Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:03, 10 March 2006 view sourceWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,044 edits →[]: semi-protected instead← Previous edit Revision as of 21:16, 10 March 2006 view source 70.85.195.225 (talk) →[]Next edit →
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2,057: Line 2,057:


With so many IPs its not clear how blocking will help. You could try checkuser, possibly. I've semi-protected the article for now ] 20:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC) With so many IPs its not clear how blocking will help. You could try checkuser, possibly. I've semi-protected the article for now ] 20:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

===]===

] violation on {{Article|Movement to impeach George W. Bush}}. {{3RRV|AdamJacobMuller}}:

* Previous version reverted to: <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:

Reported by: ] 21:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
*This editor ], works in close tandem with ] to completly hijack this article. The article is rife with POV and OR violations, but any edits made to correct any of that is attacked by this team. Also, I see that the anons editing there are using explicit edit summaries to justify each edit, but these reverters simply revert and refuse to dialog on talk. This page is begging for a more neutral tone.


== Report new violation == == Report new violation ==

Revision as of 21:16, 10 March 2006

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167
    1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links


    Violations

    User:192.5.36.24

    Three revert rule violation on Anti-French_sentiment_in_the_United_States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 192.5.36.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Mal 03:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This user has repeatedly reverted the article in question to his own extremely POV version. General consensus by various editors has been to revert his edits, though he has persisted in changing them back over the last 12 hours. I have put three warnings on their user discussion page in the hopes that they would get the message and behave, but this doesn't seem to have affected them. The guidelines regarding reporting abuse are slightly complex, and this user seems to be in breech of more than one rule in any case. Nevertheless, my apologies if this report is inappropriate in any way. --Mal 03:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
      • "Previous version reverted to" matches "3rd revert." I only count 3 reverts, and as 24 hours has expired this won't become a violation. (ESkog) 20:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:MarkSweep

    • User:MarkSweep has violated 3 Revert Rule by repeatedly deleting an image. At least one other user besides me has supported the image, so this is a controversial edit.

    Comments

        • There is disagreement on whether the image violates policy since it expresses meaning of the concept. Please enforce the rule you've been allowing MarkSweep to go around threatening people with in order to protect his own editorial stance from opposition. Letting him get away with these tactics is taking sides and furthermore enabling a bully who engaged in WikiStalking.--Pansophia 08:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

    Reverts 3 and 4 you have listed are the same. Reverts 1,2,3,5 are not within 24h. William M. Connolley 11:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

      • That's just my pasting error (now fixed) - please check the actual page history. There are at least 5. For my own knowledge, is 24 hours delimited by date (i.e., anything occuring on Feb. 24) or "within a 24 hour period". MarkSweep did make a series of very good edits after the last revert, but that also has the effect of burying the violation of 3RR, which I believe to be deliberate. This particular 3RR is not only WikiStalking, it is WikiPoint because it is involved with MarkSweep's efforts to suppress my protest of prominently placing corporate branding on articles: he represents my principled protest as "vandalism" while demonstrating that he can go delete my images in retaliation. --Pansophia 01:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

    Continued Revert Harassment by User:MarkSweep

    --Pansophia 06:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

    They are duplicate links. Maybe you didn't link them right I don't now, but having duplicate links as such is just pointless. Stop trying to get this user blocked over nothing. Report only legitamate violations. If you keep doing this, you may end up blocked yourself for disruption. Just calm down and edit other things if this still bothers you.Voice-of-All 03:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    Sockpuppets of blocked User:80.90.38.214

    Three revert rule violation on Phaistos Disc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rose-mary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 80.90.38.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 80.90.38.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) :

    • All three accounts exist only to edit this article.
      • 80.90.38.214 blocked for "gross 3RR violation", this article 22:11, 26 February 2006
      • Rose-mary admits to being 80.90.38.214:
      • 80.90.38.185 admits to being 80.90.38.214:



    Reported by:Septentrionalis 21:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

    OK, I'm convinced. I'm going to block for a period of time I shall now determine...) William M. Connolley 22:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC). OK, I did Rose-mary for 24h; and the anons for a week. If they come back, let me know... William M. Connolley 22:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

    Back today as 80.90.37.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), as you've probably seen on your own talkpage. Lukas 20:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


    Renewed three revert rule violation on Phaistos Disc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

    Reported by: Lukas 14:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC) and 16:10

    User:Aucaman

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

    Reported by: ManiF 06:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Aucaman keeps reverting and placing a dispute tag on Persians to bully his POV despite the fact that his concerns have already been addressed on Talk:Persian_people by different users citing different sources and the majority of users on Talk:Persian_people (ManiF, Kash, Tajik, Zmmz, Amir85, Gol, Aytakin, 194.170.175.5) have fully addressed Aucaman's concerns and voiced their opinion in favour of the version and thereof have reached a majority consensus on the matter. Aucaman however continues to revert to his preferred version without a consensus. --ManiF 06:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


    Aucaman continues to break the 3RR rule on Persians, abusing the dispute system, and pushing his point of view, despite the majority's disapproval. --ManiF 09:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    In all this nobody warned Aucaman or the other involved editor of the 3RR. I have warned both, and will not block this time as the page in question has already been protected. (ESkog) 12:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Chadbryant

    California State Route 15 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chadbryant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments

    He keeps replacing the exit list with a huge unwieldly infobox, without even verifying that it is correct (the mileage, for instance, is wrong, as there is a milepost equation, which my version shows correctly). --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

    You should both be blocked for violating the 3RR. Gentgeen 07:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    I reverted three times. I have now stopped rather than break 3RR. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    I count 1 page move revert and three content reverts by you, for a total of four reverts in 24 hours. Gentgeen 07:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    I wasn't aware page moves counted. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Leyasu

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


    This user is reverting any contributions made to the Classic metal article apart from amny other articles like Gothic metal, etc. apart from getting into edit wars with many others. He/she has already been reported at arbitration committee for violations of the article Gothic metal. This user also gets personal and attacks other users calling them oxymorons, sockpuppets, etc. Also, other's edits and contributions are termed POV and nonsense by him. Unnessecary merger notices are put by him in many articles, viz. Black metal.

    Gothic Hero 13:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

    In the case of this, Gothic Hero is a sock puppet of the user New Rock Star, who has been editing articles and inserting Uncited Original Research into articles. An editoroial consensus has been reached on certain content on articles such as Gothic Metal, which the user completely dismissed and violated. The user has also been removing Merger Templates for mergers that are being discussed. The user first almost violated 3RR on the Classic Metal article with the name New Rock Star , , , and then went on to violate the 3RR openly, marking his reverts as minor and making Personal Attacks in the edit summaries , , , .
    I had warned the user of this behaviour however on their talk page (visable here), which was completely ignored.
    Its also intresting to note how the user proclaims they are new to Misplaced Pages, yet also already know all of Misplaced Pages's customs, and how the account was created today and has only been used for reverting articles in which New Rock Star has tried to push their POV onto despite editorial consensus .
    As such i admit to violating 3RR by one revert. But however, as has been demonstrated, this has been a ploy by one user using a sock puppet to set me up to be banned for 3RR, and i ask for this banning to be overturned due to this sock puppet use, unless both New Rock Star and his sock puppet Gothic Hero are banned as well. Tbank yew. Ley Shade 14:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    (Edit) In regards to the comment about Oxymorons, i made this comment to New Rock Star in a edit summary before the Gothic Hero user existed . In this case i also linked to Oxymoron so that the user could see for themselfs that this wasnt a personal attack, as the word moron is often used in a degrading manner, where as Oxtmoron is a statement that contradicts itself.
    Also my Arbcom case has been going for over a month and involves more users than just myself, and was originally started against another user before being weighed in as action being taken against both of us. This case has currently not seen any action for weeks however, and due to an overwhelming amount of evidence in my favour not just from myself, but other users, i fail to find this as a reason to accuse me of 3RR violations, when the user has deliberatly user New Rock Star has deliberatly used a Sock Puppet to provoke me into violating 3RR. Ley Shade 14:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

    I wouldn't say much as far as my alleged sockpuppetry. It's kinda joke ! But I would say that Leyasu has violated 3RR rules not once but many times. He has reverted kinda 7 times. Also, Leyasu says that classic metal is not a genre of heavy metal music, when everyone knows that it infact is. Also, he tries to put his POV and then tries to defend it vehemantly going to the extent of personally attacking others. I checked some of his edits and I understood one thing that he has been trying to merge many unrelated genres and he puts deletion notices too. Why he tried to merge classic metal and glam metal too. And now he is trying to merge Pakistani black metal with Black metal, which has been discussed and Leyasu and his sockpuppets are the only user(s) who are supporting the merger. Still, he refuses to remove the template. He perfectly fits the definition of those Misplaced Pages users who think Misplaced Pages is their own site and forget that it is a public domain. Please block this user Leyasu, since he is likely to deliberately modify contents of other articles. And what else can be expected from a user who has been blocked kinda 5 times.

    Gothic Hero 17:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

    Accusing me of sock puppets on the black metal article is folly, when many of the users involved all support merging or not merging for different reasons. Also, i refuse to remove a template when a merger is being discussed, simply because New Rock Star's sock puppet demands it as so.
    Taken from the above:
    • Also, Leyasu says that classic metal is not a genre of heavy metal music, when everyone knows that it infact is.
    To the contrary, both article Heavy metal music and List of heavy metal genres explicity state that it isnt a genre. Somewhat ironic that 'everyone knows it is' when the main article and the list article both say it isnt.
    Taken from the above:
    • He perfectly fits the definition of those Misplaced Pages users who think Misplaced Pages is their own site and forget that it is a public domain.
    I also find this ironic, when ive worked with several editors and im part of WP:HMM. I also, if my userpage is read, make no claims that Misplaced Pages is my own. I am also known for notifying people when they are acting Meglomanical, which is one thing ive been accused of as doing as a personal attack against one user in my arb com case who explicitly said people werent allowed to edit an article without his permission.
    Taken from the above:
    • Please block this user Leyasu, since he is likely to deliberately modify contents of other articles.
    Misplaced Pages is a public domain as this user just said. Thus, complaining when article are edited by anyone is oxymoronic, due to the fact he is accusing me of claiming ownership, yet he is trying to stop anyone from editing articles without his permission. Ironic, no? Ley Shade 17:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Leyasu has again vandalised the Classic metal page. He deleted two sub-sections apart from putting "classical metal" instead of "classic metal" in a few sentences. I had to revert it. Please someone block this user as he is directly violating Misplaced Pages rules. The link of the version he vandalised - ].

    Gothic Hero 17:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

    The user is claming vandalism, yet is violating the three core policys (WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:CITE). This user is also making it very hard to abide by WP:BITE. I am now, in direct violation of 3RR. However, New Rock Star's use of sock puppets achieves nothing, when by doing what he is doing now, he is violating WP:SOCK as well. That is, in total, a violation of six Misplaced Pages policys, ( WP:3RR, WP:BITE, WP:CITE, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:SOCK). Ley Shade 17:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

    I will reproduce a text from the merge archives of classic metal -

    I am very confused as to why this is an entry. I have never heard of Classical Metal before. I have heard of Neo-Classical Metal, but that is a completely different form of metal. Further, all of the bands supposedly in this genre fit much more easily into different genres. Plus the article seems to just make things up. I'd love to hear how Glam Metal and Thrash Metal have similar styles. Thankfully one of the authors had the sense to point out the diversity of the lyrical content of this supposed genre. Of course the content would be different since many of the bands played completely different forms of Heavy Metal. After googling "Classical Metal" I found 0 pages that had anthing to do with this article. Finally, how is AC/DC connected to this thing again? They aren't even Metal, let alone the definition of a Metal genre. I wouldn't merge this page with Glam Metal as it is complete trash. I am clueless as to what precise information would be lost with this page. My vote is for deletion. marnues 09:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

    And check this edit that Leyasu or Ley Shade did in classic metal article -

    "This however is attributed due to the varying genres that make up the term classical metal."

    Both have mistakenly used "classical" metal. I can understand one of them using that but both. I do smell a rat here. User:marnues is a sockpuppet of User:Leyasu.

    Gothic Hero 17:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

    In regards to User:marnues being a sock puppet of mine, i authored a check user comment to see, . Ley Shade 17:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Appropiate

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

    Reported by: android79 14:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • See the edit summary of the previous version reverted to: "I've made account after my improvemments deleted by gorm "Funky Monkey" I HAVE BACKUPS SO I WILL ONLY RESTORE". This refers to Funky Monkey's earlier removal of the same material added by 81.106.165.39. Appropiate and 81.106.165.39 are clearly the same person, and it's hard to believe that the other two IPs are not him as well. See also Talk:HIStory where Appropiate describes his opinion as "fact". android79 14:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Whoops. Looks like I technically violated the rule myself. In my defense, I was reverting obviously POV material, and forgot about my first revert, which I labeled as fixing grammar. I'll voluntarily cease editing for three hours and stay away from Michael Jackson-related articles for the rest of the day. android79 14:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

    Appropiate says she is off. Nonetheless I've blocked her, and the ...39, for a token 8h William M. Connolley 19:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

    Al-Khwarizmi article

    The articles history is a mess, someone more familiar with the 3rr policy should check article history for violations of 3rr. --Cool Cat 16:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

    Voice of All has protected it William M. Connolley 19:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Yahya01

    Three revert rule violation on Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yahya01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    28 reverts made on 28th Feb 4 reverts on March 1

    Reported by: Tanzeel 20:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: He is constantly vandalising the article with POV edits and reverting them back each time they are removed. Have tried discussion. Please block this user, this isn't the only article he's an offender on. 28 reverts in 24 hours - that's the worst I've witnessed. Address this issue soon, please. Just take a look at the history!

    Blocked 8h; newbie but an impressive revert tally. *Please* in future put an explicit warning about WP:3RR on peoples talk pages! Now for the other side... William M. Connolley 20:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked Siddiqui too, 24h, since has previous blocks William M. Connolley 20:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:88.152.202.122

    Three revert rule violation on Ice hockey at the Olympic Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 88.152.202.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Andrwsc 22:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC) Updated: Andrwsc 19:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User will not abide by consensus reached at Misplaced Pages talk:Olympic conventions with respect to medal table formats
    • Some edits could be considered vandalism (in addition to content dispute) as the USSR/Unified Team/Russia medal total is sometimes edited as 37, clearly wrong.
    • The edit made by User:88.154.218.148 at 13:47, 25 February 2006 started this whole mess. It was first cleaned up at 20:07, 26 February 2006 by User:Jizz
    • I attempted to appeal to this user via the talk page, and by adding additional content to the main page, but the user persists in changing the table format, against agreed upon conventions.

    I've blocked that anon, but only briefly, because (a) its a first offence and (b) *you didn't put a WP:3RR warning on their talk page* William M. Connolley 23:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

    Ah, ok, I didn't realize before now that anon users had talk pages... I will take note of this. Thank you for your assistance. Andrwsc 00:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    Update:

    User:201.235.45.28

    Three revert rule violation on Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 201.235.45.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Astrotrain 00:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Left personal abuse on my talk page, and deleted the 3RR warning on talk page. Has also vandlised his own entry here.
    • I've blocked the anon for 3h for repeatedly editing this report into a report on you. It looks like 3RR on the article to me, as well, but I'm not going to block them myself cos I probably have an interest in that article. William M. Connolley 00:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Chadbryant

    Three revert rule violation on RSPW. Chadbryant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments:

    Those aren't all within a 24-hour period, and you have been asked not to insert fictional information into the article. You also violated WP:NPA in your edit summaries for rec.sport.pro-wrestling history, and with the message you left on my talk page. - Chadbryant 01:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    Mr. Bryant has been banned twice thus far for violation of the Three revert rule. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eat At Joes (talk • contribs) 03:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC).

    Doesn't look like 3RR to me. OTOH, WillC (co-incidence!) *has* been blocked, I think for vandalism here... William M. Connolley 20:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Lou franklin

    Three revert rule violation on Societal attitudes towards homosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lou_franklin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Cleduc 03:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Lou franklin continues to remove a quote against consensus of all other editors (as documented on the talk page). This is the fourth or fifth time he has been reported for this, resulting in three previous blocks. Charmingly, he's now apparently timing his edits to achieve exactly four reverts per day.

    2006-03-02 05:01:26 Guanaco blocked "Lou franklin (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR again on Societal attitudes towards homosexuality) William M. Connolley 17:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:70.29.239.249

    Three revert rule violation on Alan Shefman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.29.239.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Reported by: Mangojuice 04:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Edit in question was blanking out a section of a page. This page is already being considered for deletion, so deletion of the material there can certainly be considered under discussion. Note that user User:pm_shef is the one who reverted the blanking each time; I warned him about the 3RR just now, but I would have undone the blanking myself if I had noticed. Mangojuice 04:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked 8h William M. Connolley 17:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:68.48.79.237

    Three revert rule violation on Michael Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.48.79.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

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

    Reported by: badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked 3h for first offence William M. Connolley 16:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Vulturell

    3RR violation on List of British Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Vulturell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Reported by: SlimVirgin 05:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comment

    The four reverts involve David Milband's name being added to the list despite objections by two editors. SlimVirgin 05:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    Each of the reversions was to restore cited information. Last reversion done with new citation added. Information removed by SlimVirgin and the other editor co-responded directly with citation. Not to mention that two editors are not exactly the final decision makers on anything. Vulturell 05:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    We're not claiming to be. But Misplaced Pages's policies, including in this instance the 3RR, are. Grace Note 05:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    Again - cited, factual information presented in wording that directly reflected the citation. Not to mention a second citation was added, etc. Co-responds with the way the rest of the page is organized, as well. Vulturell 05:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    It makes no difference whether you believe you're right or wrong, because 3RR applies regardless of content. Two editors dispute the quality of your source and what it says. You should discuss the issue further on talk. SlimVirgin 05:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    No, that's incorrect. No one ever disputed either the quality of my source or what it said. Both of the sources were renowned British newspapers and not one of you expressed concern in regards to their accuracy. As for "what it says", the wording on the article reflected the exact wording in the sources and did not present any information that was not exactly there. Vulturell 05:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    Oh, and as for discussing the issue further on talk - neither my reply to you or my latest reply to Grace Note on that talk page, nor my new message about the new source were replied to by either one of you. That's three dead ends where the conversation seems to have stopped without your reply. Vulturell 05:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    OK, I take one of those back. The very last message about the new citation was just replied to. Thank you, Grace Note. Vulturell 06:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    No warning on talk page; but has broken 3RR and is incivil; blocked... 8 hours? William M. Connolley 13:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    William, may I ask you to consider blocking for the full 24 hours? Vulturell has effectively taken ownership of that page. He is very rude to anyone who tries to edit it in a way he disapproves of, and the 3RR violation was quite blatant. He also declined the opportunity to revert himself, even though he could have done so for hours because the violation had been pointed out and no one reverted his last edit. He seems to think that, because he believes he is right, 3RR doesn't apply to him, which seemed to be his point above. SlimVirgin 17:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    OK, will think (must be off now for an hour or so, so if anyone else wants to answer, feel free!). Also: wot about the page move? William M. Connolley 17:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    The page move is kind of a separate issue, though the reason he did it was to justify retaining the edit that kept being reverted (long story, but basically the edit he wanted was not appropriate given the title's description of the contents, so he moved the title). The point for me is the blatant 3RR violation. Discussion about the content dispute is continuing, and if Vulturell thinks he can argue his way out of a 24-block, he'll carry on violating 3RR throughout the dispute, which means more reverting instead of discussion, which means less chance of resolution. SlimVirgin 18:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    OK, on your advice and a review, I'll increase to 24h. Can you let me know if you want the page move undone or not? William M. Connolley 19:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    Thank you, William. I'll leave the issue of the page move to the other editors. There's a poll going on on the talk page about the content dispute, so hopefully some clarity will emerge from that. Thank you for your help. SlimVirgin 21:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Pm_shef

    Three revert rule violation on Article|Talk:Alan_Shefman}}. Hars_Alden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Hars Alden 06:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    These are not reverts but simply adding to the discussion. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    Let's be very clear about this; if any 3RR violation has happened here, User:70.29.239.249 and User:69.156.151.42 are every bit as guilty of it. This posting is an attempt to discredit pm_shef by falsely painting him as singlehandedly responsible for a content dispute that's essentially political in nature, and it's extremely problematic that this complaint is User:Hars Alden's first ever Misplaced Pages edit...especially considering that the dispute has been perpetrated by an ongoing series of brand new users from the beginning. Bearcat 07:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    Six reverts in 4 hours is a violation of the three revert rule.
    You seem to have a misunderstanding as to the 3RR. He did not revert the page but added comments and that is allowed. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    I'm glad you know your math, Hars. That makes it easier for me to explain this part: User:70.29.239.249 also reverted content six times. So if six equals six, and both six and six are greater than three, then why are you singling User:pm_shef out for a complaint, and not proposing a similar sanction against User:70.29.239.249's six reverts? And why was posting this complaint your first Misplaced Pages edit ever? Bearcat 09:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    I used to always post with my ip - nothing to do with this. Ok so let me know, why are you ok with this guy breaking the rules? Hars Alden 11:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    Hars, you need to read WP:3RR. He did not revert the talk page in those links you provided, he "added" comments. From the 3RR page - "Reverting in this context means undoing the work of another editor." He did not revert the work of another editor. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    YOU need to read WP:3RR. This user has reverted 6 different edits. He did not add any comments. He reverted back to this old version EVERY time. See: 06:24, 21:24, 14 February 2006 Hars Alden 20:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    Replied at User talk:Hars Alden CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:MarkSweep

    WP:3RR violation on Template:User pro-cannabis, removed the associated category five times, four of them qualify as reverts.

    Reported by: Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    User was blocked for 3 hours, which I think was inappropriate in this instance, given that the 3RR violation was accompanied by wheel warring and repeated use of rollback button in content dispute. 24 hours would have been appropriate. Babajobu 11:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    And for that matter, using rollback immediately after I lectured him on the proper use of the feature. This user acts unilaterally, with no assumption of good faith and with no respect for policy. I agree 24 hours would have been more appropriate. There's no need to play favorites with someone just because they have sysop qualifications. An RfC might also be in order. Sarge Baldy 16:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    Something needs to be done about him, that's for sure, what between the wheel warring, the blatant disruptions to the community, the improper use of admin functions, et cetera. Babajobu 16:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Some clarifications: I don't block vandals for the maximum time allowed, and I don't see why I would do that to regular editors. And Babajobu, this was not a content dispute. Zocky | picture popups 22:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    Well, he was using the rollback button to revert to his preferred version. It did not involve vandalism, which is what the rollback button is supposed to be used for. Babajobu 03:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Molobo (again)

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

    Reported by: Sciurinæ 11:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

    Comments About the word 'torture'. I had had a dispute with him over it all before (see history of the article and the old disputes at Germanisation. The last discussion over it ended with this statement. However, the day when Space Cadet was suspected of sock puppetry, Molobo reopened the dispute, apparently thinking that this time he could 'win' by mere revert warring. He was reverted by User:Ksenon, who is Polish himself. Molobo continued, again not thinking of discussing things through first. The four edits are reverts in effect. He was blocked little more than a week ago for similar behaviour, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive11#User:Molobo, the administrator responsible noting "Blocked 24h (though I considered longer)" and on Molobo's talk page advising, "Don't label your reverts as anti-vandalism; it only makes things worse." Molobo wouldn't take that advice (see 3rd revert) and if one assumes good faith and doesn't consider this duplication of the whole page as an attempt at interrupting the page that Space Cadet was reported on, Molobo just needs a longer cool-down period. Sciurinæ 12:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    Sciurinæ is a nationalist user who continues to delete information about any kind of discriminatory policy of German state in the past, tries to erase information about German war crimes and believes that forcing Poles out of their lands is "strenghtening national unity". If you will closely at the edit you will that it is not a revert but expansion with a link to the school in Wrzesnia where it is a large section where the events are described. Sciurinæ went to delete it at a sight without any explanation whatever, despite that I expanded the information and added link. No reason was given by Sciurinæ as to why he deleted expanded section. The link I gave gives accurate description of events which I translated upon the page-flogging and beatings leading to stripping of flesh from children's bodies. When I gave that translation on the page to finally stop Sciurinæ from reverting the sentence, he simply deleted it without any explanation. I stand by word that actions by him are vandalism as Misplaced Pages policy on vandalism states clearly:
    • Blanking

    Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit. --Molobo 13:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    This is a content dispute. You have broken 3RR and I've blocked you. Please learn the correct definitions to avoid future pain; better still, avoid even getting close to 3RR by using WP:1RR William M. Connolley 13:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    First of all, Molobo, learn to write your stuff separated form others, as I had to un-do that mess for you. Second, do you really try to teach about Wiki policies here? And third, you seem to attribute to others what you think and do yourself. There must be a proper psychological term for that - if not, Morbus Molobo would fit. There are enough cases were you removed undoubtedly useful, non-controversial edits with your trademark blind reverts, if the previous editor was one of the many you don't trust. --Matthead 13:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    Funny, I could say the same about you Matthead. 153.19.48.103
    William, please double the block for block evasion. Molobo again makes fun of 3RR, just like so many times before. --Ghirla 15:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    Molobo accusing others of nationalism? That's made my day. It heartens me to see wikipedia's admins cracking down on these revert warriors. Doubtlessly though we'll see either him or Space Cadet here again soon. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    Molobo: It is totally irrelevant here if your opponents are "nationalists", or if Polish pupils were "tortured". There is a rule against reverting three times within 24 hrs. You keep violating this rule, so you got blocked. If you are fined for speeding you can hardly protest that you had to overtake "nationalist" drivers who cover up torture. The same applies here.
    Apart from that, calling your opponents "nationalists" really seems like a Pavlovian habit of yours. As for torture or no torture, you seem to be unaware that severe corporal punishment was the order of the day in schools until well into the 2nd half of the last century. As cruel as this may seem to us today, this practice is not normally called "torture" in general usage. --Thorsten1 15:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    Reset and extended to 48h for evasion. Also blocked the IP. Please keep the discussion off this page William M. Connolley 16:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    This is very kind. Molobo has been behaving appallingly; it's genuinely shocking how he speaks to many of his colleagues. Note his recent response to your block here. He routinely mischaracterizes people, misrepresents edits, and does almost nothing on[REDACTED] except POV pushing/revert warring, either for extreme Polish nationalism or else related anti-Germanism. Disputed tags follow him magnetically, as does anger at his behaviour. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:William M. Connolley

    Three revert rule violation on User Talk:William M. Connolley (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User-multi error: "William_M._Connolley" is not a valid project or language code (help).:

    Reported by: Seraphim 17:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • After I posted a question to him for the first time about his interpertation of the 3rr rule he reverted 04:44, March 2, 2006 it with the message "ask on the 3rr talk page" which I assumed (WP:AGF) was an honest mistake because I was alittle ambiguious in my question. Every time he removes it I have attempted to explain exactly what i'm asking better but it still gets reverted. The diff's speak for themselves. (Warning is unneeded user informed me personally that 3rr applies on user talk pages) Seraphim 17:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
      This page is not a proper arena for trolling. Go read what 3RR is all about: it doesn't cover edits on one's talk pages. --Ghirla 17:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
      It does, the exception is for reverting on one's own user page, there is no exception for your talk page. He is the one that actually pointed this fact out to me. diff "3rr on talk pages: "Please note that 3RR applies to user talk pages too William M. Connolley 17:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)" This is a clear 3rr violation and it should be dealt with. If I was trolling I would have listed his first revert in the report also. Seraphim 18:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
      3RR doesn't apply to your own talk page. If he doesn't want your message on his talk page, that's his business. It may be rude, but he's not going to get blocked for it. android79 18:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
      That is not true, show me where that is in policy and i'll remove this report. It clearly states "User page" never says anything about your own talk page. I've seen people be blocked for 3rr on their own talk pages before when removing warnings. Seraphim 19:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Here's the quoted relevant text from WP:3rr "The 3RR is generally not enforced against editors reverting changes to their own user page space, on the principle that your user space is yours (for project-related purposes)." a users's own talk page is not given an exemption. Seraphim 19:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
      Please don't Wiki-lawyer. It quite clearly says "their own user page space". User-space is understood to mean anything preceded by "User:" (and, by extension, "User talk:"). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
      User Page Space is a diffent namespace then user talk space, it clearly states that it is talking about user page space, not simply user space. It is obvious that the 3rr thing is not talking about user-talk pages. The purpose of a user talk page is not used for project-related purposes, the purpose of the user-talk pages is for other users to leave you messages. Are we changing official policy here? I've looked through the history of the 3rr discussion page and nowhere was a proposal made to make it apply to user talk pages also, infact on aug 19 2005 (from the archive) user Nate Ladd posted a message that pointed out exactly what I am, that user talk pages are not covered by the current policy (it hasn't changed since then). If you want to make up new policy that's fine, however currently the 3rr exemption about user pages does not apply to user talk pages. Seraphim 21:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    Seraphim 21:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    This is a waste of time. Under your interpretation of these rules, people can leave annoying, offensive, or obnoxious messages on someone's user talk page, and that person can't remove them without getting into a revert war and risking a 3rr violation. This is an open invitation to trolls.

    I don't know what the underlying dispute is, but please work it out some other way besides wikilawyering. No one is going to block WMC for removing messages from his own talk page, and on the slim chance anyone does, he will be quickly unblocked. Gamaliel 21:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    There are other policies that cover removal of annoying, offensive, or obnoxious messages, for example WP:NPA. What he is removing without comment is simply me asking him a simple question that any administrator should beable to answer. How that particular admin decides when it is too late to ban someone under 3rr. It is a simple question that any admin who polices the 3rr page should beable to answer. The is no reason I can think of for him to refuse to answer the question. It's not a personal attack, or offensive/obnoxious in any way. Seraphim 21:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    Its up to the judgement of the admin and varies greatly on the particular circumstances; there's no easy answer. Perhaps you should have taken your question to the 3rr talk page as asked and avoided all this? .:.Jareth.:. 21:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    Yeup i'm completly aware about that. However I am not interested in how other administrators interperate the policy, I am interested in WMC's specifically, which I explained on his talk page after he said to ask about it on Talk:3rr. Seraphim 22:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    Many times I have been pestered by trolls who have posted obnoxious messages on my talk page and then, when confronted, claim they were merely asking an innocent question. I have no reason to doubt that your motives were perfectly innocent, but your motives are irrelevant. A person should be able to decide who he or she wishes to converse with and doesn't need to provide you with an explaination. Gamaliel 21:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    What I am attempting to do is help add information about his recent block of me and the subsequent discussion to a RFC case that is already being built against him by a few users who he has wrongfully blocked. When he blocked me he did not do research into the 3rr request, just assumed the 3rr report was valid. During our discussion after his blocking of me I pointed out that blocking policy says you must treat both sides equally, and I proved that if he blocked me for 3rr he should also have blocked another user. His reply to that was that it is too late to block the other user. I am interested in how he came to the decision that it was too late to block the other user, since there was no changes to the situation between my block and when WMC decided that it was too late to block the other user. Just FYI when I was blocked the 3rr request was 10 hrs old, we had already reached an agreement that called a cease fire and we had filed a joint request to get the page locked and all agreed to official mediation. Since his blocking of me obviously wasn't to stop edit warring (we had already called a cease fire and agreed to not edit the page untill mediation starts) it implies that he rules on 3rr's by time elapsed since the 3rr report, however when he decided to not block the other user less time had expired between that user's reverts and his decision to not block that user, then the amount of time between my reverts and him blocking me. I am simply interested in what his interpertation of the 3rr policy is that he used to make the decision to block me but not the other user. Seraphim 22:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    None of that matters. Whether or not WMC should have answered your question is a matter for WMC and no one should be making that call for him or forcing him to do it. If you didn't recieve a satisfactory answer, you should have asked another administrator or inquired on WP:AN. Gamaliel 22:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    I didn't file this 3rr because he was refusing to answer the question, him blanket reverting it without adknowledging it is considered to be a hostile act and provides me with the same type of information I was trying to get by asking it. That is not the point of this 3rr. The point of filing this 3rr was that he clearly violated 3rr. Nowhere in policy does it give an exception for users editing their own talk page, if people want that to be policy they should formally request it. Seraphim 22:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    Restriction of user talk pages only applies to vandalism. That is, anonymous editors removing warnings, or users removing 3RR notices or other warnings, or block notifications, etc. (as the community needs to know that). Deleting inquiries is not vandalism, although if extreme can show fallout with the community. Deletion of inquiries is merely non-cooperation, something to be brought up in RFAr or RFC with other grievances. Seraphim, this is not the place. File an RFC if you wish. Please do not wikilawyer. The user talk space is within the userspace. Follow the spirit of the law, this is not codification. Remember, even if this was converted into a legal system Wikipolicy would basically be restated common law, subject to liberal interpretation. But this is not a legal system so your complaint does not stand either way. Elle vécut heureuse (Be eudaimonic!) 00:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Firmitas

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

    Reported by: Jcbarr 17:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • The page is a mess because of all the attention last night, but I think the examples above should be at least 4 reverts to the same text he wants to add. -Jcbarr 17:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked 8h as a first offence William M. Connolley 19:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    • I don't want to just delete this entry, but I'd like to withdraw this nomination. Firmitas has been trying to play by the rules as he's learned of them and I while he still deserves a close eye, I may have bit the newbie a bit too hard. -Jcbarr 19:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Mais oui!

    Three revert rule violation on {{Infobox Scotland place}}. Mais_oui! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Aquilina 18:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments

    I can fully see the user's point, and would be perfectly happy for his version to stand: however, the user has recently been engaged in a couple of other edit-wars , , and this 3RR violation came only half an hour after admin User:JzG warned him for edit-warring

    I know the editor's heart is in the right place, and I agree with his edits in all bar one case above(!); but he is not above the rules and needs a cool-off period, as it's now becoming disruptive. Let's use the talk pages first Aquilina 18:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages would not gain by blocking Mais Oui!; he does much laborious work, and I know from experience his edits are the result of good integrity. This listing will almost certainly be enough for the intended effect. On the other hand, there are plenty of users who by habit hug the 3RR rule to engage in POV revert warring and go largely unpunished, and with whom blocking is a "hazard of the job" as they say, rather than a means of reducing revert wars. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    Agreed. I've been talking with the user, and there is a valid concern with vandalism and POV pushing. I should also have notified them that they were near the three rvert threshold when I was looking at the history of the template (plus I poured petrol on the flames by clicking in haste). This is fundamentally a good solid editor with no malice, and the revert could defensibly be viewed as anti-vandalism. I am also looking at the user with whom he has the dispute, and I don't like what I am finding. I say give Mais Oui! a pass on this one. Just zis Guy you know? 19:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    The editor has been revert warring both on this template and other articles. A lesson in not doing so is in order, so I will block for 24hrs. You don't get a pass for disliking the user you are warring with, and the revert is not anti-vandalism. -Splash 19:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:I AM

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

    Reported by: Palmiro | Talk 18:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Blocked 24h (3RR and incivility), so I guess I don't get your eternal gratitude :-( but others will free to earn it I'm sure William M. Connolley 18:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:McKhan

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

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

    Reported by: Pepsidrinka 19:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: There have been 16 more reverts for a total of 20 reverts. The other user, User:Muslim sunni also reverted quite a number of times, almost 15. Also, an IP reverted 4 times. User:65.92.130.151.

    I have blocked McKhan, Muslim_sunni, 65.92.130.151 and 62.131.149.252 for 24 hours each. -Splash 19:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    I don't think any of the parties have gotten a 3RR warning. I've protected the page and issued a collective warning to everybody on the talk page. Gamaliel 19:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

    They're all blocked. Why protect it? -Splash 19:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    I protected it before we simultaneously posted here, so I didn't know anyone was blocked. If you want to keep an eye on this edit war, I'll unprotect it and leave the matter to you, that's fine with me. Gamaliel 19:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    Ohhh, nononono. I'm not going to take the edit war under my Wikipedic wing. Hopefully 24 hours will give them each enough to take a cold shower. Perhaps leave protection in place for a few hours against the anon(s) who have been fooling around to, and then see if the blocks serve their purpose. -Splash 20:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    I'll downgrade it to sprotect for now. Gamaliel 20:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


    User:Heja helweda

    Three revert rule violation on Iranian peoples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Heja helweda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

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

    Reported by: Zmmz 03:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:Dear admin the user in question was warned before, however, the user erased the warning, and was warned again to no avail. User:Heja helweda is a chronic 3rr violator in the Iranian people article page, as well as, the Persian people, and perhaps elsewhere. The user also frequently violate the good faith assumption policy and has, and continues to write excessive amount of text in the discussion pages of the articles mentioned, and in other articles too. This is my first time reporting, and I am not certain if I have entered all the data correctly. Kindly look into this matter. Thanks. Zmmz 03:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

    • It's a bit messy because you didn't format it right, but I don't see any 3RR violation here. Although Heja helweda has been a frequent contributor to the page over the last few hours, no two versions of the page by this user are the same. For unresolvable content disputes, see requests for comment, three doors down. (ESkog) 03:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


    • The user has utilized sneaky language, and he put the same contents back on the page previously edited by another user. Non of that is good enough? It was not good enough for user Aucaman either, huh? Doesn`t it qualify as a partial revert? Zmmz 04:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't see any reverts by this user, and I definitely don't see four of them to the same version of the page, which is what is required for a 3RR violation. As I said, if you feel that there is an unresolvable content dispute, you need to open up an RFC or use some other dispute resolution mechanism. (ESkog) 04:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Madchester

    Three revert rule violation on The Amazing Race 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Madchester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Netoholic @ 05:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    I would block Neto for this, and indeed David Levy did but SS unblocked:

    1. 2006-03-03 05:15:29 Snowspinner unblocked Netoholic (contribs) (Block seems unfair)
    2. 2006-03-02 23:14:51 David Levy blocked "Netoholic (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (disruptive 1RR violation, per ArbCom ruling: edit warring at The Amazing Race 9, claiming that the onus is strictly on other editors to initiate discussion and justify their stance)

    William M. Connolley 10:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comment Sounds like a simple spite to me. The 3RR rule hasnt been violated by Madchester yet this Neto character has violated his Arbcom case several times, and baited another user into violating 3RR. Simple answer is to ban the obvious trouble maker. Ley Shade 17:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:69.174.230.64

    Three revert rule violation on NASCAR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.174.230.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: -- SonicAD (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User has repeatedly posted spam link to his website, on this page and various other NASCAR-related page. Later on within NASCAR, he copied over a section on website from the talk page, having first added his own site to it, presumably under the guise of it being a good reason for inclusion of his own. He has also been hostile on his talk page, and was later warned of the 3RR. -- SonicAD (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    Blocked for 24 hrs for violating WP:3RR.... could have actually been blocked for spamming too. --Madchester 15:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Anderson12

    Three revert rule violation on Freemasonry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Anderson12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Sock of Lighbringer

    Reported by: ALR 19:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Sockpuppet of Lightbringer using the same tactics as previous puppet Basil Rathbone with exactly the same material and approach (no discussion, random accusations, demands all Masoic editors be barred). Although note that the material inserted does move around the page each time it's included.ALR 19:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The "1st revert" listed above is not a revert, it's the same as the "Version reverted to". Thus there are only 3 reverts here to this point. If there is a fourth within a 24-hour period, drop me a note and we can talk about a block, as this user has been blocked before for the same offense on the same page, and has been warned this time around. (ESkog) 20:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

    Ah... I just blocked based on the history... I suppose I'd better check again. Though if this is indeed a Lightbringer sock, does it need 4RR for a block? William M. Connolley 20:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

    Hmm... based on a closer check, I guess I'm obliged to admit this is only 3RR. And in the absense of any evidence of socking, I think I shall unblock for now William M. Connolley 20:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

    He was Checked against Basil Rathbone a couple of days ago ] and there have been three requests for Admin assistance to enforce the ArbCom ruling. ] ] ]. ALR 21:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

    OK, yes, so he was. So... none of this should be here, and he should be long-blocked :-) William M. Connolley 21:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Rjensen

    Three revert rule violation on Richard J. Daley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rjensen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Skinwalker 21:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User is altering the description of a well-known and well-documented quote from Richard J. Daley, against consensus. We've tried to engage him on the talk page but he insists on reverting to his version.

    Appears to be a generally sensible though perhaps somewhat stubborn editor. No warning; so I've given him one William M. Connolley 22:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:kdbuffalo

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

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert: 16:34
    • 2nd revert: 16:41
    • 3rd revert: 16:58
    • 4th revert: 17:54

    Reported by: Justin Eiler 23:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Raisinman also made an identical edit at 16:53. Raisinman is tagged as a suspected sockpuppet of kdbuffalo, making this a violation of WP:SOCK as well as WP:3RR. However, I am not aware of any checkuser requests or results for Raisinman. Justin Eiler 23:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

    I can't see that as four reverts. The first one seems to be simply an edit; it's not reverting to a previous version. Therefore, the "second revert" is really the first one, and the third is really the second, etc. If he's using a sockpuppet to get round the reverts, that's another matter, of course, but at the moment I think we have to wait either for a real fourth revert or for the sockcheck results. AnnH ♫ 23:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry--previous examples of inserting the contested paragraph are further in the edit history, and do fall outside the 3RR rule. The report was a misunderstanding on my part (unless the checkuser does indicate a sock), and I withdraw it. Justin Eiler 21:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    I woz just going to say that :-) William M. Connolley 23:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    Although this is an old (and withdrawn) report at this stage, just for the record, Jayjg established through a usercheck that Raisinman was a sock for kdbuffalo, and blocked the sock indefinitely. So it seems that the Raisinman revert did bring it up to four reverts. AnnH ♫ 10:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:134.161.241.176

    Three revert rule violation on The Last Supper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 134.161.241.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Sorry, somehow i smashed my OWN comments on this... Codex is trying to misuse categories and avoid calling an apple an apple through simple vandalism. if it is a myth, from the christian belief system, it should go in the christian mythology section, simple as that.

    I am sorry that you have missed my comments ON THE RELEVANT CATEGORY TALK PAGES as pointed out in my edit comments. You will not get away with your vandalism, Codex.

    All i am doing is replacing the category back on a page, according to the discussion on the category talk page. Codex Sinaiticus appears to be upset that it is against his religious POV, and whines about having things correctly categorized. 134.161.241.176 01:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    Well, just like EsKog and other admins have repeatedly told you, your only hope of changing anything on[REDACTED] is through established consensus on the discussion page. Edit warring your edits 5 times in one hour always gets you exactly no-where. That's our system. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


    and since the consensus on the category talk pages, while far from complete, leans towards MY edits, perhaps you should heed your own advice. 134.161.241.176 01:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    As a matter of fact, it does not. There is no discussion on any page for putting Sermon on the Mount into a "mythology" category, and even if there were, it won't happen without editor consensus at Talk:Sermon on the Mount. It doesn't work like that. Now, please read WP:POINT and WP:3RR, and do contribute some worthwhile edits after your next block expires! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


    I am sorry, but how can you POSSIBLY believe that your bias needs to be over come on EVERY page? one central discussion is perfectly acceptable! 134.161.241.176 02:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)



    Let me clarify: Codex is inisting that on every page that fits into a Abrahamic or Christian mythology that a debate be held to add it to said category, and his SOLE argument against the categorization boils down to him being offended that the word mythology is used (even though it is dictionarily correct, and used int he same context as every other major religion on wikipedia) he is attempting to make legitimate edits overly difficult and force his POV into the articles by placing rediculace barriers to editing. 134.161.241.176 02:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

    No, it's POV pushing, you don't want to engage in discussion to see if editors think "Last Supper" or "Sermon on the Mount" falls into the category of "mythology", I mentioned that the consensus at the Mythology category talk pages you keep mentioning, was that we have specifically created a load of alternate less pov-pushing categories for such articles, and you responded in an edit summary "What other appropriate categories? You mean Category:Fiction?" Your pov pushing is clear, this category is not to be abused that way, and you have edit warred 5 or 6 times in one hour, even after having been blocked and warned, because you think your own POV is so sacrosanct that it trumps all rules. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    No, the reason I keep editing is because you are refusing to read the relevant talk pages and are imposing arbitrary rules revolving around discussing an argument ( " i am offended because I don't care to learn the definition of a word") that should not even have to be addressed at wikipedia, and are forcing arbitrary obsticles against progress on the wiki due to your POV, nothing more, nothing less. You are being a simple vandle, pushing your religious framework and you know it! 134.161.241.176 02:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

    User has been blocked a second time for the same violation. Further action may be necessary if the behavior continues. (ESkog) 03:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

      • notice, Codex is proforming simple vandalism, since he refuses to discuss his changes, ergo I am exempt from 3rr. His refusal to discuss means that it cant be a content dispute.
    I have blocked again, this time for 72 hours (3rd violation on 2 articles). I recommend an RfC or other action if it happens again. I reject the claim that Codex's edits are vandalism - this is clearly a dispute over content, regardless of the level of fresh discussion being generated. One user may not indefinitely demand that users who have formed a consensus justify themselves. Edit patterns suggest a consensus has indeed formed at these articles. (ESkog) 21:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:151.213.167.25

    Three revert rule violation on Michael Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 151.213.167.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Count Chocula 01:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This user has been consistently removing the nickname 'Wacko Jacko' from the opening parapraph, and has been warned a number of times to stop. A consensus has been reached to keep the nickname, though it doesn't seem to stop the user from continuing to remove it--Count Chocula 01:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:69.205.1.109

    Three revert rule violation on Tom Swift (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.205.1.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Antaeus Feldspar 04:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This anon has been trying to make these changes, under multiple IP addresses, for literally months. No one supports them except him; all the changes that he wanted to make that other editors were willing to go along with, were made. He, however, refuses to consider any other outcome except for all the changes he wants being made -- removing weblinks that he views as too commercial, and removing information about links between the different series that share the title. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Thats an awful lot of reverts, but *no message on the anon talk page*. I've left one. William M. Connolley 09:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

    Reverts continued; blocked 8h William M. Connolley 15:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

    I think that the scale of the problem here is bigger than the non-problem of the lack of a message on a talk page! -Splash 16:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    And so I've made it 24hrs. Longer would have been justified. -Splash 16:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    Well, as I said, this anon has been trying to force these changes through for months, under too many different IPs to count. I don't know how many of them would have to be searched to find the one where he was warned... -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:129.241.11.201

    Three revert rule violation on Lost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 129.241.11.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: — Scm83x 12:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked 8h as first offence William M. Connolley 15:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Mir_Harven

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


    Reported by: Mylan 22:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Mir Haven has made 5 reverts in 12h, and has the page was protected due to edit war

    with HIS version (though he achieved that by heavily violating the rule). The disputed change is discussed on talk page at least at two places as far as I can see (near the end and at the very end), but he has made no reply to that. In fact, he seems to be a known vandal with a history of disruptive behaviour. He claims on his edit summary that he is correcting a "vandalism" and has even claimed that the quote he was removing is false, which is certainly not true as it is a well known quote of Tudjman he is certainly aware of. If holocaust denial can be attacked as POV it is certainly something that should be mentioned - article has plenty of Croatian propaganda also, it is clearly not NPOV. See the discussion or simply google Tudjman holocaust denial. Also, the infamous quote about him being happy about his wife not being Serbian or Jewish is padded with comments - while it should be a pure quote, with no comments in the brackets. These are the issues to be discussed on talk pages, but Mir Haven did not reply to any of the issues (while other people have) and still keeps reverting.

    I've blocked MH for 12h as a first offence but warned before. If there is substantial evidence of disruption elsewhere I guess others might wish to reconsider the length William M. Connolley 23:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Perspicacious

    Three revert rule violation on Seventh-day Adventist Church. Perspicacious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:

    Reported by: Fermion 00:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This user has been warned on several occasions about reverting this edit. We have been having problems with them linkspamming several pages to www.everythingimport.org (see User:Perspicacious for examples and sock puppetting). He has been warned that he was close to 3RR, but hasn't heeded this warning. Further, his article on Graham Maxwell has been nominated for deletion, and there have been several votes to this effect. The article on Graham Maxwell and the stuff he his trying to put on the Seventh-day Adventist Church are basically the same issue.
      • Both Perspicacious and MyNameIsNotBob appear to have violated 3RR on this article in the past 24 hours - I've blocked each for 6 hours. (ESkog) 04:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Terryeo

    Three revert rule violation on Space opera in Scientology doctrine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Terryeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: ChrisO 02:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Terryeo has previously been blocked for repeatedly reverting this article, but has continued to revert it nonetheless (see history) in defiance of consensus among the article's other editors. He has stated in a user talk page that he will continue to revert articles but at a lower frequency: "I am re-doing the Dianetics article about once a day and staying under the 3 times a day thing". This is a clear example of "gaming" the rules, a practice which is prohibited at WP:3RR#Enforcement. I will be taking this to the ArbCom in due course as part of a broader RfC/RfA, but in the meantime I think a further block is merited. This has been going on since 23 February; this user is an incessant edit warrior and will continue in the same vein unless blocked.
      • These reverts are one per day - 3RR specifies that there must be 4 reverts in the same 24-hour period to merit action. Possibly annoying to deal with, maybe requiring some other dispute resolution, but decidedly not a 3RR violation. (ESkog) 04:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
        • 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. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others. The fact that users may be blocked for excessive reverting does not imply that they will be blocked. Equally, reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context.
        • He's been pulling this stunt on multiple pages, often giving transparently bogus reasons (a disambiguation notice at the top of a page constitutes "original research", don't you know). --Calton | Talk 13:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
        • As Calton said. The Arbitration Commmittee has already unanimously enforced this in similar instances - see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute/Proposed decision#3RR is not an entitlement. The 3RR isn't simply a mechanistic "3 strikes and you're out" policy - it also addresses the underlying problem of revert warring. -- ChrisO 14:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Then it is a question for the ArbCom or some other higher authority. I'm not comfortable blocking this user on the basis of the three-revert rule. From a couple paragraphs down on the 3RR page from your quote: Some users recommend spacing out your reverts to one per day - which appears to be what this user is doing. (ESkog) 03:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:IceOwl

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

    Reported by: —Guanaco 07:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Blocked 12h William M. Connolley 10:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


    User:Al-Andalus

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

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

    Reported by: (XGustaX 16:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC))

    Comments:

    • He has revert more then three times the same page.
    • I think the 3RR reverter here is user XGustaX. He left a threatening comment on my talk page and then proceded to report me for "vandalism". I contacted the user, thinking he was of sound mind and willing to dialogue any difference, but he has refused my inviation, and instead further reported me here for having to revert his deletion of information provided by Chilean Census figures (I wrote detailed "summaries" on my edits and posted on the talk page.) He then cowardly ran to deleted my comment from his talk page (difference between revisions) to erase any track of my attempts at resolution. If you notice the history of his talk page, you will see that he has also had problems with other users on different matters, and instead of engaging in dialogue at the request of those users on his talk page regarding certain problems, he deletes the entries in his talk (difference between revisions) and ignores and avoids interaction with the community trying to work with him and giving him the benifit of the doubt. He basically works alone in "his" wikipedia, enforcing his original research, and ignores, denies, or just blatently deletes sources researched by other users which are contrary to his opinion. Al-Andalus 01:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC).

    User:Emir Arven

    Three revert rule violation on Bosnian War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User-multi error: "Emir_Arven" is not a valid project or language code (help).:

    Reported by: --Obli (Talk) 17:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This is a very controversial article and this is a long standing edit war. Please consider protecting the page instead of blocking, as both sides (Emir and PANONIAN below) have violated the 3RR (oops...). --Latinus 18:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    Hi, I just want to say, that my 3rd revert was not the same as 1st and 2nd, because I provided the source, and explained it in the talk page. I put it in the article.--Emir Arven 18:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    So, I didnt violate 3RR. I will not comment HolyRomaEmperor case, because noone wanted to warn him for his statemens about my contribution. He goes from user to user to talk about my contribution in a very bad manner.--Emir Arven 18:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:PANONIAN

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

    Reported by: --Obli (Talk) 17:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This is a very controversial article and this is a long standing edit war. Please consider protecting the page instead of blocking, as both sides (PANONIAN and Emir above) have violated the 3RR (oops...). --Latinus 18:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:RTS

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

    Diffs omitted while reporting in haste.

    Reported by: AnnH ♫ 19:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: I'm being a bit naughty here, because I'm reporting without taking the trouble to fill in everything properly. I have to go to dinner in about two minutes, so please forgive me. Could an admin have a look at the recent history of Christianity, and also the messages I left on User talk:RTS. I NEVER report newcomers normally, and I really mean that. In the past, I have left many messages for newcomers, telling them that they had broken the rule but that I wasn't going to report them because they were new, and I hoped they'd stop. I also NEVER report people who might have accidentally slipped into a fourth revert through losing count. As I started this message, RTS had done seven, in little over an hour. He had been warned, in edit summaries, and on his talk page. He's almost certainly connected to User:Giovanni33, who reverted like that when he arrived, and then got at least two sockpuppets or meatpuppets (as established by evidence) to help. He's also reverting to Giovanni's version. Pleeeeeeeeease help. And I promise I'll fill in all the diffs properly after dinner. Really, though, the diffs aren't necessary. A brief look at the history of Christianity will show you everything you need to know. AnnH ♫ 19:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked for three hours to deal with the immediate behaviour; obviously a checkuser and possible (much) longer block may be indicated here. Alai 19:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you for the three-hour respite. I've finished dinner now. :-)
    • Previous version reverted to: can't really give one, as they were partial reverts, not identical. The edit summary and the comments on the talk page show that it was a revert, as he was restoring something which User:Giovanni33 inserted (without consensus) on Tuesday, and which was reverted by another user.

    His contributions show that he started editing today. His first two edits were to his user page and talk page; his third edit was a partial revert to Giovanni33's version. Giovanni started in exactly the same way, massively violating 3RR, taking advantage of the fact that we didn't want to report new editors, posting a defence of his version on the talk page, and then immediately reverting to that version without consensus, even when it involved a large change. He was then joined by BelindaGong, who reverted constantly to his version, followed him around to vote for his version on various talk pages, grossly violated 3RR, also taking advantage of the fact that we didn't want to report a new user. A user check established that Belinda was a sockpuppet for Giovanni. He then claimed she was his wife, although they had pretended not to know each other. While they were both blocked, a "new user", Freethinker99 turned up, said he was new, had read the talk page and agreed with Giovanni, then started immediately reverting to Giovanni's version (several times). Then Giovanni answered a question which had been posted to his talk page, forgetting that he was logged on as Freethinker. He changed it immediately, but it was too late, as we had already seen it. He then claimed that he just happened to be at Freethinker's house, and was showing him how to edit Misplaced Pages, and that Freethinker had allowed him to answer a question on his talk page, from Freethinker's computer.

    Update: while I was typing this, NPOV77 (talk · contribs) reverted to RTS's (Giovanni's) version. I looked at his contributions, and saw that he also started today, and that this revert was his third edit, the first two being to his user and talk pages. I immediately blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. I refrained from blocking BelindaGong, Freethinker99, and RTS when they arrived, because I was involved in that article, even though there was every indication of sockpuppetry. However, I know that admins do block obvious sockpuppets to pages they edit themselves, and there are just too many "brand new" users who appear, revert to Giovanni's version, argue for his version on the talk page, and otherwise show familiarity with Misplaced Pages. I am going to report this on WP:AN or WP:AN/I now, and if an admin undoes my block, I will accept that, and will not in anyway consider it to be "wheelwarring". My block was just a quick reaction to the beginning of another war. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 21:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Reviraz

    Three revert rule violation on Bat Ye'or (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Reviraz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Pecher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)):

    Reported by: Pecher 20:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • The user was warned on his talk page to stop reverting. Pecher 20:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Looks very clearly four reverts; OTOH why is he having to revert deletion of sourced material? I won't block myself, due to earlier involvement (and the temptation to go with R's version, on its merits). OTOH, the Reviraz account looks very suspicious to me (some "sleeper" edits, then use as a "role" account); I suggest a checkuser request would be in order. Alai 20:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

    Pecher also has 4 reverts (the initial removal of the material is a revert, a-la ). So I shall block them both for edit-warring, for... 12h apiece. William M. Connolley 21:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Infinity0

    Three revert rule violation on Anarcho-capitalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Infinity0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: RJII 01:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: The kid is deleting information with 4 sources, over and over again. I keep adding more sources and more caveats to satisfy his concerns, and he just keeps reverting back the information. RJII 01:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

    This was User:Infinity0's second 3RR violation this week, so blocked for 48 hours. —Ruud 02:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    User:RJII violated 3RR as well, so he gets blocked for 24 hours, plus 24 hours for violating his probation. —Ruud 03:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    No I did not! I reported Infinity's violation here to avoid an edit war. I challenge you to provide the diffs. RJII 03:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    Here are the diffs: previous version, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th. —Ruud 03:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    I've replied on your talk page. —Ruud 11:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    It's not. See my Talk page for a detailed analysis. The first is not a revert at all. The second supposed revert is not a revert but an addition of sources. I'm trying to do my best here by reporting someone for violating the 3RR instead of edit warring back with him, and you guys are hassling me. Please lay off. Thanks. RJII 17:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    The first revert is not relate to the others... In all his reverts he added "individualist anarchism" to the list, although with sources the 2nd through 4rd time, but I fail to see how this makes the firt revert unrelated? —Ruud 17:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    I guess I meant, isn't the same. But it doesn't matter, its a revert, whatever RJII may say. RJII: reporting someone for 3RR doesn't confer immunity on you William M. Connolley 17:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    No matter how you look at it, I did not violate the 3RR. RJII 17:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It does look like this scenario:
      1. User A inserts statement XXX.
      2. User B does not think XXX is valid and deletes it.
      3. User A, a few days later, re-inserts XXX. This is possibly the sort of revert 3RR is about, possibly not.
      4. User B deletes XXX again. This certainly is 3RR-worthy.
      5. User A reinserts XXX with a source.
      6. User B does not think XXX with the source is valid and deletes it
      7. User A reinserts XXX and source with yet another source
      8. User B still doesn't think XXX is valid and deletes it.
    I don't think this is what 3RR is for. 3RR is to stop edit wars, in particular edit wars of the form "Is too!" "Is not!" "Is too!" "Is not!". Adding information to bolster a position is not edit warring, it is responsible editing. So at least one of RJII's edits was not a revert under 3RR. On the other hand, Infinity0 freely admits his was a 3RR violation in email to me, so there's no controversy there. I've been asked to reblock; I appreciate being asked, but I still don't think the block was appropriate. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    I strongly disagree that adding references does not make this a 3RR violation. It is not my task to judge the validity of the refrences and so by your logic anyone could evade a 3RR violation by adding some (possible irrelevant) sources. —Ruud 18:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    Not to mention, I even left his last edit sitting there though I strongly disagree with it just to avoid edit warring. RJII 19:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

    Also... (thought I'd mention it; found via the just-rejected ) William M. Connolley 19:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:24.69.14.159

    Also editing via proxy as 24.64.223.203 (talk · contribs). Warned.

    Three revert rule violation on Prem Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).


    Reported by: ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Arianitr

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

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

    Reported by: Bitola 18:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    This user is constantly reverting the article about the Macedonian town of Gostivar changing the pictures previously added by me and changing the names in official use in the country. The user was already warned twice:

    ,

    He recently responed to my warnings with this:

    Blocked, 8h as a first offence, though he does look rather determined William M. Connolley 19:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC).

    User:JohnnyBGood

    On Interstate 605 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JohnnyBGood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments

    Insists on using an infobox that is too big. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    Actually if he'd ever read the 3RR he'd notice you have to revert 4 times during a 24 hour period to be in violation... which I have not per the history located here . This user has been on an anti-consensus tear acting unilaterally removing a long time infobox that has been agreed apon by consensus and has been edit warring myself and others at this page California State Route 15 and now California State Route 283. SPUI is also on probation.JohnnyBGood 01:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    20:10, 6 March 2006 JohnnyBGood (rv. SPUI give it up. Revert again and you'll be in violation of the 3RR.)
    20:08, 6 March 2006 JohnnyBGood (rv vandalism by SPUI)
    20:04, 6 March 2006 JohnnyBGood (rv the "common sense" per consensus, rules lawyering, and all other things that make[REDACTED] great.)
    13:46, 6 March 2006 JohnnyBGood (rv to keep inline w/ other state routes. Interstates in CA are CA routes. Also the CA Wikiproject has been granted priority on CA 3dis so the CA box takes precedent. Nice try SPUI but no cigar for you)
    --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    If you'll read the actual history you'll note SPUI has changed the dates on the 3 most recent edits.JohnnyBGood 01:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    You must be in a different time zone. 3RR is per 24 hour period, not per quantized day. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    SPUI I'm on GMT just like you are. All users are.JohnnyBGood 01:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    Paste what you have for your revert times. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    1. (cur) (last) 01:10, 7 March 2006 JohnnyBGood (rv. SPUI give it up. Revert again and you'll be in violation of the 3RR.)
    2. (cur) (last) 01:09, 7 March 2006 SPUI (rv)
    3. (cur) (last) 01:08, 7 March 2006 JohnnyBGood (rv vandalism by SPUI)
    4. (cur) (last) 01:07, 7 March 2006 SPUI (rv)
    5. (cur) (last) 01:04, 7 March 2006 JohnnyBGood (rv the "common sense" per consensus, rules lawyering, and all other things that make[REDACTED] great.)
    6. (cur) (last) 00:31, 7 March 2006 SPUI (you are rules lawyering, while I am using common sense.)
    7. (cur) (last) 18:46, 6 March 2006 JohnnyBGood (rv to keep inline w/ other state routes. Interstates in CA are CA routes. Also the CA Wikiproject has been granted priority on CA 3dis so the CA box takes precedent. Nice try SPUI but no cigar for you)
    You missed your first one. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    You mean this one? Note it's a day earlier.JohnnyBGood 01:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    That's less than seven hours earlier. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    It is one day earlier however.JohnnyBGood 01:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    Doesn't make a difference. The ban is on four reverts in any 24-hour period, not four reverts in a single quantized day. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    Isn't a day 24 hours?JohnnyBGood 01:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    All four of your reverts were made within 24 hours of each other. Thus you have broken 3RR. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    Well if that's the way they say it is then I guess I did. They should make it more clear however. Doesn't change the fact you're just as cupable with your edit warring on all the listed pages, and against consensus no less. At least I have right on my side. JohnnyBGood 02:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    Riiiiight. Maybe you should actually look carefully at both versions, until you realize that mine makes more sense. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    (back to left side) - JohnnyBGood will be blocked 12 hours for a first violation of the 3RR - SPUI only has 3 reverts to this point but is cautioned not to revert again. (ESkog) 02:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    "They should have made it more clear"? JohnnyB, you are wikilawyering. The idea of what "twenty four hours" means is pretty clear, and is meant to discourage revert warring. The 3RR is an electric fence. If you thought that not knowing that this meant across different days, and not merely in one day, is a mitigating circumstance, think again. SPUI, a caution to you — just let it sit there and ask for a third party next time, there's barely any damage in a longer infobox, just that it looks a tad uglier/too long. The hostility is more damaging than the aesthetics, or the omission of information on the infobox. I will not be taking any action, other administrators may, but this is a warning, JohnnyB. Elle vécut heureuse (Be eudaimonic!) 02:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    Pardon, ESkog has already blocked JohnnyB. Well, I guess that will mean an observance of the "electric fence". Elle vécut heureuse (Be eudaimonic!) 02:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    SPUI has been reverting against consensus however. Note WP:AN/I. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    Agreed. And his edits could be considered edit warring.Gateman1997 02:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    They do not violate the 3RR though. Bring this up at an RFC some dispute resolution processes, this page is for 3RR violations; I agree it is worrying. Has he violated the 3RR? If not, bring this to another page. Elle vécut heureuse (Be eudaimonic!) 03:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    Well regardless he is edit warring and thank you for those who said so.JohnnyBGood 19:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Chadbryant

    Three Revert Rule violation on Nashville Municipal Auditorium. Chadbryant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    • 02:06
    • 01:25
    • 00:52


    Not a violation of 3RR, and Linden Arden is suspected of being a sockpuppet for someone involved in several content disputes in order to circumvent 3RR. - Chadbryant 03:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    The claim of sockpuppetry by Chadbryant is unfounded, untrue, and potentially libelous. In reaction to a content dispute, Chadbryant is attempting to besmirch my reputation on Misplaced Pages. Linden Arden 15:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    It is not your place to say whether or not your behavior violates the 3RR rule just as it is not MY place to say whether or not your behavior violates the rule. However, you have previously been blocked for a 24 hour period due to a violation of the rule, and warned on numerous occassions.
    As a result, whenever someone such as Linden Arden reports your behavior for a possible violation, the administrators must investigate, bogus claims or no bogus claims. In my own opinion, I believe it does not help your case any when you immediately claim as your defense that the individual who has made the challenge is a "sockpuppet" -- especially given your behavior towards them. You run "willy nilly" around Misplaced Pages placing the DickWitham sockpuppet tag on so many IP numbers and User accounts, yet you refuse to allow others to place a potential sockpuppet tag on accounts that may be sockpuppets of your own.
    While this is hypocritical, it is not my point. My point is that the more you engage in such radical behavior and then try to use it to your own defense while attempting to erradicate or manipulate it under other conditions, it can do nothing but serve to remove any legitimate verification or trust you may or may not hold within the Misplaced Pages community. This is really no different than you removing comments from your talk page which make you look in a negative light or disagree with your views, then trying to hide behind the excuse of the comments being removed due to "bad faith edits." --Eat At Joes 03:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Chadbryant is blocked 24 hours for this 3RR violation. Although he did change some words he also reverted the "RSPW held a convention" text 4 times in under 2 hours. This is not a productive way of resolving the dispute. Rhobite 03:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Eat At Joes

    Three revert rule violation on Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Eat_At_Joes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Has reverted article to a version with ambiguous links four times in less than two hours:

    - Chadbryant 03:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    Not a violation of 3RR, and Chadbryant is suspected of being a sockpuppet for someone involved in several content disputes in order to circumvent 3RR. --Eat At Joes 03:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    But seriously, this is just more childish crap from MR. Bryant. The only reason he is adding my name here is because of the comments I made above. He has a mind like (self-censoring the rest to avoid violation of the Misplaced Pages policy on personal attacks). --Eat At Joes 03:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    Eat At Joes has been blocked for 3 days: 24 hours for this 3RR violation and 48 hours for his continuing incivility towards other users (see this comment). Rhobite 03:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:209.158.227.190

    Three revert rule violation on H. William DeWeese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). USERNAME (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

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

    Reported by: Montco 04:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Not sure if this is the best forum for this sort of thing. The individual in question obviously does not care for the content in the article and has taken to deleting it four times. There are notes on their talk page as well as on the article's talk page, but there has never been a response. Would like some guidance on the issue.
      • I only count one revert in the last 24 hours - the rest are still very old. Pretty stale edit war, all things considered. Try a request for comment or seek a third opinion. (ESkog) 04:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Yeah the individual comes back every week or so to delete the content. Look I can keep going back and fixing this stuff, but a third opinion doesn't help since the individual does not respond to any inquiries.

    User:Chadbryant

    Three revert rule violation on Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chadbryant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    He is once again trying to enforce his minority opinion onto the article:

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


    Reported by: TruthCrusader 07:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Only by you and another user who constantly try to followed Chad Bryant here and constantly find any way possible to harass him for having a presence on Misplaced Pages. You lost in your bid to get Chad "in trouble" and now you're dragging other people into the dispute to "get back" at him. You need to find something better to do with your time. Master Of RSPW 08:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    The original user didn't really make the 3rr violation clear, but it undeniably a valid 3rr report Master of RSPW. Here are the diffs he should have provided. Previous version reverted to19:27 March 421:10 March 5(first revert)19:51 March 6(second revert)20:26 March 6 (third revert)20:31 March 6 (fourth revert)21:04 March 6th (5th revert)It should also be pointed out that he was using misleading edit summaries for all of these edits which apparently part of the reason Eat at Joes was reverting him. Chadbryant was claiming that he was fixing links however he was not at all. First 2 reverts had no message, third said "fixing ambiguous links is not vandalism" fourth "restored correct links - cite which item I'm removing, or cease with the misinformation" 5th "restored correct links - cite which item I'm removing, or cease with the misinformation". He wasn't just changing links, he was using his link changing to hide the fact that he was adding the line "RSPW held a convention prior to an ECW show in Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania, on February 4 1995." over and over. Seraphim 13:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    I also need to point out that User:Master Of RSPW keeps removing the suspected sockpuppet template from his user page, while adding sockpuppet templates to other users pages and then reporting them for 'vandalism' when THEY remove it. Does reverting your own talk page 5 times count against the 3R rule? TruthCrusader 20:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    Thanks for the fact-checking, Seraphim. I'm blocking for 24, as I did the other 3RR on this page.
    TruthCrusader: This is a bit of a complex issue. WP:VAND clearly states that removing warnings for vandalism and 3RR is vandalism. Suspected sockpuppet tags with no evidence can be considered harassment; be sure you actually have something for the evidence. I would say, if there is no evidence, remove the tag on your page. That is my unresearched off-the-cuff opinion, however, I suggest a little checking is in order. If you suspect someone of sockpuppetry, file at RFCU rather than posting an unsubstantiated suspected sockpuppet tag. If you want to pursue this question further, it needs to go to a different venue, a talk page for one of the related policies or another talk page. KillerChihuahua 16:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Garglebutt

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

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

    Reported by: 2006BC 08:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User:Garglebutt is breach of the 3RR by reverting on five occasions within the period allowed. Without discussion, he/she decided to merge the article with another, that is only partly related. I am concerned that I am a little out of my depth with discussing the rules here but Longhair referred me to the '3RR' page which linked me here and I would welcome action to block Garglebutt as he seems very reluctant to compromise at all. I have tried to engage him/her and haven't much of a response other than threats, even things like "So be it" which I suppose was meant to intimidate out of editing in a way he disagreed with. --2006BC 08:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    Sigh! Please have a look at Talk:Dean McVeigh to see that there was never going to be agreement from those directly involved in the topic of the article. Also worth looking at User talk:DarrenRay to get a broader perspective. Garglebutt / (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not sure how any of that relates to you breaching a rule you were quick to warn me not to breach. Perhaps being blocked will be a help to your relating with others. 2006BC 09:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    Please note Garglebutt's warning to me not to breach the 3RR: . --2006BC 09:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    User:DarrenRay and User:2006BC are political alies and are running a coordinated campaing of POV pushing and reversions. User:Garglebutt was merely undoing their vandalism. Something that I, and other editors have also been trying to do. Also User:DarrenRay has easily himself breached 3rr numerous times now. Xtra 10:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    Newly created user User:AChan chose to revert the redirection of this article as one of their first edits. Not that I'm necessarily suggesting collaborative disruption. Garglebutt / (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    The anonymous/pseudonymous user Garglebutt has blatantly breached this rule. I have not done so as far as I'm aware. I assume I'm checking in the right way and will continue to be careful. Garglebutt on the other hand has done even more reverts after 2006BC put this complaint up. I think there are now even more reverts of the same material by Garglebutt. DarrenRay 14:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    The article is now protected. Go work out your differences on the talk page William M. Connolley 14:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    Has Garglebutt been blocked yet? Sorry for my ignorance about such things. Also I refer to Xtra's claim that Garglebutt was "undoing their vandalism." Please check the links and you will see that is not true. --2006BC 23:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    Ben, (AKA 2006BC) what you did constituted vandalism and the fact that you and your friend AChan are here on Darren Ray's request and syncronising your edits concerns me about your future here. Xtra 23:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    Thought: why shouldn't Garglebutt be blocked for inappropriate user name? --Nlu (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    Garglebutt has been here over six months and has made over 1000 contributions. A bit late now. Xtra 23:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    Call me thick, but I have realised the unfortunate meaning of "Garglebutt." This is very unpleasant and physiologically challenging. --2006BC 23:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Tskoge

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

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

    Reported by: Big Adamsky 16:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Refuses to discuss his changes, occasionally makes grumpy/uncivil remarks in edit summaries.

    Please read the rules William M. Connolley 17:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    Now it's four. //Big Adamsky 18:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    • In the last 24 hours or so, I count precisely 3 reverts from Big Adamsky and 3 by Tskoge. The next revert after this point by either party would result in a short timeout. (ESkog) 21:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Tskoge (again)

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

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

    Reported by: Big Adamsky 16:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Continues to remove certain links and categories, and refuses to compromise or even discuss.

    User:Siddiqui

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

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

    Reported by: Pepsidrinka 17:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User is unwilling to compromise. Is claiming ownership of article and telling other users to go to arbcomm before changing the article. Refuses, by his actions, to main a NPOV. Has been blocked for 3RR twice before. Pepsidrinka 17:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked for 3rr, disruption and claims of ownership William M. Connolley 17:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:134.84.5.71

    Three revert rule violation on Kiev Metro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 134.84.5.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Kuban Cossack 18:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Original was uploaded by me and my upload was vandalised four times.--Kuban Cossack 19:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Kuban kazak

    Three revert rule violation on Kiev Metro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kuban kazak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: 134.84.5.194 18:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Compare the versions they are not identical reverts.--Kuban Cossack 19:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    There is no need for the reversions to be exactly identical. —Ruud 00:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    Compare the revert versions, all are different. I have made small additions to the text of the article in the main body. Yet Petriv seems to be preoccupied with reverting to the same version throughout, despite my calls for a discussion on the talk page. --Kuban Cossack 00:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Superdan8

    Three revert rule violation on Eurofighter Typhoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Superdan8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Mark83 19:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User constantly removing this and other valid information and will not listen to any discussion of the issues.
    Blocked for 24 hours. User:85.168.200.129 was blocked as well. —Ruud 20:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Netkinetic

    Three revert rule violation on Flamebird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Also, Jason Rusch (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Doctor Mid-Nite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Netkinetic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: ' 20:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Oleh Petriv

    Three revert rule violation on History of Christianity in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Oleh Petriv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Kuban Cossack 21:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Each version is different and this appears to be a more complex edit war than the 3RR is designed to handle. My opinion is that this would be a better discussion to have via an article RfC, but others are free to overrule me if they feel the substance of Oleh's edits is identical. (ESkog) 21:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:12.108.52.196

    Three revert rule violation on Republic of Moldova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 12.108.52.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Latinus 21:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Blocked for 24 hours. Elle vécut heureuse (Be eudaimonic!) 21:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Falcon007

    Three revert rule violation on Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Falcon007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert: Comment was: "Its comic to see one changing everything, anyway this category was unnecessary, see the discussion"

    Reported by: Ragib 22:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Falcon007 (talk · contribs) insists that the country Pakistan was never under British rule. His claim is that when British Parliament gave independence of Pakistan and India on August 14, 1947, no country called Pakistan existed at the moment the rule reverted from Britain to Pakistan. Therefore, he claims that Pakistan cannot be considered a "Former British colony" and put in the category Category:Former British colonies along with other members of the Commonwealth of Nations. He also states that this is an insult to Pakistan to be tagged. However, other countries like India, Bangladesh, Singapore and other former British colonies all are included in the category. I am involved in this as I have reverted his edits, (and am refraining from any further reverts there), so I am not taking any administrative actions. I, and also other regular editors of the page have discussed the matter in Talk:Pakistan and the official Pakistan Govt. stance has been noted to acknowledge the fact (obviously!). User:Falcon007 also claims that the 3RR warning placed in his talk page regarding his reverts was a misuse in part of me (as what I'm not sure, but definitely not as an admin), so I'd ask the admin looking into it to clarify that as well. Thanks. --Ragib 22:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:KDRGibby

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

    Reported by: Elle vécut heureuse (Be eudaimonic!) 22:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:


    User:Molobo (*sigh*, yes, again)

    Three revert rule violation on Talk:History of Poland (1939–1945) (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Molobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Sciurinæ 22:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments

    1. revert war on a Talk:Page
    2. repeated offender
    3. previous violation, see above, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Molobo_.28again.29
    4. this would be the third three revert rule violation within 15 days
    5. first Molobo made four reverts, then asked if it was okay to do so Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#Is_restoring_my_own_comments_on_discussion_page_a_violation_of_3RR
    6. given that he has reverted at least 22 times today(excluding the four reverts above), it is of course natural that he may happen to do more than the usual three reverts per page per day
    7. disputed text is an attention-grabbing (over 1300 words counted by a word processor) copy of a copyrighted source ("Copyright © 2003, H-Net, all rights reserved."). Ironically, the source's html headline is "Copyright" and the copyright is mentioned above and below the contents and cannot be overlooked easily.
    8. user was told already long before and during the dispute to avoid this quoting practice
    9. comments should not be edited and not deleted unless they violate a policy. This comment does: "Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." reads the Editing window also when you edit a talk page

    Sciurinæ 22:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    As a notorious revert-warrior, it's no surprise to see him reverting again. I'm kinda shocked though that he's actually violated again so soon. He used to be very careful about that sort of thing. It's seems he probably doesn't care about the little blocks he keeps getting. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    Molobo was running amock all day. Just threatened me to start adding Polish spellings to the lead in Moscow and articles about other Russian towns. Merits severe block. --Ghirla 23:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked for 3 days this time. -Splash 23:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


    User:Isotelus

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

    Reported by: Bucketsofg 00:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Bucketsofg 00:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    The evidence of sockpuppetry was pretty convincing, so blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 00:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: The user's suspected suckpuppetteer Mark Bourrie (now User:Ceraurus), has been blocked for 24, 24, and 72 hours for repreatedly reverting that article. Ianking 01:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:SteveInPrague

    Three revert rule violation on User:Master Of RSPW (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SteveInPrague (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    This user is harassing User:Master Of RSPW with frequent changes to his user page, and is most likely User:Eat At Joes evading a 72-hour ban for violating 3RR and WP:CIVIL. - Chadbryant 04:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    This user has now violated 3RR on rec.sport.pro-wrestling:
    He has been warned, and once again it is highly likely that he is a sock of User:Eat At Joes, who is serving a 72-hour suspension for violating 3RR & WP:CIVIL. - Chadbryant 05:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    User:SteveInPrague has now reverted rec.sport.pro-wrestling five times in the last 24 hours. - Chadbryant 05:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    I wonder who whines more -- Chad, or his elementary school-aged sons? Must be painful to the ears around dinner time...Just a thought...--SteveInPrague 05:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


    I was not "warned"; rather, my talk page was vandalised by Chad Bryant. He IS User:Master Of RSPW and MoR has violated the 3RR rule numerous times. Ask yourself why Chadbryant's name is on this list twice before you make any rash decisions. --SteveInPrague 05:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    What Chadbryant "forgot" to add was that User:Master Of RSPW is suspected of being HIM, as noted by User:TruthCrusader, User:WillC, myself, and even User:Rhobite. He used/uses this account for evading a 24-hour ban for violating 3RR. As for myself, I have done nothing. You will, however, find that User: Master Of RSPW has numerous violations of the 3RR within the last 24 hours. --SteveInPrague 04:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    Blocked 60 hours for 2 3rr violations, probable sockpuppetry, harassment of other users, and general incivility. (ESkog) 05:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    And now editing as User:166.102.104.55 - a checkuser should be run, I think. - Chadbryant 05:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Master Of RSPW

    Three revert rule violation on User:Eat At Joes (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Master Of RSPW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    This user is harassing User:Eat At Joes with frequent changes to his user page, and is most likely User:Chadbryant. --166.102.104.55 05:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    This user has now violated 3RR on SteveInPrague:


    He has been warned, and once again it is highly likely that he is a sock of User:Chadbryant, who has recently served a 24-hour suspension for violating 3RR. --166.102.104.55 05:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    Above complaint is anonymous because there is a 99.999999999% chance that it is from the infamous "DickWitham" troll, currently blocked from both of his active accounts (User:Eat At Joes & User:SteveInPrague for 3RR, harassment, and uncivil behaviour. User:ESkog has seen fit to block this "anonymous" user for evading a block. - Chadbryant 05:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:TruthCrusader

    Three revert rule violation on Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TruthCrusader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (all times MST):

    • (22:33, 7 March 2006)
    • (13:05, 7 March 2006)
    • (12:54, 7 March 2006)
    • (00:49, 7 March 2006)

    - Chadbryant 05:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    There are only 3. The last revision is dated March 8th. Nice try. TruthCrusader 08:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    You violated 3RR by reverting an article more than three times in a 24-hour period. The calendar date is immaterial. Nice try. Master Of RSPW 08:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


    This user has also violated 3RR on my userpage.
    Three revert rule violation on User:Master Of RSPW (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TruthCrusader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
    This user is becoming very abusive in his actions on Misplaced Pages. Master Of RSPW 05:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry Chad, that last revision is also dated March 8th. Remember we are in totally different time zones. Nice try though. TruthCrusader 08:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    Once again, you violated 3RR by reverting an article more than three times in a 24-hour period. The calendar date is immaterial. Once again, nice try. And you can stop insinuating the my real name is "Chad", as that is a violation of the harassment policy here at Misplaced Pages, since I choose not to reveal my real name here, as you also claim. Master Of RSPW 08:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    Blocked for 3RR, considering extending for real name outing, accurate or not. KillerChihuahua 11:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    Someone check my math here, please - I believe I may have made an error. First reversion was 2:49:25 AM Mar 7, last was 12:23:42 AM March 8. Is that 22:39:27 total? I freely admit that 60 seconds per hour thing is giving me fits, I am still on my first cup of coffee. KillerChihuahua 12:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, that's correct. You performed admirably, considering the coffee thing. :P —BorgHunter (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks much. (Both for the math-check and the caffiene deprived performance pat on the back.) KillerChihuahua 16:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:JohnBWatt

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

    Reported by: MikeWazowski 06:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • JohnBWatt demands that his version of the article be the only valid one, will not allow other editors control. Consistently removes valid information that doesn't gel with his viewpoint. User was warned about 3RR, continues to revert. Previously reported last month for similar actions, but no action taken.
    Blocked for 24 hours. I am especially not impressed with the edit summary "Report away" on the last reversion. KillerChihuahua 11:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:T-1000 & User:24.228.52.76 on Venom (comics)

    User:T-1000

    Three revert rule violation on Venom (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). T-1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: MikeJ9919 08:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This report is linked with the report below. Both are insistent on imposing their version. Discussion is ongoing on the Talk page. I'm doing my best to mediate, and I've invited other Comics editors to weigh in. The anonymous user below has shown limited knowledge on WP policy and procedure, so he may not even know about 3RR. However, blocking only one would send a poor message. Perhaps a stern warning would be best? --MikeJ9919 08:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:24.228.52.76

    Three revert rule violation on Venom (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.228.52.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: MikeJ9919 08:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This report is linked with the report above. Both are insistent on imposing their version. Discussion is ongoing on the Talk page. I'm doing my best to mediate, and I've invited other Comics editors to weigh in. This anonymous user has shown limited knowledge on WP policy and procedure, so he may not even know about 3RR. However, blocking only one would send a poor message. Perhaps a stern warning would be best? --MikeJ9919 08:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    Ive blocked both for 12 hours William M. Connolley 13:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Copperchair

    Three revert rule violation by Copperchair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This one is very unusual since it is on the user's own Talk page, which I realize is not normally subject to the 3RR. However, I believe this to be something of a special case, for reasons discussed in the Comments section below.

    Reported by: PurplePlatypus 10:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This user (who has persisted in this highly obnoxious behaviour for a VERY long time and despite numerous editors and admins telling him to stop) appears to be blanking his Talk page for the purpose of removing legitimate warnings, including the official notice of an ArbCom decision against him. It is clear to me, at least, that this is not what the usual exemption for one's own userspace is meant to allow, and is not a valid use of reversion. It would be fine if he were merely archiving this material, but he is not depsite having promised to do so.
    • There have been a few attempts to reach a compromise with him over this and well over a dozen editors reverting him and/or telling him to knock it off, but it's like talking to a wall. In the past he has tried to appear reasonable, including empty promises such as the one linked to above, but has never actually changed his behaviour significantly; lately he doesn't even pretend to be open to discussion. 3RR is the least of the problems with this user, who is clearly a net negative to Misplaced Pages, but it's the one I currently feel it may be possible to do something about. PurplePlatypus 10:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    You cannot be blocked for 3RR on your own talk page except for very exceptional circumstances. And anyway its pointless because blocked users can edit their own talk pages. And I don't think there is any real requirement to leave the notice there. Stop reverting his talk page, put a not on the RFA talk page and see if any of the arbitrators have an opinion William M. Connolley 12:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    I don't think there is any real requirement to leave the notice there. Wrong. Straight from WP:VAND:
    Removing warnings
    Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism.
    PurplePlatypus 21:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    If you like; but I consider that dubious. Must sort it out some time; in the meantime, there is no way I (personally) will block anyone for it. Others, of course, will have their own views William M. Connolley 00:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Master Of RSPW

    Three revert rule violation on User_talk:TruthCrusader (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Master Of RSPW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

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

    I also wish to point out that Master Of Rspw (suspected Chad Bryant sockpuppet) is also posting in the edit comments the following uncivil and slightly racist statement: (your talk page is to be maintained, boy)

    I also wish to point out that this user is constantly removing a legitimate sockpuppet template from his user page, while putting sockpuppet templates on other users pages and then reverting them and reporting them for vandalism when they remove them, yet is guilty of doing the same thing himself. It is highly suspected by several users that Master Of RSPW is a sockpuppet of User:Chadbryant


    Reported by: TruthCrusader 11:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • The reverts were 3RR warnings, which TruthCrusader was reverting. Please note that removing 3RR warnings and other policy warnings from your talk page is vandalism. Hence, the reversions were reversions of vandalism, not subject to the 3RR rule. KillerChihuahua 11:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Personally, I would say that you are allowed to remove these things if you really want to, and would have blocked MoRSPW for 3RR and perhaps for the edit comment too William M. Connolley 12:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    Which summary, "this page is to be maintained" one? This was not a cut-and-dry case for me, I would not have differed had someone else blocked. They've been edit warring for a bit, it seems, and things have gotten out of hand. Removing warnings is indeed vandalism per WP:VAND. Edit warring over warnings is asinine, though. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 14:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    Irishpunktom

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

    Reported by: David | Talk 16:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • As stated above this refers to an edit Irishpunktom has insisted on making which relates to a dispute between the human rights activist Peter Tatchell and Desi Xpress columnist Adam Yosef. Irishpunktom has persisted in deleting the statement that Adam Yosef apologised for a column stating that Tatchell "needed a good slap" (the words "I would like to take this opportunity to apologise for any distress the above remarks may have caused" appear in Yosef's statement ), and that one remark of Yosef's concerned statements made by Tatchell concerning the Sydney riots of 2005. I have made an extensive search and found no such statements, and at my invitation Irishpunktom has been unable to identify them, but he asserts that it is irrelevant to say that there were none because it is Adam Yosef's belief that there were which is important. I did warn Irishpunktom that he was in danger of crossing the 3RR before he did so.
      • Recommend that the Admin check properly, there is no 3RR breach. Further, the statement made by Yousef is cited as being a statement made by him. If its accuracy is doubted, find a source doubting it and add it. --Irishpunktom\ 16:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
        • From WP:3RR: "Reverting, in this context, applies to undoing the actions of another editor in whole or part, not necessarily taking a previous version from history and editing that". In the fourth revert, Irishpunktom undid for the fourth time an edit which pointed out that Peter Tatchell had said nothing whatsoever about the Sydney riots. David | Talk 16:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    Bit of a mess at the end, but definitely 4RR at least. Blocked 24h William M. Connolley 17:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    I've had a re-think on this, and decided to unblock (the other option was to block both equally; both are edit warring). I still think this was 4RR, but looking through the diffs I realised after a bit that I couldn't tell the two sides apart or work out who was putting in the fact tags and who was removing them... If anyone else wants to have a shot at this, feel free William M. Connolley 18:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:136.215.251.179

    Three revert rule violation on Abortion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 136.215.251.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    This user also edits as User:Goodandevil. There are minor differences between diffs, user tends to make changes over several edits back to back, and I tried to pick diffs which most clearly showed the reversion. None of the diffs include edits by any other editor. These edits are a substantial change to the Definitions section, against consensus. See article history for details. KillerChihuahua 17:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    Reported by: KillerChihuahua 17:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:SPUI and User:JohnnyBGood

    User:SPUI

    Three revert rule violation on Interstate 80 Business (Sacramento, California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SPUI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Gateman1997 20:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This is part of a long edit war between this user and the JohnnyBGood. However this user is making many changes despite ongoing consensus building conversations and acting unilaterally and per evidence here he intends to continue prosecuting his edit war.Gateman1997 20:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:JohnnyBGood

    Three revert rule violation on Interstate 80 Business (Sacramento, California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JohnnyBGood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Gateman1997 20:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • While I agree with his position on the subject, he is edit warring with SPUI and violating the 3RR rather then waiting out consensus discussions.Gateman1997 20:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked 12h each William M. Connolley 00:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

    Note: there was more to this than appeared: 2006-03-09 03:06:50 David Gerard blocked "JohnnyBGood (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppetry (JohnnyBGood and Gateman1997; email me with which is "real", the other is gone)) William M. Connolley 19:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

    Three revert rule violation on Erwin Rommel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Mark 09:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • When the block was placed, and when the request was made, R.D.H. hadn't made an edit for over eight hours. Shouldn't the blocks be preventative, not punitive? Leithp 10:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • In my view, he knew what he was doing when he did it. There's been a report at WP:AN/3RR, and I blocked as I don't see how he should be allowed to violate policy. No one should (and yes, I include Jimbo in this). You may unblock or lessen the block as you see fit, go ahead. NSLE (T+C) at 10:04 UTC (2006-03-09)
    • Okay, I left it 1/2 an hour to see if anyone else wanted to add their input. I'll now unblock. Hopefully this will mean that there can be a conversation about this on the relevant talk page, rather than seeing further reverts. Leithp 10:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:68.1.74.140

    Three revert rule violation on Madea's Family Reunion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.1.74.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Kafziel 13:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Imacomp

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

    Reported by: Vidkun 14:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:69.205.1.109

    Three revert rule violation on Tom Swift (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.205.1.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Antaeus Feldspar 19:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This is the second time this user has violated 3RR on this article in less than six days; see previous report. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Blocked for 24 hours, probably deserves a longer block. —Ruud 20:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
      • There is no vandalism, so aren't you violating 3RR? I am blocking you too for 24 hours unless a good reason comes that explains this. Many of the reverts barely miss 3rr when considering the 24 hour factor. However, both of you have been revert warring for so long that a block is warranted anyway.Voice-of-All 20:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't see him breaking 3RR but this is quite silly, indeed. On the other hand, blocking the anon should have stopped the editwar.—Ruud 20:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
        • In response to the idea that I am violating 3RR because "there is no vandalism", please explain to me how that can possibly be reconciled with what the three-revert rule is? Even if you meant that I was misapplying 3RR instead of "violating" 3RR, what you wrote above still implies that no one is ever violating 3RR, no matter how many reverts they make, unless those reverts are also vandalism. As for "revert warring for so long", will you please tell me what should be done when an editor such as User:69.205.1.109 refuses to abide by the consensus of other editors and keeps making changes supported by no other editor? Please, I would love a better solution, and I know the other editors who have asked 69.205.1.109 (talk · contribs)/69.205.7.46 (talk · contribs)/Solo1 (talk · contribs)/Swiftfan (talk · contribs)//RMedford (talk · contribs) to stop and to respect consensus would appreciate it as well. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
          • If you are saying that edit warring beyond the bounds of the 3RR is what you should do then you're simply wrong. You should just stop reverting, and find other editors who agree with you. There should be no need to do it all yourself. You don't get to revert freely because you want to. I don't understand your slightly outlandish claim that noone is ever violating the 3RR. Very plainly, VOA is saying that, if you revert more than 3 times in 24 hours and you are not reverting vandalism in doing so, then you break the 3RR. It's not misapplication, it's violation, pure and simple. VoA's would-be block is entirely justified. However, since you've not reverted the IP's last revert, I'm not going to block you myself, unless you revert again inside 24 hours. -Splash 21:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Very plainly, VOA is saying that, if you revert more than 3 times in 24 hours and you are not reverting vandalism in doing so, then you break the 3RR. Right, and someone who did that would be violating the 3RR. But where do you think I reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours? My "outlandish claim" was simply me trying to figure out why VOA was apparently claiming that reporting User:69.205.1.109's edits was violation of the 3RR -- that was the only interpretation that made sense to me, since I knew that I had not broken the 3RR by exceeding three reverts in twenty-four hours. As for "there should be no need to do it all yourself," yes, I entirely agree with you, I shouldn't have to be the only one actually taking action about a rogue editor, and I guess I won't be, if what it gets me is false accusations and threats of blocking. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
              • I apologise. I did not properly examine the timing of the history as I was more interested in whether or not the kind of violation was possible. Not that this is a particularly good excuse, but it is why. I've withdrawn those parts of my comment. -Splash 22:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Looks like this stems from my initial hasty wording, so I apologize as well, for not wording what I was saying in a clear way the first time. Voice-of-All 22:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
          • That said... the anon looks like an incommunicable troll to me. —Ruud 21:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
            • If he fails to talk, get other editors down there. Since the edit is question are not vandalism or obvious POV or against concurrent consensus, we can't just can't start selectively blocking or idetentifying people as trolls yet (and there is a time for that). So it is therefore just another edit war with two 3rr violators to us. I am not going to block for the same reason as Splash in addition to you being warned now. In the future, you now know what to do.Voice-of-All 21:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
              • If he fails to talk, get other editors down there. I'd like to point out that I was the other editor. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
                • Either way, you could have waited for other editors to come down, as I saw no sense of urgency judging from the IP's edits. If he was adding clear POV nonsense, then passing 3RR would likely not get you in trouble (or as much), but you reverted anyway. All I am saying, is that this was just a typical edit war, the IP does not appear to be a troll, so you should have got a quick agreement by several editors against the IP's version; beinf contacted by one person is not enough, you should wait and let a third person revert if needed (to not break 3RR). In other words: don't break 3RR unless there is profound urgency (like vandalism). Just try to get another editors to reviews the edits if no other is present (like the user who contacted you). If you can get several people to revert him, he should give up (or get 3rr blocked). Remember that you can POV tag an article instead of reverting again past 3RR, if you are worried about the state of the article.Voice-of-All 22:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Young_Zaphod, User:67.165.85.111, User:68.162.128.9

    Three revert rule violation on Online_creation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and NiMUD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Young_Zaphod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), User:67.165.85.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), User:68.162.128.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 20:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • The IPs all seem to belong to Young Zaphod, and CheckUser has shown that Young Zaphod is 67.165.85.111 . While Young Zaphod has not been definitively checked against 68.162.128.9, that IP is on the same network as one which he HAS been proven to be, 68.162.148.34 (checkuser: , IP1: , IP2: ). 68.162.148.34 and Eggster (possibly others, I don't remember) both got temp blocked for 3rr in the past.
    • The Online creation reverts center around the public release of his software NiMUD which he co-wrote; it has been established as being in mid-'94, and he changes it to 1993 without an explanation.
    • The NiMUD reverts center around that, plus a big group of changes that are discussed on the talk page.
    • I placed warnings, and he's made reverts after the warnings were given:
      • Young Zaphod, 07:44, 9 March
      • 68.162.128.9, 20:59, 8 March

    On the assumption that 68.162.128.9 is probably YZ, I shall block William M. Connolley 20:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:VrrayMan

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

    Reported by: Zpb52 23:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User is continually reverting to vandalized version without regard, and is now threatening to report me for 3RR for reverting his vandalism.

    User:64.131.23.140/USFamily.net user

    Three revert rule violation on Leelkase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 64.131.23.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

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

    Reported by: Gyrofrog (talk) 06:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • The user is posting from USFamily.net and the IP address changes with each succession of edits (so I suspect it's either a dial-up connection, or works like AOL). (I've kept track of this here.) I've left warnings at each IP, so I don't know if the user is not seeing them or simply ignoring them. Similarly, since the IP changes every time I'm not sure a block would help anyway. This isn't four reverts in 24 hours, but it's been going on since Feb. 19th: consider this a request for help or advice, if nothing else. I've been cleaning up after this user, now I am afraid I could violate 3RR myself, because I'm not positive the user's edits amount to vandalism. The user is actually trying to add some info to the article so it's likely the person just doesn't know what he is doing (if that sounds like a personal attack I'm not sure how else to say it, take a look at his/her formatting...). Thanks. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 06:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • If no one objects (nor thinks that I am in danger of 3RR myself), I will continue to revert this user's edits on the basis that they are disruptive (if not intentionally so). I am trying to be mindful of the rule that admins not enforce 3RR for articles they've been editing. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Overacker

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

    • Previous version reverted to:

    18:48, 5 March 2006

    Reported by: ---J.Smith 06:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This guy has been reverting to this version for weeks now. *shrug*

    Blocked 8 hours as a first offense. (ESkog) 13:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Rydel

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

    Reported by: Kuban Cossack 12:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User also is most unwilling to discuss, this article was locked twice because of this and has been reported to vandalism it was reverted over at least 30 times back and forth. --Kuban Cossack 12:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

    This user is an experienced POV-pusher who normally edits be.wiki but sometimes resorts to English Wiki in order to push his POV by revert warring. Only a block may prevent the article history from being destroyed by his reverts. Please stop the carnage. --Ghirla 13:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    The "previous version reverted to" doesn't in any way match the current reverts. So the "score", if you will, is Ghirla 3 reverts, Rydel 3 reverts, in the past 24 hours. Drop a note on my talk (or reply here) if either party reverts an additional time. (ESkog) 13:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    How about this version then: 00:34, 25 February 2006? --Kuban Cossack 14:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

    OK, thats 4 then. 12 hours I think William M. Connolley 17:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:NoToFrauds/User:82.15.17.152

    Three revert rule violation on Mahavatar Babaji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). NoToFrauds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
    82.15.17.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Adityanath 17:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    You need 4 reverts; not 3. And some evidence that the anon in revert 2 is the same as the user William M. Connolley 17:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC).

    Here is the user requesting unblocking of his own IP on my talk page, of all places. How User:Guanaco noticed and responded to it is beyond me. I'm sure that there'll be another revert in a few minutes... Please note that he did 4 reverts on March 7th which were undone by 4 different editors. Adityanath 17:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

    OK, that ties the two together (but please, did you expect us to guess?). We await #4. You have warned on the users talk page, of course? William M. Connolley 17:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

    I have now. It's my first time having to report this kind of B.S., so please don't bite. :-) —Adityanath 18:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:Dbiv

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

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
      • The fourth is slightly complex, but, it is a revert in that it reverts almost all the information he wants in at the expense of other info.

    Reported by: Irishpunktom\ 18:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

      • a) First revert is an edit not a revert. b) 4th revert is nothing of the sort: it incorporates a comment made by Irishpunktom on talk. c) User did not give any notification of this report. d) Manifest tit for tat report following user's previous block. David | Talk 18:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:129.186.232.42

    Three revert rule violation on The Hindu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 129.186.232.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: 02:26, 10 March 2006
    • 1st revert: 02:52, 10 March 2006
    • 2nd revert: 18:22, 10 March 2006
    • 3rd revert: 18:32, 10 March 2006
    • 4th revert: 18:39, 10 March 2006

    Reported by: User:BostonMA 19:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

    Could you not warn her? The talk page is still red. I'll give a token 1h block & lengthen it if she reverts again William M. Connolley 19:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:70.85.195.138

    Three revert rule violation on Movement to impeach George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.85.195.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert: 14:05
    • 2nd revert: 14:07
    • 3rd revert: 14:09
    • 4th revert: 14:15

    Reported by: Stbalbach 19:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    With so many IPs its not clear how blocking will help. You could try checkuser, possibly. I've semi-protected the article for now William M. Connolley 20:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

    User:AdamJacobMuller

    Three revert rule violation on Movement to impeach George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). AdamJacobMuller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: 192.168.225.195 21:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This editor AdamJacobMuller, works in close tandem with Stbalbach to completly hijack this article. The article is rife with POV and OR violations, but any edits made to correct any of that is attacked by this team. Also, I see that the anons editing there are using explicit edit summaries to justify each edit, but these reverters simply revert and refuse to dialog on talk. This page is begging for a more neutral tone.

    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. 


    ===]===
] violation on {{Article|ARTICLENAME}}. {{3RRV|USERNAME}}:
* Previous version reverted to:  <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
* 1st revert: 
* 2nd revert: 
* 3rd revert: 
* 4th revert: 
Reported by: ~~~~
'''Comments:'''
*
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions Add topic