Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:22, 8 June 2005

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

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

Violations

User:67.121.95.80 / User:67.121.93.63

Reported by: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:56, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Comments: Anonymous user with dynamic IP address in 67.121.* block continues to revert to discredited rambling about Nehru-Stalinism in Nehru article. (Also has made numerous personal attacks and ethnic slurs on the talk page, FWIW). Unfortunately, it's not just one IP address, and user has stated on talk page that s/he intends to just redial modem to obtain different IP address, if blocked.

There doesn't seem to have been a previous violation, and he wasn't warned, so I've put a warning on his talk page, and I see someone else has protected the page. I'll put it on my watchlist in case it starts up again. SlimVirgin 06:17, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

This anonymous user has been at this for a long time, using a small set of IP addresses, logging in from Cisco Systems, San Jose, during working hours:

• 128.107.253.37
• 128.107.253.39
• 128.107.253.40
• 128.107.253.41
• 128.107.253.43

and during other hours from Pac Bell Internet Services, San Ramon, CA (presumably at home):

• 66.127.58.169
• 67.121.92.254
• 67.121.95.80
• 67.121.93.63

This guy knows what he's doing, and has been blocked at least once already (01:51, 6 May 2005 Jiang blocked "User:66.127.58.169" with an expiry time of next Saturday (repeated use of personal attacks, was warned)), so your caution isn't really warranted. --Calton | Talk 06:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've been watching that page for a while, and I'd reccomend letting them argue it out. It was protected for 10 days for the same revert war and now the discussion has flared up again since I unprotected it ~2 days ago. OTOH, I need to go to bed soon so if you could keep an eye on it that'd be great. -Lommer | 06:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know some pretty senior people at Cisco - if need be, I can ask them to track down who this person is. Needless to say, edit warring on Misplaced Pages from work will get them in pretty hot water. Noel (talk) 04:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No disrespect, but no matter how loathsome his behavior has been so far, tattling to his employers to get him into trouble strikes me as dangerously close to violating the "No legal threats" rule. I mentioned the employer only to show the geographic and time clustering of the IPs he's using (San Jose and San Ramon/working and non-working posting times). Yes, he is (IMHO) a raving frootbat, but Misplaced Pages has already mechanisms in place to deal with such people when they get peristent.

P.S.: It appears that this guy went by the moniker User:LibertarianAnarchist a couple of years ago, so his act isn't new by any means. --Calton | Talk 06:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Misplaced Pages:No legal threats applied to disputes between editors, not (as in this case) an attempt to enforce community rules. And Misplaced Pages's mechanisms in place have been shown to be pretty marginal when you're dealing with someone who edits as an anon, and has lots of IP addresses to draw on (see the Zivinbudas case). I also have little sympathy for disruptive editors. Noel (talk) 17:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai

Three revert rule violation on Homosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mikkalai (talk · contribs):

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

Reported by: 67.41.186.237 03:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments: He is engaging in an edit war. So far within 24 hours I have reverted a total of three times and he has a total of four on homosexuality. It is concerning the Epic of Gilgamesh and its homosexuality, something that has been accepted for months now on Misplaced Pages. An acclaimed scholar last year translated a previously untranslated portion of the 12 tablet containing male homosexuality. Unfortuantely Mikkalai's attitude is "since I, myself, have not read the new book, it must be a lie." Also, I just noticed I myself reverted the article Epic of Gilgamesh four times and he did five. I herby report myself as well. 67.41.186.237 03:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The user cannot count. The fourth revert was of user:69.235.29.7. His edits are left intact. I decided to abandon the case. I even did not block this guy for his 3-RR violation. His aggression and lack of listening to common sence is outrageous, and I am sure some other editors will deal with him. I am not talking on this case anymore. mikka (t) 03:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We have both broken the 3RR rule on Epic of Gilgamesh. And I am not 69.235.29.7. 67.41.186.237 03:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reversions of Epic of Gilgamesh was deletion of broken link and related text. Editor must check what he is doing. mikka (t) 03:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I certainly apologize for my 3RR violation, I was not aware of such rules. The irony is that you, Mikkalai appeared to have indeed been, you call me outrageous, I call you the same. The homosexuality has been on the article for several months, you are the first to object. 67.41.186.237 03:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's why I did not want to block you. My attention was brought to other editor's objections of your edits of Homosexuality. As I said, this is not my fight, and I am not returning to it. See Talk:Epic of Gilgamesh for some history. mikka (t) 03:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:193.29.205.252

Three revert rule violation on Szczecin-Dabie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 193.29.205.252 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 04:55, 2005 Jun 5
• 2nd revert: 05:33, 2005 Jun 5
• 3rd revert: 07:11, 2005 Jun 5
• 4th revert: 07:28, 2005 Jun 5

Reported by: --W(t) 07:33, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Comments:

• More of the polish/german naming clusterfuck. There are allegations that this is User:Witkacy, it might be useful if one of the people with access to the sock checker had a look at that. --W(t) 07:33, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

• So check my IP... , , I'm not schizophrenic.. User:Boothy443 is a sockpuppet and his edit summaries: " rv/POV vandalism from Witkacy sockpuppett, who has no idea what spamming or abuse means " are highly provocative and a simple lie--Witkacy 07:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You can't deny it is rather interesting both of you seem to be rather fond of the word "provocative"… --W(t) 08:00, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
  • And we both also use the word "you" and "and" ... etc. As i already said, check my IP - and if the anon is not my sockpuppet, i will await an apology--Witkacy 08:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Boothy443

Three revert rule violation on Szczecin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Boothy443 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 05:26, 2005 Jun 5
• 2nd revert: 06:19, 2005 Jun 5
• 3rd revert: 07:27, 2005 Jun 5
• 4th revert: 07:36, 2005 Jun 5
• 5th

Reported by: --W(t) 07:58, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Comments:

• Continued after being warned. --W(t) 07:58, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• He also violated the 3rr on Szczecin-Grabowo, Szczecin-Zydowce, Szczecin-Zalom etc.--Witkacy 08:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Once more, Witkacy:

Talk:Gdansk/Vote#Results_on_VOTE:_Cross-Naming_General:

The proposal is accepted. For locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.

Talk:Gdansk/Vote#Results_on_VOTE:_Enforcement:

The proposal is accepted. Violations against the rule established by the outcome of this vote can be reverted exempt from the 3RR rule. In more complex edits, only the place names can be reverted exempt from the 3RR rule according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes fall again under the 3RR rule. The reverted user should receive a note or link of the vote results on this page. Persistent reverts in violation of the outcome of this vote despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Misplaced Pages:Dealing with vandalism.

Seems straightforward: it even uses as its example the very city you use in your claim of violating 3RR. Boothy443 is enforcing a vote, is NOT violating the 3RR rule, and you know this because it was explained to you less than a month ago when you made the same claim. --Calton | Talk 14:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A group of editors can't just exempt themselves from the 3RR, even if it's just on "their own articles". This kind of policy change would have to be discussed and agreed upon wikipedia-wide. --W(t) 14:49, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

That's a mischaracterization of the vote, in my opinion, (it WAS "Misplaced Pages-wide", among other things), but however you phrase it it's what they did. Mind showing me the rule or constituional clause that says they can't? Don't like the vote? Deal. --Calton | Talk 15:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that particular vote was attended by a very large number of people; i.e. it wasn't just a small circle of editors voting. So I'd say it was pretty authoritative. Noel (talk) 17:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Its interesting that the anon User:193.29.205.252 who participated in the edit-war with User:Boothy443, and like Boothy broked the 3rr was blocked, but Boothy not...--Witkacy 20:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's so much dirt flying in all directions its not surprising some stuff is getting missed. I don't have time to check this out and see if a block is warranted, someone else will have to do it. Noel (talk) 21:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Mirror Vax

Three revert rule violation on Joe Scarborough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mirror Vax (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 23:15, Jun 4, 2005
• 2nd revert: 03:33, Jun 4, 2005
• 3rd revert: 06:17, Jun 5, 2005
• 4th revert: 18:23, Jun 5, 2005

Reported by: Rhobite 18:55, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• I disagree with Geni's characterization that Mirror Vax's last violation was OK, but this time it couldn't be more straightforward. Please block. Rhobite 18:55, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

blocked for 24 hours.Geni 19:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:80.141.x.x

Three revert rule violation on Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 80.141.216.197 (talk · contribs), 80.141.234.76 (talk · contribs), 80.141.217.19 (talk · contribs), 80.141.190.112 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 18:01 5 June
• 2nd revert: 18:18
• 3rd revert: 19:11
• 4th revert: 19:41

Reported by: Thryduulf 19:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This is one of serveral edit wars between this user and user:Ted Wilkes, with Ted deleteing the user's comments as vandalism. I've blocked Ted for violating the 3RR on this same page with the edit prior to the 4th revert above. I would block the anon but I don't understand how to calculate the necessary range block. Thryduulf 19:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, to really do it right, you need to convert them to binary and see how long the common strings of bits on the left-hand-side is. But let's see, the existensce of both 190 and 217 in the third byte means the range spans the 10xxxxxx to 11xxxxxx boundary (which is at 192 decimal), so you'd need a /15, i.e. block from 80.141.128.0 to 80.141.255.255. Noel (talk) 20:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleting comments made by other users is vandalism, in my opinion, and so any reverts to restore said comments aren't covered by the 3RR. (Other admins may disagree, but I'm certainly not imposing a block for this.) Proteus (Talk) 20:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Chris_73

Three revert rule violation on Szczecin-Grabowo.

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

Reported by:--Witkacy 20:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reversions in accordance with the vote at Talk:Gdansk/Vote, excluded from the 3RR. -- Chris 73 Talk 20:15, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

No. The article is about the Grabowo suburb of Szczecin. And not about Gdansk. And BTW the outcome of the voting is still disputed and a consensus is until now not reached.--Witkacy 20:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yet again, Witkacy:

Talk:Gdansk/Vote#Results_on_VOTE:_Cross-Naming_General:

The proposal is accepted. For locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.

Yet again, I must point out that it uses Szczecin as its very example, so your rebuttal is, as (I think) Wolfgang Pauli put it, not even wrong. --Calton | Talk 00:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In which case User:Halibutt's actions are not protected as well? And I hadn't heard that the outcome was still disputed. Mackensen (talk) 20:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice. The outcome is disputed. See also --Witkacy 20:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The vote also applies to Szczecin, and there was a consensus about the outcome. You don't have to like it, but live with it. Not sure what to do with Halibuts edits, though. I'll stand aside on his edits, and let others handle this. -- Chris 73 Talk 20:21, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

For you the voting applies also for Erika Steinbach... But you are wrong. And the consensus was not reached, see Gdansk template talk--Witkacy 20:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Witkacy, read the full text at Talk:Gdansk/Vote, In biographies of clearly German persons, the first occurrence of the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdansk) and later Danzig exclusively. Similar applies to other place names in the region that shares a history between Poland and Germany. -- Chris 73 Talk 20:43, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

The consensus was not reached. Halibutt, Akumiszcza and Balcer invited you to comment on the new proposal in the Gdansk issue, but you refused... , --Witkacy 20:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Halibutt

Three revert rule violation on Mainz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Halibutt (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 17:34, 5 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 07:40, 6 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 13:53, 6 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 14:58, 6 Jun 2005

Reported by: Alai 21:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Claimed to be an "exception" to the 3RR under the terms of the Gdansk stramash, rather spuriously as the Rhineland is about as Polish as I am. Alai 21:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• By the same user: 4 reverts on Aachen, 5 reverts on Dresden (all clearly labelled as such). And just getting warmed up on similar behaviour on various other articles. Alai 21:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The evidenced reverts are not breaking the 3RR rule, as they are not done on the same day. And just look above for the same argument about the other party in this debate. This is taking us nowhere. Try doing something constructive, like contribute at Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice#Constructive_proposal instead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • See WP:3RR, which clearly states "24 hour period", not "calendar day". I suggest you try your "do something constructive" advice on Halibutt, who's simply being disruptive, and frankly bordering on being vandalistic, to make a point. Alai 22:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is utterly ridiculous. I'm not buying the supposed "immunity" at all, as I can't see any way that that vote could apply here. Blocked for 24 hours. Proteus (Talk) 21:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Are you blind? I explained above he didn't break the rule. By the same token, you should block Chris and several other respected Wikipedians. Unblocked. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • For an admin, you certainly don't know very much about the 3RR, namely that it applies to 24 hour periods, not calendar days (which, rather blantantly obviously, differ depending on where you are in the world). And you, being involved in the dispute, are abusing your powers by interfering in administrative decisions. Proteus (Talk) 22:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I am involved in the dispute as you are, trying to cool heads here. I concede that Halibutt has done 4 reverts in 24h period, but I see his excuse - that he was empowered to this by vote - as valid one. Both sides are arguing that they can avoid 3RR (if broken) because of unclear vote results. What authority gives you the right to decide one is right? I don't think anybody here has such a right - I certainly don't presume myself to be the oracle here - thus I am encouraging fixing the policy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, the other side appears to have abided by the 3RR, and spent most of the past day asking Halibutt to stop. Has anyone else broken the rule, or claimed the right to? Mackensen (talk) 22:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • a) I'm not involved in the Polish/German dispute. You are. b) If there is any doubt whatsoever as to the applicability of this "immunity" policy, it cannot be used as a basis to overrule the 3RR. I'm not going to let a disputed vote on an article talk page overrule official Misplaced Pages policy. Anyway, he should have been blocked for disruption even if he hadn't broken the 3RR. He's causing havoc, and that's not acceptable. Proteus (Talk) 22:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Neither am I - I have yet to do a single revert on this matter. Both sides have been asking the other sides to talk, and both sides have violated the 3RR and claimed immunity based on the Vote results. Consider also that one side is represented by a well-known an administrator and one is not before you judge the support votes. I see both parties as quilty, and perhaps all users involved in the reverts should be blocked for a day to make them stop their POINT, but I strongly object to blocking only one party. Each side has arguments backing them, and they can't be discarded - it only points to our loopholes in voting policy, and this is why I am trying to make people do the constructive thing - improve the policy - instead of pointing fingers and trying to put a blame on one user. Chris has already agreed with me that policy needs fixing, Halibutt has done the same, so we should make an effort to cool tempers down, not inflame them by blocking one side, which has claimed immunity and can rightly state that if they are blocked, so should be their opponents, since both sides are claiming the very same arguments. In the end, if you want to block one of them and assign blame, I am afraid it would have to go to ArbCom - we have no authority to decide this matter. So please, can we work on improving the policy? Although all arguments on talk pages of involved parties you can make, the better, and I hope this ban threat will make Halibutt more reasonable - I am just afraid it may encourage Chris to the opposite (pray I am wrong). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I believe there is a policy that says that four or more reverts in a 24-hour period may result in a 24 hour block. I cannot see how Halibutt is exempt. Their arguments don't matter – the point is that Halibutt did what he did and, by policy, should be blocked. smoddy 22:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • So why wasn't Chris blocked on the same grounds (see section above)? Do different rules apply to different users? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • There is no German/Polish history here, whereas there was with Chris's. To quote from the text of Talk:Gdansk/Vote, For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland. This town is in south-west Germany. There is no shared history. There is, however, a 3RR violation. That should be acknowledged, even if the block is not reinstated (it would be silly for reinstation to happen now). smoddy 22:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Hmm. You have a point. I guess I will wait for Halibutt to reply here himself. Nonetheless, I hope this little incident made it clear to everybody we need to reexamine voting policy. If only everybody involved here spend half of that time at Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice#Constructive_proposal ... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • ...then we'd all have raging headaches. smoddy 22:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well... "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. " Witkacy 20:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt emailed me 4 hours ago, saying that he is still blocked (that is 34h after his orginal block. IIRC he bas blocked around ~2100 on 6th, and he wrote the email to me ~0700 in 8th). I was under the impression that block would last 24h - unless you decided to block him pernamently? Also, he told me that Proteus is ignoring his emails. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 09:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Space Cadet

Three revert rule violation on Amber Room (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Space Cadet (talk · contribs):

• Original insertion of material 19:19, 6 Jun 2005

• 1st revert: 20:48, 6 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 22:43, 6 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 02:06, 7 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 02:39, 7 Jun 2005

Reported by: Noel (talk) 03:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Another one of these stupid Polish/German name reverts. According to Talk:Gdansk/Vote, the name Danzig should be used "between 1308 and 1945", which this is (the Amber Room was built in the early 1700's).

For the record, here are my three reverts:

• 1st: 22:02, 6 Jun 2005
• 2nd: 22:57, 6 Jun 2005
• 3rd: 02:30, 7 Jun 2005

Technically, I guess I'm allowed to keep reverting (since my version follows policy), but out of an abundance of caution I'm going to let someone else do it. Noel (talk) 03:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Marcperkel

Could someone warn Marcperkel (talk · contribs) that he's violated the 3RR on Faith-based? I'd do it myself but as I'm the doing most of the reverts on his self-promo I don't think it would be appropriate or effective. --W(t) 06:27, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

He hasn't technicaly broken the rule.Geni 20:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Guy Montag

Three revert rule violation on 1982 Invasion of Lebanon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy Montag (talk · contribs):

• Version he keeps reverting to by Jayjg
• 1st revert: 21:25, 7 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 21:36, 7 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 21:44, 7 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 21:54, 7 Jun 2005

Reported by: Yuber 22:04, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments: This is a complex revert. Basically, Jayjg's version removed the quote by putting <-- --> around it. Then Guy Montag deleted the quote no less than 4 times. So therefore he is reverting to Jayjg's version by removing the quote without trying to find consensus. As other users have been banned for complex reverts, so should Guy Montag.

User:Noitall

Three revert rule violation on Islamist terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Noitall (talk · contribs):

• 1st edit: 07:45, 7 Jun 2005
• 1st revert: 22:52, 7 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 23:08, 7 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 23:10, 7 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 23:28, 7 Jun 2005 (now switched to 129.7.35.1 (talk · contribs))
• 5th revert: 23:50, 7 Jun 2005
• 6th revert: 23:50, 7 Jun 2005

Reported by: Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Noitall reverted three times, then suddenly 129.7.35.1 took over, making the same edit three more times. It seems clear that Nooitall simply looged out and continued reverting aninymously. Perhaps someone could check, if proof is needed? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I encourage Wiki, if it is possible, to trace the IP addresses. I have never edited in secret or as any other IP address or name. Mel Etitis appears to be an apologist for the illegal actions and continued vandalism of Yuber, who even vandalizes User pages, see ]. Many others have cited Yuber and there is an effort from many others to ban the editor from Wiki, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. Mel Etitis is hanging out with a bad crowd. --Noitall 23:39, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The "vandalism" that Noitall is referring to seems to be the addition of a sockpuppet tag. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/KaintheScion et al./Evidence and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/KaintheScion et al. for the reasons for the tag.

User: Guy Montag

Three revert rule violation on Al Qunaytirah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy Montag (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 02:48, 8 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 03:18, 8 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 04:44, 8 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 06:23, 8 Jun 2005
• 5th revert: 06:48, 8 Jun 2005

Reported by: Calton | Talk 08:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Marcperkel

Three revert rule violation on Faith-based (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Marcperkel (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 07:39, 2005 Jun 8
• 2nd revert: 07:51, 2005 Jun 8
• 3rd revert: 08:01, 2005 Jun 8
• 4th revert: 08:05, 2005 Jun 8

Reported by: --W(t) 08:09, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Comments:

User:MONGO

Three revert rule violation on George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MONGO (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 07:48, 7 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 20:58, 7 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 04:08, 8 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 06:42, 8 Jun 2005

Reported by: JamesMLane 11:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• The previous version to which MONGO keeps reverting is found here. The dispute was over the level of detail of the coverage of substance abuse issues. Several editors participated in reaching a compromise (see discussion). MONGO keeps removing this compromise text in favor of his preferred version. He has also referred to another editor's restoration of the compromise as "vandalism" (in this edit summary) and has deleted another editor's comment on the talk page. JamesMLane 11:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Blocked for twenty-four hours. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Report new violation