content, and I would let it go with a warning but for the incivility. In lieu of a full block, Ideogram is requested to refrain from editing List of traditional Chinese musical instruments for 24 hours. Newyorkbrad 02:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience Newyorkbrad. As you know, I am short-tempered, but I have apologized to Badagnani. I doubt that I will edit List of traditional Chinese musical instruments again, and Badagnani and I will be able to mostly stay out of each others' way. --Ideogram 03:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Martinphi reported by User:Milo H Minderbinder (Result:No action)

Three-revert rule violation on Psychic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: various versions
• 1st revert: 18:50, 18 February 2007 reverted to 21:49, 17 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 23:36, 18 February 2007 reverted to 19:30, 18 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 15:18, 19 February 2007 reverted to 03:57, 19 February 2007
• 4th revert: 15:34, 19 February 2007 reverted to 15:18, 19 February 2007
• 5th revert: 16:45, 19 February 2007 reverted to same as above
• ...and a 6th revert, after he was warned and this was reported here: 18:00, 19 February 2007 reverted to same as above

Comments

Reversions to different versions, but reversions nonetheless. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The changes are sufficiently different that I am not convinced there is a 3RR violation. There is useful discussion going on on the talkpage. No action at this time, but please avoid edit warring. Return if problems continue. Newyorkbrad 02:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Piotrus reported by User:M.K (Result:No action)

Three-revert rule violation on Ponary massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• previous-version for 1st revert: Revision as of 19:15, 18 February 2007
• 1st revert: Revision as of 19:25, 18 February 2007
• previous-version for 2st revert: Revision as of 02:13, 19 February 2007
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 02:19, 19 February 2007
• previous-version for 3st revert:Revision as of 13:20, 19 February 2007
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 15:15, 19 February 2007
• previous-version for 4st revert: Revision as of 19:05, 19 February 2007
• 4th revert: Revision as of 19:05, 19 February 2007
• previous-version for 5st revert: Revision as of 22:11, 19 February 2007
• 5th revert: 22:45, 19 February 2007

Comments

Contributor user:Piotrus was active in reverting campaign for several days, removing various information, despite was asked not to , Contributor already have block for 3RR violation  ; and he is admin so he perfectly know the rules. And the first block did not changed situation as we see. M.K. 00:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No 3 edits above share a common content change - they are concerned with several different content disputes. They are also spaced over 24h and not all are reverts - particulary nr 1 and 4 are primarily rewriting of content in an ongoing article expansion rather than any reverts (please note that I created the article recently), and nr 5 is a simply a minor copyedit - reverting vandalism or more likely a mistake per WP:LEAD manual of style - restoring referenced information that was mentioned in the lead and body and was removed from the main body without any explanation (lead is supposed to be a summary of information from the text, after all). I believe this is a bad faith report, particulary as it is bringing back a year-old block that was highly controversial (in the aftermath editors agreed it was made by a disruptive single-purpose sock), to further muddy the waters. PS. Nonetheless in order to cool down the tempers and reduce the threat of revert warring in this article, I have reverted my last edit to the article - although I do believe enforcing manual of style is outside the scope of 3RR in any case.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a clear violation anyway, but in view of the self-revert and the user's promise (see here) to stay off this article for 24 hours, no further action needed. Newyorkbrad 02:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, I do not want to challenge your authority but nutshell clearly states:Editors who revert a page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours also An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted.. Presented evidence clearly match these definitions. Contributor user:Piotrus above stated that edit no 1 is primarily rewriting of content lets see that particular editor did in this so called primarily rewriting of content he removed highly contested material - facts that killing squad consisted from various people (please see articles talk and you will notice this contributor's desire to avoid this infoamtion), in this edit" he removed and this fact - by Germans called Sondekommando as well as category links which were placed in the same day; and please explain why this particular contributor during so called primarily rewriting of content in the edit summary placed these words - rv POV pushing, rm see also (since the Holocaust template is here) as far as I know rv means revert not primarily rewriting of content. Lets analyze revert 4, which particular contributor claims also as primarily rewriting of content, before his revert this information was added: <tl|ref name=McQueen> MacQueen, Michael (2004). "Lithuanian Collaboration in the "Final Solution": Motivations and Case Studies" (pdf). Lithuania and the Jews The Holocaust Chapter (in English quote=When questioned by Polish authorities about what had motivated him to spend more than two months as a killer assigned to the execution squad at Paneriai and Borkowski said that he had no reason to mourn the Jews since antisemitism had been “beaten into his head” when he served in the Polish border guards before the war and he believed that the Jews were “parasites.”). UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM. p. 55. Retrieved 2007-02-19. {{cite web}}: Missing pipe in: |language= (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link) served in it too.<tl|ref name=Bubnys2>Bubnys, Arūnas (2004). "Vokiečių ir lietuvių saugumo policija (1941–1944)" (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 2007-02-18. Daugumą būrio narių sudarė lietuviai, tačiau buvo keletas rusų ir lenkų.</ref> after so called primarily rewriting of content this information was removed a long side with the main information that killers were mix nationalities there were also removed and various other information placed in the same day; and such reverts perfectly fits to the presented definitions of WP:3RR Editors who revert a page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours, except in certain special circumstances, are likely to be blocked from editing. also An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted.. And we came to another revert (no5) which contributor identifies as s a simply a minor copyedit - reverting vandalism or more likely a mistake per WP:LEAD manual of style - restoring referenced information that was mentioned in the lead and body and was removed from the main body without any explanation first of all contributor who removed this information left reasonable explanation Removed more weaseling, of which the statement has already been mentioned earlier in the article. Why the repitition? and definitely can not be classified as vandalism (Piotrus likes to accuse contributors of vandalism ), second provided source, which Piotrus claims restoring referenced information that was mentioned does not reference the formulation which was removed by Dr. Dan. And of course this is pure revert, and not exception as he trying to portray. But the most outrages of all his action was then he started to threaten to face block various contributors and accusations of disruptive actions and even now accusing me of bad faith. Newyorkbrad, you claimed that this is first night on 3RR board , could you ask more experienced contributors on 3RR to check this case. Because clearly particular contributor trying to avoid responsibility and threats from him makes assume good faith to be placed to minimum. M.K. 10:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Not a clear violation. - Darwinek 09:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Darwinek, you are not neutral in this case, because you also participated in revert campaign and your close cooperation with user:Piotrus is well know to community to . M.K. 10:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Learn Polish btw. YOU are that guy who ain't neutral. Your POV pushing and edit warring with other users is well-known throughout the community. - Darwinek 15:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the 3RR is to avoid edit-warring. By the time I saw this report, Piotrus realized that he could be perceived as having gone over the line, even though he believed he had not quite done so. Therefore, he voluntarily reverted his last change and said he would not edit the disputed article for at least a day. That means the edit war problem on that article ended before I was here and I concluded that a block would not serve to end an edit war on this article, it would just prevent editing on other articles. The policy that you quote also says that if an editor inadvertently makes too many reverts, he or she should acknowledge it and self-revert. I concluded that a block here would just be punitive, which is not why we have 3RR or this board. Piotrus has had the benefit of the doubt this time and he will not have it if he edits similarly again anytime soon. I will add that if you want to ask another administrator how he or she would have handled this report, that is fine. It would not be appropriate to impose a block so many hours later but if appropriate a further warning can be given and I would be glad to have another admin's analysis for my future reference. Newyorkbrad 11:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I admire your assumption of good faith. But let me remain me that particular contributor did not acknowledge his misconducts, even more accused here contributors of vandalism, accused me of bad faith; if you look at your talk he even accused involved parties both with reverts and with Holocaust revisionism-type claims in it. If contributor really wanted to solve the problem, he first of all should acknowledge that he breached 3RR rule, instead of continue to accuse others. He did not do this, this why he should be officially informed that he violated the rule and that other contributors could familiarize with it. The article itself deteriorating even now, just look at its talk page.M.K. 12:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The article deteriorating if that is what is happening is a separate matter. Please post to ANI if you would like another administrator to look at it and see if there has been bad user conduct there. Obviously certain types of comments are inappropriate quite apart from the matter of 3RR. (If you wish to respond further please come to my talkpage as we are filling up this board.) Newyorkbrad 12:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Notinsane reported by User:V-Man737 (result:)

this entire history is rife with violation of the spirit of 3RR; we have hammered out Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines over and over again to User:Notinsane (trying to push this text), who seems to want to discuss the issue but does not seem to read the policies. Has been blocked for 3RR before. If you can find a softer alternative to reach the user, please do it, as I have a hunch that his researching skills might develop and benefit Misplaced Pages as a result of this. V-Man737 02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:125.203.207.252 reported by User:Etimesoy (Result:No vio)

Three-revert rule violation on Korea under Japanese rule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 125.203.207.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to:

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

earlier ones:

• Diff of 3RR warning:

Comments

He's pretty good at warning other people about reverting: He is now using the IP User:125.204.39.85 , and continuing to revert

User was not warned until after 4th revert. --Woohookitty 10:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:WJBscribe reported by User:88.110.12.67 (Result:No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on United_Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). WJBscribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: 19 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 20 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 20 February 2007
• 4th revert: 20 February 2007
• 5th revert: 20 February 2007
• 6th revert: 20 February 2007

Comments

This user has reverted 6 times now on the United Kingdom article and has received a warning

Comment. I have reverted edits that appear to be vandalism, which is of course an exception to the 3RR rule. The IP editor in question is repeatedly deleting a section of referenced content and despite my requests has given no explanation for this. I have suggested the use of edit summaries but they continue not to be used. Similarly, there has been no explanation provided either on the article talkpage, my talkpage, or the IP editor's talkpage. It should also be noted that the IP editor has been labelled by a third party as a suspected sockpuppet of a user blocked for revert warring on the United Kingdom article (Somethingoranother). WjBscribe 02:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Completely spurious accusation. The reverts are also not even parallel; two of them are concerning completely different content than the other three. And here is no content dispute here, since the IP has never posted to Talk:United Kingdom or used any edit summary to explain the content removals. There's no reason to think that this is anything but cleaning up vandalism. — coelacan talk — 03:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. The accuser is causing major problems on United Kingdom, and they are already listed further up this article . Someone please block then. Gsd2000 03:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

IP was blocked for 8 hours. — coelacan talk — 03:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User is operating from another IP now: ] - can the range be blocked? Gsd2000 03:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Per the comments above, no violation. Newyorkbrad 03:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Thucydides411 reported by User:Merzbow (Result:24hr)

Three-revert rule violation on Juan_Cole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thucydides411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 2007-02-19T13:15:58 (for reverts 1 and 2)
• Previous version reverted to: 2007-02-19T17:51:42 (for reverts 3 and 4)
• Previous version reverted to: 2007-02-19T19:31:27 (for revert 5)

• 1st revert: 2007-02-19T17:51:53
• 2nd revert: 2007-02-19T18:03:59
• 3rd revert: 2007-02-19T18:10:08
• 4th revert: 2007-02-19T19:31:27
• 5th revert: 2007-02-19T19:47:33

• Diff of 3RR warning: 2007-02-11T07:55:15

Comments

This user continues revert-warring on this article after being warned just a few days ago by an admin after having been reported on this board for gaming 3RR. Reverts 1 and 2 both revert back to this edit he did today; you can see how all three edits remove the same large chunk of sourced material. Reverts 3 and 4 both revert back to this edit also performed today; you can see how all three replace "wikipedia articles" with "this[REDACTED] article". The 5th revert simply undid a change I just performed. - Merzbow 02:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Blocked for 24 hours: Clearly edit warring despite warning from Nearly Headless Nick. Heimstern Läufer 05:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Rameses reported by William M. Connolley (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on Martian global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rameses (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
• 1st revert: 2007-02-19T18:10:22 (marked as rv)
• 2nd revert: 2007-02-19T21:26:17 (marked as rv)
• 3rd revert: 2007-02-19T22:12:50 (not marked as rv, but removes major-bone-of-contention introduced by
• 4th revert: 2007-02-20T08:10:47 (marked as rv)

User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling reported by User:ElKevbo (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 21:39, February 19, 2007
• 1st revert: 07:45, February 20, 2007
• 2nd revert: 11:25, February 20, 2007
• 3rd revert: 12:50, February 20, 2007
• 4th revert: 13:29, February 20, 2007

• Diff of 3RR warning: 13:04, February 20, 2007

Sample violation report to copy

===] reported by ] (Result:)===
] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|VIOLATOR_USERNAME}}:
* Previous version reverted to:  
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert: 
* 2nd revert: 
* 3rd revert: 
* 4th revert: 
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning: 
-->
;Comments: <!-- Optional -->

Note on completing a 3RR report:

• Copy the template above, the text within but not including <pre>...</pre>
• Replace http://DIFFS with a link to the diff and the DIFFTIME with the timestamp
• We need to know that there are at least four reverts. List them, and replace http://VersionLink with a link to the version that the first revert reverted to. If the reverts are subtle or different, please provide an explanation of why they are all reverts. Even if the reverts are straightforward, it's helpful to point out the words or sentences being reverted.
• Warnings are a good idea but not obligatory

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring
• Administrative backlog