Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia 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 00:52, 21 January 2006 editDzonatas (talk | contribs)1,417 editsm →[]← Previous edit Revision as of 00:57, 21 January 2006 edit undoAndroid79 (talk | contribs)10,494 edits →[]Next edit →
Line 500: Line 500:


* This raises more than substantial concern. &mdash; ] 00:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC) * This raises more than substantial concern. &mdash; ] 00:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
**The second set of reverts contains only 3, and the article is protected. Work out your differences on the talk page. We don't do tit-for-tat blocking. ]] 00:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


===]=== ===]===

Revision as of 00:57, 21 January 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)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    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)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links


    Example

    User:BadUser

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

    BadUser (talk · contribs):

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

    Comments:

    • User will not listen to the consensus of the other editors. User:ReportingUser 14:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Violations

    User:-Inanna-

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

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

    Comments: 3 revert rule means more than 3, so it seems that he is off the hook for now.Voice of All 18:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

    User has since reverted and has now violated the 3RR. --Khoikhoi 01:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:-Inanna- 2

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

    Reported by: Khoikhoi 23:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

    Has the situation been resolved, upon seeing User talk:-Inanna-? Elle vécut heureuse (Be eudaimonic!) 12:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    No, it has not. --Khoikhoi 17:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:Extreme Unction

    Three revert rule violation on Stem Cell Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Extreme Unction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: OnwardsCS 16:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

    Abusive edit warring over controversial article, user should recuse himself, otherwise a block may be required, uncoperative editor, some what abusive, kind of a bully--OnwardsCS 16:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    I only see three reverts...do you have a fourth? —BorgHunter (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, not to worry, OnwardsCS. That article has been protected so no more reverts shall occur. —BorgHunter (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    Note that OnwardsCS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new account who seems intent on changing several stem-cell-related redirects into POV articles. Claims to "going back to consensus" appears specious since there are no talk pages for those redirects...so EU appears to be reverting simple vandalism. Don't know where the abusive part comes in, since there are no messages on the reporter's talk page. --Syrthiss 16:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

    There is no violation here, as the fourth diff shows an edit not made by ExtremeUnction. android79 18:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:OnwardsCS

    Three revert rule violation on Stem Cell Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by OnwardsCS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

    Reported by: Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 17:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: The last revert was performed by an anon IP. However, User:Kelly Martin confirms via CheckUser that the IP address in question was the same IP address used by User:OnwardsCS 12 minutes previously to edit the same article.

    As this user has reported me for a 3RR violation, I have not taken action against this user lest there be accusations of a revenge block. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 17:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

    I didn't see a warning on the talk page, or its history. Did I miss something?--Tznkai 18:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    See above listing. I'm reasonably sure that knowing enough about 3RR to try and report someone is understanding enough that a separate warning is not nessecary. --Syrthiss 18:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    This is true, I guess I have a tendnacy to be a softy with 3RR and warnings.--Tznkai 18:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    Where's the CheckUser evidence? This is pretty obvious, but I'd like confirmation before a block. android79 18:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    CheckUser evidence is never published. You have to take my word for it; if you aren't willing to, you can ask one of the other five CheckUsers on en to confirm my findings. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    I didn't need confirmation of the actual IP info, just confirmation that you said something about it. I didn't see a related request on WP:RFCU. android79 18:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


    User:Khoikhoi

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

    Reported by: Macrakis 23:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Revert war with -Inanna-, below. Neither one using Talk. I see that these two have been warring on other pages as well.
    • They both appear to have violated 3RR on Turkish people, but I don't have the patience to write up a full report....

    User:-Inanna-

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

    Reported by: Macrakis 23:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:87.239.90.151/User:Molobo

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

    87.239.90.151 first adds this sentence at 16:54, 16. Jan 2006.

    Reported by: Sciurinæ 00:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments I've asked for Molobo and 87.239.90.151 be user checked here. I would love to hear the result and wait until Kelly Martin is back but he goes right into the next revert crusades and I want to go to bed and not check whatever Molobo put onto my talk page. So basically please have a look at the four reverts and act accordingly. If you also happen to have check user rights, please check the users and if they're the same, you can, of course, take the first three reverts into account. Last but not least, the other anon(s) on Germanisation may well have violated the 3RR, too. Sciurinæ 00:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

    I concur. Molobo is the most seasoned revert warrior I've ever met but admins seem to be lenient to his self-professed practice of logging in and logging off when 3RR needs to be evaded. --Ghirla | talk 13:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:Dionyseus

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

    Reported by: Danny Pi 04:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: I corrected grammar and added information to the article on Veselin Topalov numerous times. Dionyseus keeps reverting. Evidently he is a fan of this chess player and he feels that any negative information (no matter how relevant) must be ignored. Furthermore, he refuses to acknowledge a comma splice error, which is about as clear a grammatical mistake as one could possibly make.

    I'm only reverting the NPOV that DanielPi insists on inserting. The cheating allegation is a malicious rumor and no one has admitted to starting it. It could have been anyone from an ordinary spectator to even one of the other participants of the San Luis 2005 tournament, such unsourced rumors have no place in Misplaced Pages. As for the small issue of the comma error, I believe DanielPi is simply incorrect. Dionyseus 05:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    Both of you violated the 3RR. Any reasons why I shouldn't block you both? Both of you certainly need to be more civil. Agree to drop the issue and resolve it among yourselves, because both of you are at fault. If one of you feels strongly that consensus supports your revision, bring it up to the attention of the community, a noticeboard or on #Misplaced Pages, not continue reverting disruptively and pointlessly. Elle vécut heureuse (Be eudaimonic!) 06:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    Apologies if I have broken the rule. In fairness, it was I that ceased and desisted in this vicious cycle. It's no excuse, but I was not aware of the rule until I started hunting around for adjudication. With regards to the comma splice, this is a simple objective matter, which can be cleared up with a simple check on the Comma splice article. It is clearly bad grammar. As for the allegations of cheating, I'd like to provide the following links to support its inclusion: ], ], ], ], ]. Certainly not all chess players believe that Topalov cheated, but many well respected chess celebrities have taken the allegations very seriously. Furthermore, the accuser is, insofar as it is possible to establish, a participant in the tournament. This was big news in the chess world, and its omission is not justified. Dionyseus and I have tried to resolve the dispute via discussion- as you will see on the discussion page. However, it has clearly hit a road block. I would humbly request arbitration on the matter. As for my worth to the Misplaced Pages community, I cannot claim much; but I did author the original articles on Nemerov and Unsolved Philosophical Problems, which seem to have been reasonably well received. At any rate, I don't want this to get any more combatative than it already is, and I for one would appreciate a third party to aid in settling the matter (about the grammar if nothing else). Thanks. Danny Pi 02:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    Usually if content is disputed, it's better to put an NPOV tag on the article until it is worked out, or tolerate the omission of information if you so wish until it is worked out. Arbitration is a bit extreme. An RFC for the article would be most appropriate in this case. There are many steps in dispute resolution, and arbitration is the last, and most serious one. This is very minor. It doesn't matter whether the content again, is very significant - bring it up to the attention of other editors. Are you working it out? Hopefully there will be no edit wars? If then, the case can be considered closed. It's been past 24 hours. Elle vécut heureuse (Be eudaimonic!) 02:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    Understood. I have sought informal and third party adjudication. Posted an NPOV tag. Apologies if I did not go about this process in the right way. Not a seasoned pro at this quite yet. I should note, however, that of the two disputes, the grammatical one is not controversial at all. It is unmistakably an error, which really requires only superficial inspection from a third party.Danny Pi 03:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


    User:Kuban kazak

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

    Reported by: AndriyK 11:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Siddiqui

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

    Reported by: android79 19:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked for 24 hours --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Accuratemedia

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

    Reported by: Tom Harrison 20:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Ravenflight

    Three revert rule violation on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Robin Artisson (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ravenflight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: —Ashley Y 21:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Dzonatas

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

    Reported by: —Ruud 00:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Rivethead28

    Three revert rule violation on Robin Artisson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rivethead28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: —Ashley Y 01:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Amusingly, he seems to believe that we are sockpuppets of each other. Then again, they all do seem to think that you're a woman. Madame Sosostris 01:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:Lupinespirit

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

    Reported by: —Ashley Y 02:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:212.72.149.84

    Three revert rule violation on Georgian people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 212.72.149.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Khoikhoi 06:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

    User warned.--Tznkai 08:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:Luka Jačov

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

    Reported by: Elephantus 22:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

    This looks more like a multi party edit war than a 3RR issue. I see two editors who need to be warned. Article is protected as soon as I'm done with warnings.--Tznkai 08:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:68.7.212.152/User:66.27.122.84

    Three revert rule violation on Ayn Rand. 68.7.212.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 66.27.122.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to:

    16:44, 17 January 2006

    Reported by: Alienus 07:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • There were additional reverts by this user since the 4th. I would have filed this sooner, but I was thrown off at first by their IP change. (The two IP's admit to being the same person but state that there was no intent to deceive.)
    • The user does not put comments on their changes, does not sign in the Talk, and does not seem to care that the text they're removing is properly cited and NPOV. I think this is more a newbie thing than outright malice. However, the apparent motivation is not innocent, either; they want to whitewash Rand by wiping out unpleasant facts.
    • I'd like this person to be educated on the need to avoid edit wars.

    User:FunkyFly

    Three revert rule violation on Miladinov Brothers article, not to mention that he is a possible sockpuppet of VMORO or AKeckarov.

    Reported by: Bomac 15:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments

    • I tried to make this article looks as neutral it can be, but this user reverts all the time. Bomac 15:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • "Looks neutral" in this case for Bomac means "untrue". His accusations in puppetry are false frivolos slander, and they are most likely influenced by his unwillingness to accept certain truths. FunkyFly 15:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

    I've blocked FF for 1 hour in the first instance. Now to look at the other side... William M. Connolley 17:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC). Wonderful. Ditto block for Bomac. William M. Connolley 17:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC).

    This page is clearly in the middle of a vast edit war, if anyone else cares to comment. William M. Connolley 17:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC).

    User:Zeq

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

    Reported by: —Charles P.  (Mirv) 15:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Blocked for 8 hours. Feel free to review. William M. Connolley 16:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC).

    User:Michael Snow

    Three revert rule violation on Phoenix Labs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Michael Snow (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: Mike (T C) 01:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Fxer

    Three revert rule violation on Phoenix Labs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Fxer (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:

    Reported by: Mike (T C) 01:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:


    User:Little Penguin

    Three revert rule violation on Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Little_Penguin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: —Locke Cole • t • c 05:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Engleham

    Three revert rule violation on Ludwig II of Bavaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Engleham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Maaya 14:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: I have tried to draw this user into the talk page but he ignores me and edit wars, reverting others' edits as "vandalism".

    User:R.Koot

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

    1st set of reverts:

    2nd set of reverts:

    Reported by: — Dzonatas 15:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    The second set is only 3 reverts. There are 4 in your first set, but not in 24h (and they were days ago). I can't see any basis for blocking under 3RR. William M. Connolley 18:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC).

    • The reason to block is equal treatmeat. The guidelines say that the blocks should be equal if both users are at fault. William M. Connolley has concluded that 1st set has four reverts. User:Cleared as filed, however, did not block User:R.Koot equally, as that is what should have happened when I was . — Dzonatas
    • The guidelines state that a user can be blocked for a fourth block just outside of 24 hours. It is explicit that it does not allow someone to block 3 times in a day and make another revert just outside of that day. In fact, it was over 24 and one half hours duration for four reverts. Surely, this "just out of the 24 hours" implies that the 24th hour is inclusive to the day. — Dzonatas
    • I have stated my point here that William M. Connolley finds it substantial that the 1st set is four reverts. Whereas, those were clearly identical reverts, unlike the for which I was blocked. Therefore, the implementation of blocks under 3RR is not consistent. — Dzonatas

    User:Ian_Pitchford

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

    • Previous version reverted to: Jan 19 20:51
    • 1st revert: 09:00
    • 2nd revert: 12:09
    • 3rd revert: 13:51
    • 4th revert: 14:22

    Reported by: Zeq 17:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Not only should the user be blocked for long time, he should not benfit from having the page locked for 5-6 weeks in the exact vesrion he wanted it (this was after all his goal) so the page protection must be converted to the version just before his 4th revert. Zeq 17:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Took the liberty of correcting the article link from Nakba (a redirect) to Palestinian exodus. This does appear to be a 3RR vio, but it's a bit rich for Zeq to be complaining about it, considering how his first action upon returning from his recent 3RR block was to perform exactly the same revert that got him blocked in the first place.
    As to the protection, well, there's no must about it; the protecting sysop may choose to do so (per Misplaced Pages:Protection policy), but doesn't have to. Considering that this is the second 3RR violation on this page in the last two days, and the edit war has been simmering for some time before that, I don't think it's a good idea. —Charles P.  (Mirv) 17:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    Strikes me that Zeq has an issue with WP:CON and WP:NPOV deletionism, that Ian Pitchford is simply restoring well sourced content. Either way, the page has been protected and you should work out your content differences on the article's talk page, not by reverting. FeloniousMonk 17:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    I am not going to go into a deep debate with you about this. The fact of the matter is that the article is strongly POV and I have twice offered to stay away from the article for two weeks so that the people who feel strong ownership anout tjuis article can make it NPOV. What you call "restoring well sourced content" is nothing more than what me and other editors complained for long time that does not belong on this article. Several editors in the past have just given up editing this article. Since instead of ganging up on me, you could help make the article NPOV. There is a clear policy about it and it should apply. Zeq 19:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    Oh, and re blocked for a long time, 24 hours is in theory the maximum length of a 3RR block; sometimes this is disregarded, e.g. after a user's 10th appearance here, but not on the first offense. —Charles P.  (Mirv) 17:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    I had some rather unsatisfactory emails with Zeq after his recent block; and as far as I can see IP hasn't been blocked before. OTOH IP seems to have 4 clear rv's (1-3 are clear; but 4 is one too) & I can't quite see why he shouldn't be blocked. William M. Connolley 18:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC).

    he has not been blocked before that is true but this is because in all his and Zero previous violation they were not blocked. It seems that if you are pushing palestinian propeganda on wikipedia and for that you violate NPOV and 3RR you do not get punished, actually you get a reward: The verion with the violation is the one getting frozen and protected. This is very nice and puts an intersting light on Misplaced Pages ability to apply rules equally. On the other one can argue that no one should have been blocked (including me yetrterday) because this whole problem results from two facts:

    • My request yeterday and before to protect the page was not complied with.
    • ArbCom refuse to even say if they will address the issue

    Zeq 19:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    Despite disliking Zeq's tone (please stop all these must's) I still can't see why he shouldn't be blocked (nor do I see why he wasn't blocked last time): blocked for 8h. Feel free to review. William M. Connolley 19:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
    I am sorry if you don't like my tone. The only thing we "must" do is to apply policy equally. Zeq 20:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:Hogeye

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

    Hogeye (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: FrancisTyers 18:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • I have admin powers, but I won't use them on an article I'm editing for content, that said the article could do with protecting again. This user does not edit harmoniously, the longer the ban the better. FrancisTyers 18:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    Seems a fair cop guv. Blocked for 24h William M. Connolley 18:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    User:DreamGuy

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

    Reported by: DES 18:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Note that the key point is the repeated removal of the link to Aladin (magician), even if other changes were also made in the same edit. This is not quite a 3RR violation to date, no four of these reverts occur within a 24 hour period, but 5 reverts in less than 38 hours seems like excessive reversion to me. As I have been involved in this issue I will not be doign any blocks, even if a technical 3RR violation occurs. DES 18:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    Report new violation

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

    ===]===
] violation on {{Article|ARTICLENAME}}. {{3RRV|USERNAME}}:
* Previous version reverted to: 
* 1st revert: 
* 2nd revert: 
* 3rd revert: 
* 4th revert: 
Reported by: ~~~~
'''Comments:'''
*


    Categories: