Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kwame Nkrumah (talk | contribs) at 18:28, 11 August 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:28, 11 August 2006 by Kwame Nkrumah (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
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.

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

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)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Violations

User:Chadbryant reported by User:24.215.152.197 (Result:)

Comments: User Chadbryant has filed an erroneous 3RR report while violating the rule himself. He also mischaracterizes the information, which has been noted by other Misplaced Pages users besides myself. His behavior has been curt, unresponsive and somewhat harassing. Any help in this matter will be appreciated. Thank you.

Please remember that the 3RR applies to reverts after the third within a 24 hour period (not calendar day); it also does not include self reverts, and reverts to deal with simple vandalism

- Chadbryant 09:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:24.215.152.197 reported by User:Chadbryant (Result:)

Time report made: 07:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Anon user timed his fourth revert to narrowly avoid the 24-hour period. His reverts to WWE Undisputed Championship to insert similar inaccurate information resulted in a semi-protect for that article. This user has become increasingly confrontational on several talk pages, and has previously stated under another anonymous account that he refuses to register for an account so that he can avoid any blocks or other sanctions. - Chadbryant 07:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

24.215.152.197 08:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)The above user misrepresents my comments, which remain on the talk page. The above user is not only reverting correct information, but violated the same 3RR rule himself on August 10, which can be seen on the above page's edit history. He will not explain his actions. Any help that can be provided will be appreciated.

User:194.73.101.6 reported by User:Robdurbar (Result: Warning)

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: n/a
1st revert: 08:31 9 August
2nd revert: 10:35 9 August
3rd revert: 12:40 9 August
4th revert: 16:53 9 August
5th revert: 09:49 10 August
6th revert: 13:48 10 August
7th revert: 17:45 10 August

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

09:54 10 August

Time report made: 18:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

OK, we should have reported this a bit earlier but User:Bobet had tried to take a more constructive approach ; however, this appears to have failed --Robdurbar 18:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The violation has been a bit far back, and they haven't been formally warned, so I gave them a warning using {{3RR}}. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Crockspot reported by User:Gamaliel (Result:)

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 03:44, 3 August 2006
1st revert: Revision as of 09:44, 4 August 2006
2nd revert: Revision as of 10:57, 4 August 2006
3rd revert: Revision as of 14:37, 4 August 2006
4th revert: Revision as of 15:03, 4 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

Warned by User:El_C on 20:07, 3 July 2006

Time report made: 00:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:MoonFlute reported by User:Ghewgill (Result:)

Previous version reverted to: 02:50, 5 August 2006
1st revert: 19:29, 5 August 2006
2nd revert: 19:43, 5 August 2006
3rd revert: 19:48, 5 August 2006
4th revert: 19:51, 5 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

19:50, 5 August 2006

Time report made: 08:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This is my first 3RR violation report. I realised later that in my zeal yesterday, I broke 3RR myself, but I see that MoonFlute continues to persist today. I will hold back and let others sort this one out. --Ghewgill 19:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The user has continued to persist:

5th revert: 2006-08-05T12:31:53
6th revert: 2006-08-07T18:59:29

--Bovineone 14:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Flayer reported by User:Freepsbane (Result:72 Hour block)

Three revert rule violation on Battle of Bint Jbeil. User Flayer:

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: Reversion of 20:16, 5 August 2006
2nd revert: Reversion of 19:58, 5 August 2006
3rd revert: Reversion of 18:04, 5 August 2006
4th revert: Reversion of 09:10, 5 August 2006
5th revert: Reversion of 20:11, 5 August 2006
6th revert: Reversion of 09:10, 5 August 2006
7th revert: Reversion of 09:10, 5 August 2006
8th revert: Reversion 20:56, 5 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

Fair warning

Comments:

As a novice user and my first 3rr report I am certain I have made formatting mistakes, My apologies.--Freepsbane 20:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
the user in question may have done this on other occasions and may also be using sockpupets, he never acknowledges other users comments, and seems to be completely unwilling to compromise. Further more his relentless edit warring seems to have brought any constructive additions to a halt.--Freepsbane 20:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Also as a junior member I am quite inept at this matter so I need an admin to take this out of my hands.--Freepsbane 20:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
the user flayer seems to be an unregistered but named user.--Freepsbane 20:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Lengthy block issued on my part due to severity and persistence of reverts in this case. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that there must be 4 reverts listed - reports with only 3 will be removed. The "previous version reverted to" is there to show that the first revert really is a revert - it should be filled in to a previous version of the page which the first revert reverts to.

User talk:Osli73 reported by User:Ferick (Result:)

Three revert rule violation on Kosovo. User Osli73:

1st revert: Reversion of 08:44, 5 August 2006
2nd revert: Reversion of 12:30, 5 August 2006
3rd revert: Reversion of 14:13, 5 August 2006
4th revert: Reversion of 15:26, 5 August 2006

The user is very familiar with the 3RR rule.

User:Kmaguir1 reported by User:LotLE×talk (Result: 12h)

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

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

DiffTime

Time report made: 02:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User repeatedly inserts poorly worded, unencyclopedic, and disparaging "criticism" section out of apparent (as stated on talk page and numerous project pages) animosity towards biography subject. Also semi-vandalizes other section to contain rambling digressions, and plays shennanigans with NPOV and other spurious and unexplained tags. But the wild reverting to the "criticism" rejected by all other editors is the main thing.

12h William M. Connolley 08:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Myriam457 reported by User:Yom (Result: 8h)

Previous version reverted to: oldid

Reverts (multiple edits per revert, so only first edit included):

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:
5th revert:
6th revert:

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here:

Note that this same user made similar edits to Semitic languages.

ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 05:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 8 hours by William Connolley. Stifle (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Nobleeagle reported by User:71.106.195.5 (result: 12 hrs)

Reverts (multiple edits per revert, so only first edit included):

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:
5th revert:
6th revert:

This user reverts edit after edit back to his original, POV verson.

Time report made: 06:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Diffs please not versions William M. Connolley 08:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There you go. 71.105.97.133 08:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

12 hours. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Gerdbrendel reported by User:71.106.195.5 (result: 12 hrs)

Reverts (multiple edits per revert, so only first edit included):

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

This user reverts edit after edit back to his original, POV verson.

Time report made: 71.106.195.5 07:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This user has insluted me and User:Nobleeagle several times and is trying to "come back" at me after I reported him to the personal attacks notice board, or "running to the Destapo" as he calls it (I'm German). He has left vicious attacks on the Great Power talk page and wants to push his OR despite recent consensus among myself and other users (You will find that in the archives on that talk page). Also, I am not reverting to my version as I have never conducted any major revisions on the article. Thank you for understanding. Please see my report on the Personal attack notive board. Signature 07:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. You and your buddy have pushed your political views with a vengeance. This is not what Wiki is for. You accept no compromise, but go about degrading Nations which you are not from. When others state Germany or India are not paradise, it is a "personal attack". Well what you all have said about other Nations is the same, so report yourselves if you are honest. You and Nobleeagle consistently revert any changes you do not agree with. "Vicious attacks"? Give me a frakin break. You are hyper-sensitive and making such reports just wastes admin times. Wiki is not here for YOUR personal soapbox and when others disagree you run to the "police". That is flat out unethical. You also have to play by the rules. 71.106.195.5 08:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Diffs please not versions William M. Connolley 08:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There you go. 71.105.97.133 08:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

12 hrs. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

User:71.106.195.5 reported by User:ju66l3r (Result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: 02:34, August 6, 2006
1st revert: 03:51, August 6, 2006
2nd revert: 03:42, August 6, 2006
3rd revert: 03:35, August 6, 2006
4th revert: 03:31, August 6, 2006

Time report made: 07:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This pattern goes on for FOUR more reverts within an hour's time prior to the 4th revert back that I've included here. Multiple editors have reverted this same IP, and other subnet IPs prior to this one within the past 24 hours suggesting it is the same user. Instead of seeking consensus, this editor chooses to force a revert war upon the article over the issue. Their tit-for-tat above is only because at this point, this user's editors are being considered vandalism (as they are ignoring the consensus) and those reverts do not fall under 3RR. No 3RR warning was given, since the user knows about 3RR having tried to use the system against 2 other editors directly above.

Oh, they were certainly all me. Listen, you are taking sides here, this is clear -- and utterly unfair. I have seeked consensus and others including me have tried to reason with these two. Why their actions are golden, and others are evil, that is quite perplexing. If you follow the discussions they simply hold their line. Is this how Wiki is run now? Who ever can push for their political beliefs hard enough wins? I said multiple times, include all G7 nations. These are the most wealthy seven industrialized nations on Earth. But, no. They slander Italy, but when the tables are turned, they run and say "personal attack". Watch who you back up, you may eventually regret it. 71.106.195.5 08:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 08:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but this user is now editing as 71.105.97.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) in order to ignore their 24h block. ju66l3r 08:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You are the vandal. You are even changing edits which were agreed upon, because you are ignorant. 71.105.97.133 08:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

62.163.161.226 reported by User:Mike Christie (Result: 24 hrs)

Previous version reverted to: 17:04 5 Aug 2006 This is a diff showing the first addition of the material
1st revert: 22:27 5 Aug 2006
2nd revert: 23:18 5 Aug 2006
3rd revert: 23:29 5 Aug 2006
4th revert: 23:45 5 Aug 2006
5th revert: 12:34 6 Aug 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

09:03 6 Aug 2006 (a version, not a diff, as this was the first edit to the talk page)

Time report made: 13:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked by User:William M. Connolley for 24 hrs. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha. We're alternating... William M. Connolley 18:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Skinmeister reported by User:Localzuk (Result: 24 hrs)

Previous version reverted to: 00:01
1st revert: 12:22
2nd revert: 13:52
3rd revert: 14:28
4th revert: 14:52

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

14:13

Time report made: 15:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Second time in a few days. Last time received 24hours. Has reverted more times than those above too. (But different subject matter). Refuses to discuss it, just reverts calling the consensus led changes 'vandalism'.-Localzuk 15:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

~~Blocked for 12 hours. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)~~

Rather embarassing. I hit the the block log and block link on the wrong user. Per extensive block history, upping the block length to 24 hours. AmiDaniel (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

User:125.244.186.2 reported by User:FunkyFly (Result: 24hrs)

Previous version reverted to: 20:47, 5 August 2006
1st revert: 10:44, 6 August 2006
2nd revert: 11:19, 6 August 2006
3rd revert: 11:48, 6 August 2006
4th revert: 11:59, 6 August 2006
5th revert: 12:06, 6 August 2006
6th revert: 12:23, 6 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

12:00, 6 August 2006

Time report made: 16:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user has been rearranging the links to other articles without discussing previously reached agreement on the talk page. /FunkyFly.talk_ 16:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Donahue reported by User:HumbleGod (Result: 24 hrs)

Previous version reverted to: 15:15, 5 August 2006
1st revert: 13:46, 6 August 2006
2nd revert: 19:15, 6 August 2006
3rd revert: 19:20, 6 August 2006
4th revert: 19:28, 6 August 2006
5th revert: 19:51, 6 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

19:32, 6 August 2006

Time report made: 20:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The "Previous version reverted to" field above includes the substantive text that was reverted to; minor formatting edits to a picture's placement in the article were made between that version and the first revert. However, the action was essentially a revert since it served to replace text that had been removed per discussion on the article's talk page. The warning I placed on the user's talk page was not the {{3RR}} template (did not know about that template), but contains the same general text and warning. -- H·G (/_works) 20:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

~~It appears both of you have violated the 3RR, but I'm not sure blocking either of you would be very useful.~~ Because Donahue doesn't appear to have explained or discussed his edits after being requested to, I've reverted his latest edit and protected the page for the moment. Extraordinary Machine 22:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

My mistake; you didn't violate the 3RR. Donahue has been blocked for twenty-four hours. Extraordinary Machine 22:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I kept an eye on it, didn't want to go over the limit myself....-- H·G (/_works) 23:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

LotLE reported by User:User:Kmaguir1×talk (Result: No block)

Previous version reverted to: I do not understand what this means--all the evidence needed for the 3RR is in the history--one could not claim that it was not in fact reverted 4 times--the criticism section in all of these 4 reverts was substantially altered.
1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) : N/A

Time report made: 21:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User claimed correctly that I violated 3RR rule, thus I was blocked. User him/herself, as evidence here shows, violated 3RR rule as well. He/she did not fix "obvious vandalism" as the requirements for exceptions to the 3RR in that section state, he/she participated in an edit war destroying my work for no solid Misplaced Pages reason, he/she did not supply a solid Misplaced Pages reason but instead a reason buffeted only by vague claims on the talk page. Therefore, in the absence of the satisfaction of the obvious vandalism exception, and this wasn't vandalism at all, just a more extensive explanation of a valid criticism, the 3RR was broken, and no other exceptions qualifies. -Kmaguir1 21:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the last three diffs look like attempts at a compromise compared to the first one (which removed the paragraph in question completely); secondly, you didn't inform Lulu of the 3RR, so she could have violated it unwittingly. That said, she shouldn't really be using popups to revert during content disputes. Extraordinary Machine 22:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

On the first matter: it wasn't a compromise, because in the history of the page, both versions had been offered and edited by me, and so both, the deletion as reversion, and the three abbreviated sections as reversion, qualify as four reverts from the longer version within a 24 hours period. Secondly, he/she informed ME of the 3RR, and I was blocked arbitrarily without another edit (except adding a NPOV tag)--so while I was warned and then blocked not given a chance to heed the warning, he/she can't use the "no-warning" as a defense, as he/she is the one who warned me about the matter--not that it made much difference to the administrator who blocked me that I had only been warned, and not edited (except the NPOV tag) after the warning. -Kmaguir1 22:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

User talk:89.0.229.237 reported by User:Freepsbane (Result:1 week block)

Three revert rule violation on Battle_of_Bint_Jbeil. User:89.0.229.237

1st reversion: on 19:49, 6 August 2006
2nd reversion: on 20:10, 6 August 2006
3rd reversion: on 20:51, 6 August 2006
4th reversion: on 20:57, 6 August 2006
5th reversion: on 21:06, 6 August 2006
6st reversion: on 21:36, 6 August 2006

Time report made: 00:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This potential sock puppet of Flayer has gone about edit warring on the exact same article flayer recently reverted, if he is a indeed a sockpuppet then he certainly is familiar with 3rr.--Freepsbane 00:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Likely sockpuppet of Flayer, who I blocked for 72 hours yesterday for reverting this same article, to the same version as the above IP keeps reverting, eight times in less than one day. My patientce is running thin, and because of ongoing anon vandlaism, I have sprotected the page. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User:75.2.245.222 reported by User:User:Tejano (Result: Protection)

Previous version reverted to: Cannot be filled. They are not straight reverts, rather edits that result in reverting to a version that is the same NPOV over and over
1st revert: 10:21, 5 August 2006
2nd revert: 09:18, 6 August 2006
3rd revert: 23:16, 6 August 2006
4th revert: 23:28, 6 August 2006

Just look at the edit history

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

Tejano 00:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

2006-08-07T01:32:57 Bishonen (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Antiwar.com: IP edit warring William M. Connolley 07:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User:190.10.0.36 reported by User:tbeatty (Result: 24h)

And probably others. He just came off of a vandalism block. He's been warned numerous times.

Also, did this template today:

He's been warned. He's been blocked. He comes back and does the same thing every day. His talk page is sprotected because of warning vandalism. It's getting old. --Tbeatty 07:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 08:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Oiboy77 reported by User:Avi (Result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: 12:04, 7 August 2006
1st revert: 12:04, 7 August 2006
2nd revert: 12:23, 7 August 2006
3rd revert: 12:41, 7 August 2006
4th revert: 13:14, 7 August 2006
5th revert: 15:18, 7 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

12:18, 7 August 2006

Time report made: 17:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I have tried to engage this user in dialogue on multiple occasions, and I constantly feel stymied. His edit summary notwithstanding, he has reverted (full or partial) multiple times to a version which does not treat Israelis and Palestinians equally. He had been warned, and had been blocked for 3RR before, so he is cognizant of the policy. I am not blocking him myself as I believe that is improper as I have been involved in this spate of reverts, although his violation is rather clear. Thank you. -- Avi 17:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Another revert. Is anyone going to look at this, or must I take care of it myself? -- Avi 19:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The third is not a revert, but the other four are. 24 hours. Stifle (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Bertilvidet reported by User:CJK (Result: no block)

Previous version reverted to: 16:54, 6 August 2006
1st revert: 01:39, 7 August 2006
2nd revert: 17:12, 7 August 2006
3rd revert: 17:47, 7 August 2006
4th revert: 17:56, 7 August 2006

CJK 18:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

User refuses to discuss reverts on the talk page. CJK 18:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but yes in my eagerness I breached the 3RR rule. However, I realized it and reverted my self immediately, even before this complain was posted. See ]. I plea for forgiveness. Bertilvidet 18:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Self-reverted; no block. Please be more careful in future William M. Connolley 19:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User:71.64.131.229 reported by User:Bertilvidet (Result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 01:05, 6 August 2006
1st revert: 01:23, 6 August 2006
2nd revert: 16:21, 6 August 2006
3rd revert: 16:38, 6 August 2006
4th revert: 16:51, 6 August 2006
5th revert: 17:10, 6 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

16:52, 6 August 2006

Time report made: 17:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Also, maybe an administrator would run a check user test for this anon user and User:CJK, as the anon happened just to take over the reverts when CJK reached his three controversial reverts. Bertilvidet 17:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Are no administrators watching this page? However it seems that the anon user ceased editing, and User:CJK immediately after resumed editing. Bertilvidet 14:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Stupid me, I placed this post at the top of the page. Now moved to the bottom of the article Bertilvidet 18:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC).

24h William M. Connolley 19:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User:24.166.142.27 reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: 24h)

0th edit: 2006-08-07T13:58:12
1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert: 2006-08-07T18:30:54

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

Time report made: 18:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Anon doesn't talk; reverted by 3 of us.

Blocked for twenty-four hours. Jkelly 18:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User:BhaiSaab reported by User:Bakaman%% (Result: No block)

Previous version reverted to, if applicable:

Vandalism: 12:04:18
1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert: 14:06:04

He said that the material was copyrighted, but only one paragraph came from the supposed site . He deleted the whole section anyway even when confronted by a third editor User:Pecher who stated "no reason given to delete well-sourced and relevant material".

Time report made: 21:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

All edits were removing simple vandalism (inserting copyrighted material). The entire section is copyrighted from the website quoted above as well as . See the talk page of the article for details. Pecher did not realize the material was copied from other websites and reverted my removal of the copyrighted material because of that. BhaiSaab 21:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Bakasuprman has now been blocked for continuing to reinsert copyrighted material. BhaiSaab 21:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Some of the material is copyrighted, but not all. (Example: The paragraph beginning "The Ajlaf...") However, as BhaiSaab was making a good faith effort to remove copyrighted material, I will not block this time, but another revert would be considered negatively. Stifle (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually that sentence "The Ajlaf on the other hand are the Indian converts..." is in . The other parts of the same paragraph are from .Thank you for not blocking. BhaiSaab 21:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that all of the text was copyrighted; all of the text is a subset of the plagiarised text, (some sentences are omitted or truncated), and I think you two guys should stop accusing each other of vandalism, as it brings neither of you credit -quite clearly there is no vandalism by either parties. Blnguyen | rant-line 05:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:208.3.69.196 reported by User:Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) (Result: 24h)

15:12, 7 August 2006
17:35, 7 August 2006
19:57, 7 August 2006
20:09, 7 August 2006
21:37, 7 August 2006

Warning:

Comment: Has also been reverting, warring and making personal attacks on other pages.

Time report made: 21:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

24h - 3rr aggravated by incivility William M. Connolley 22:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Bretonbanquet reported by User:Mais oui! (Result: No apparent violation)

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 02:29, 17 July 2006
1st revert: 19:15, 7 August 2006
2nd revert: 22:38, 7 August 2006
3rd revert: 22:52, 7 August 2006
4th revert: 23:26, 7 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

23:06, 7 August 2006

Time report made: 00:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Not clear why 1st rv is rv William M. Connolley 07:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Because he changed "English" to "British", and then did the same on 3 further occasions. This is a rather obtuse campaign being conducted by Cornish nationalists (see Constitutional status of Cornwall), who are, throughout the entire Misplaced Pages project, trying to remove all references to Cornwall being a county of England. (They want it to have the status of a constituent country.) Whatever the merits of their campaign (and I for one am sympathetic), Misplaced Pages must stick to facts, and however much they hate it, Cornwall is a part of England. Whatever the merits of the arguments on either side, breach of 3RR is not going to improve the situation. --Mais oui! 09:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That does not answer the question. To revert a page is to undo the actions of another editor. If nobody had ever changed "British" to "English" on the page before, then changing "English" to "British" was not a revert. To violate the three-revert rule requires four reverts. Ergo, if the first reported diff was not a revert, there has been no violation. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:64.172.142.95 reported by User:Chris Griswold (Result: Semiprotected)

Previous version reverted to: 18:54, June 15, 2006
1st revert: 11:15, August 7, 2006
2nd revert: 14:39, August 7, 2006
3rd revert: August 7, 2006
4th revert: DiffTime

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

DiffTime

Time report made: 01:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has repeatedly added Internet drama/gossip/uncited criticism to this article since June 15, reverting at least once a day. Today, he reverted three times. This was the only place I knew to report this. --Chris Griswold 01:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The user is appearently part of troll group that were kicked out of the Wizard message boards or some such, and now plan and gossip about internet trolling at issue9mm.com. They bragged about this particular vandalism here and here . User IPs 71.159.217.57, 24.151.251.178 and 64.172.142.154 have also joined in. They all appear to be IPs unique to the vandals, and it would be no great loss to ban all 4. Rgoldman 02:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, the article should be protected against unregistered users.

user just did it again. This has been going on for a few months, a probation won't be effective. 67.63.17.27 17:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Article has been semiprotected, although not by me. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:OrangeGum reported by User:Danny Lilithborne (Result: 24h block)

Previous version reverted to, if applicable:
1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:
5th revert:

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

01:15, 8 August 2006

Time report made: 03:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User is also engaging in seriously bad behavior (check his edit summaries and the history on his talk page.)

Would have been blocked for 3RR but 2006-08-08T03:51:18 Crazycomputers (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "OrangeGum (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (warning removal) William M. Connolley 07:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Italiavivi reported by User:Isarig (Result: Invalid)

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 07:26, 7 August 2006
1st revert: 16:56, 7 August 2006 reverted confirmed killed # to 53
2nd revert: 17:06, 7 August 2006 reverted IDF claim of killed to 300-400
3rd revert: 05:40, 8 August 2006 reverted IDF claim of killed to 300-400
4th revert: 06:02, 8 August 2006 reverted IDF claim of killed to 300-400

5th revert: 06:45, 8 August 2006reverted IDF claim of killed to 300-400

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

User was warned about 3RR in edit summary at 06:35, and acknowledged being warned in his own edit summary of 06:45

Time report made: 07:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User has been continuously edit warring in the battlebox of the article, repeatedly changing casualty numbers and removing well sourced numbers that differ from his own.

The user filing this report, Isarig, has provided misleading diffs to cover his own violation of 3RR. He has filed this report as a result of being challenged when attempting to provide only one Israeli minister's estimate of Hezbollah militant deaths in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, of which there are at least three. Please note Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Isarig reported by User:Italiavivi for further discussion, and note the diffs Isarig has provided here with scrutiny. Thanks, Italiavivi 17:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Given the situation, I have carefully scrutinized the report. Now, if an edit is a revert to a previous version, the diff between the two versions will show nothing (or almost nothing), at least in the section concerned. Here are the diffs between the "previous version reverted to" and each of the reverts:
As in this case there are many differences, I feel that there is insufficient evidence for a 3RR block. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:69.223.83.245 reported by User:Bertilvidet (Result: 24h block)

Previous version reverted to: 18:02, 7 August 2006
1st revert: 21:39, 7 August 2006
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert: 12:44, 8 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

11:39, 8 August 2006

Comment: These are the only contributions this anon user has made.

Time report made: 13:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. -- Szvest 13:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Pm_shef reported by User:Mangerno (Result: Stale)

Previous version reverted to: 01:02, 6 August 2006
1st revert: 21:21, 6 August 2006
2nd revert: 21:37, 6 August 2006
3rd revert: 22:52, 6 August 2006
4th revert: 00:10, 7 August 2006
5th revert: 00:23, 7 August 2006

23:47, 24 July 2006

Time report made: 15:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User was blocked 2 weeks ago with a 3RR violation, now has returned.

Reverts 1-3 and reverts 4-5 are regarding different parts of the article. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't make it not a 3RR vio, but it's three days ago now and 3RR is for prevention, not punishment, so looks like he gets away with it. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Crculver reported by User:Rayfield (Result: 24h block)

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 06:51 8.August
1st revert: 07:09, 8. August 2006
2nd revert: 07:16, 8. August 2006
3rd revert: 07:22, 8. August 2006
4th revert: 07:39, 8. Augutst 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

07:39, 8. August 2006

Time report made: 16:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: One of the parties involved was blocked for the same offence for 24 hours by an administrator. The WP:3RR policy states: In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally. . . I found it very unfair that only one of the parties involved got blocked for violating WP:3RR. Comment: The same admin has now also blocked the other party and said he didn't see the other violation first. --Rayfield 16:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

2006-08-08T16:42:30 Bishonen (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Crculver (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on Sanskrit) William M. Connolley 18:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Joe_Carter reported by User:FeloniousMonk (Result:24 hours)

Previous version reverted to: 09:31, 3 August
1st revert: 23:13, 7 August
2nd revert: 09:50, 8 August
3rd revert: 12:18, 8 August
4th revert: 14:20, 8 August

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

13:42, 8 August

Time report made: 22:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

24 hours, I'm tempt to block indef as an username block as an celeb name, see Joe Carter. Jaranda 22:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Stephenzhu reported by User:Tewfik (Result:24 hrs)

Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict&oldid=68237717

14:40, 7 August 2006]

1st revert: 12:30, 8 August 2006
2nd revert: 12:53, 8 August 2006
3rd revert: 14:42, 8 August 2006
4th revert: 21:19, 8 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

14:47, 8 August 2006

Time report made: 01:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Comments:

Blocked 24 hours for 3RR. -- Avi 01:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:crumbsucker reported by User:PiousPratt (Result: No block)

Previous version reverted to: 13:22, 8 August 2006
1st revert: 02:28, 9 August 2006
2nd revert: 02:20, 9 August 2006
3rd revert: 01:59, 9 August 2006
4th revert: 01:55, 9 August 2006
5th revert: 01:24, 9 August 2006

Time report made: 02:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I attempted to compromise and take crumbsucker's criticism as constructive. I cited sources when he asked for them, and still he edited the page without even recognizing that I was attempting to meet him halfway. From the look of his talk page, he frequently likes to start Edit Wars and does not want to get along with anyone who disagrees with him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PiousPratt (talk • contribs)

Both parties have violated 3RR. User:PiousPratt however was introducing some personal and non-notable external links, which I believe were seen as spam by User:Crumbsucker. At this time I have not blocked the users, but have warned both users. --Chris (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Removing your personal spam links isn't 3RR. You've already been warned by an administrator to stop adding them. Crumbsucker 03:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:VAND does indeed state that spam is vandalism. User:Crumbsucker is not in danger of being blocked over this (in fact, User:PiousPratt is more likely to be blocked) but I am trying to settle this in a fashion where nobody needs to be blocked. --Chris (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:AaronS reported by User:Aceliner (Result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: 19:33, 8 August 2006 Edit summary: "rv boring sock; get some new material, please"
2nd revert: 20:23, 8 August 2006 Edit summary: "rv: doink"
3rd revert: 00:13, 9 August 2006 Edit summary: "Revert to revision 68494593 dated 2006-08-08 22:50:06 by VoluntarySlave using popups"
4th revert: 03:34, 9 August 2006 Edit summary: "Revert to revision 68524012 dated 2006-08-09 02:00:39 by EbonyTotem using popups"

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

He knows about the 3RR. Examples of past warning: And past block: Aceliner 04:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Time report made: 04:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Although the previous version reverted to was not completed, AaronS handily admitted to reverting in the edit summary each time, and is blocked for 24 hours. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Looking at this again after an email request from AaronS, the fourth revert was definitely reverting a banned user (mentioning this in the edit summary may have caused me to look further). The others do not appear to have been, but reverting a banned user is exempt and as such Aaron should not have been blocked. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Adkagansu reported by User:TigranTheGreat (Result: 8h)

Previous versions reverted to, if applicable: Prior versions are given individually in the description of each revert.

1st revert: 17:02, 8 August 2006 (reversion to 17:03, 7 August 2006): removing the line (Greek: Σμύρνη, Armenian: Zmyurnia)

2nd revert: 18:02, 8 August 2006 (reversion to 17:02, 8 August 2006): removing the line (Greek: Σμύρνη, Armenian: Zmyurnia)

3rd revert: 04:25, 9 August 2006 (reversion to 03:11, 9 August 2006): adding the paragraph "and from the first day of their landing ..."

4th revert: 05:57, 9 August 2006 (reversion to 05:32, 9 August 2006): removing the Greek-Armenian line, and adding the paragraph "and from the first day of their landing ..."

Please note that this user is fully aware of the 3RR rule, as evident from his user talk: User_talk:Adkagansu

Time report made: 09:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The user basically keeps removing the segment (Greek: Σμύρνη, Armenian: Zmyurnia). And he keeps adding POV paragraph (starting with "and from the first day of their landing ...").

--TigranTheGreat 09:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 8 hours by WMC. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC). I did. Sorry I forgot to report it here... William M. Connolley 10:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Tickle me reported by User:Tigeroo (Result: 8h)

Previous version reverted to: 15:54, 8 August 2006
1st revert: 20:45, 8 August 2006
2nd revert: 21:10, 8 August 2006
3rd revert: 01:34, 9 August 2006
4th revert: 03:10, 9 August 2006

Comment: this users keep reverting the entire article not even just disputed content, thereby removing even useful changes made in the intervening periods.

here are two further identical reverts not mentioned above (making the count six):

ITAQALLAH 14:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Time report made: 10:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You have provided oldids, not diffs. Please provide diffs. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Oops, a cursory look at the page history shows four clearly-marked reverts, so 8h. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Pecher reported by User:Tigeroo (Result: 24h)

Three revert rule violation on Aisha ([[Special:EditPage/Aisha

|edit]] | [[Talk:Aisha

|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/Aisha

|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/Aisha

|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/Aisha

Previous version reverted to: 08:51, 8 August 2006;
1st revert: 12:22, 8 August 2006
2nd revert: 09:44, 9 August 2006
3rd revert: 11:38, 9 August 2006
4th revert: 12:41, 9 August 2006

Comment: this user keeps deleting all formulations of reference to any NPOV formulation of the term Prophet even specifically describing Muhammad as a prophet of Islam. The user has pushed this across various other pages as well and refuses to discuss his problem anywhere.

Time report made: 13:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what these diffs are supposed to show and where there is a 3RR violation here. I've requested a page protectio, though, given that Tigeroo keeps edit warring and pushing a POV description of Muhammad as a "final prophet". Pecher 14:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

My bad if the diffs are the wrong ones, I was just showing how he has consisently returned the page to the same language even after edits have been made in the pages, anway i think they and Pechers arrival here and on requesting page protection elsewhere after left him a message on the Aisha talk page demonstrate a tacit acceptance of a 3RR violation.--Tigeroo 14:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A comment on this noticeboard is a rather weird evidence in favor of acceptance of a non-existing violation. In the edit war(s) that you're waging, the most appropriate course of action is to request page protection, as I did, instead of trying to gain advantage by having another user blocked, as you did to Tickle me. Pecher 14:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree the proper way to do this is to talk, and I have opened this debate on more than one page, you are absent addressing the issue except on RV description lines. There is no advantage in a temporary block, its not a ban, it's call to get people who wont sit down to do so instead of sticking fixedly to a position. This is a collaborative all inclusive effort not a solo exclusivist place, I have addressed your issues but you have ignored all of mine.--Tigeroo 15:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like 3RR. Pecher, you would gain some minor credit by marking your reverts as such William M. Connolley 16:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Jamesedwardsmith reported by User:Henry (Result: 8h)

Previous version reverted to: 10:58, 8 August 2006
1st revert: 15:05, 9 August 2006
2nd revert: 15:11, 9 August 2006
3rd revert: 15:18, 9 August 2006
4th revert: 15:26, 9 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

15:20, 9 August 2006

Time report made: 15:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User warned on his talk page. Henry 15:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

8h William M. Connolley 16:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Yas121 reported by User:User:Jayjg (Result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: 02:42, 8 August 2006
1st revert: 19:15, 8 August 2006
2nd revert: 19:51, 8 August 2006
3rd revert: 15:11, 9 August 2006
4th revert: 16:26, 9 August 2006
5th revert: 16:42, 9 August 2006

Yas121 keeps inserting a paragraph about a 2002 rally for Hamas in the lead section. The second revert was of a different section, but was still clearly a revert, and marked as such. This editor has been warned at length about 3RR before: see User_talk:Yas121#WP:3RR and User_talk:Yas121#3RR_on_Hamas. He still continues to revert . Jayjg 16:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Time report made: 16:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 17:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:SergeantBolt reported by User:Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) (Result:No action)

Previous version reverted to:
1st revert: 21:36, August 8
2nd revert: 22:47, August 8
3rd revert: 10:09, August 9
4th revert: 12:15, August 9
5th revert: 18:55, August 9
6th revert: Aug 9

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

15:37, August 9

Time report made: 18:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I gave this user the 3RR boilerplate on his 4th revert and warned him that i would report him if he was to make annother revert in under 24 hours.

However he did not heed to the warning and just called the changes made vandalism, and reverted again. Thus i am forced to report the users actions. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 18:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous Wikilawyering invocation of 3RR. As has been pointed out to this user (MatthewFenton), the reverts in question (SergeantBolt's, but also by others, including myself) were to enforce repeated insertion of uncited and unverifiable content by multiple anon editors, over a period of weeks. Note that the page in question has now (thank goodness) been protected by an admin, to prevent the constant reinsertion that SergeantBolt and I were combatting through our reverts. This user's inclination towards slavish adherence to a policy, and failure to recognize what is truly going on in a given situation, has been discussed at length by numerous editors in an RfC (Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/MatthewFenton). This 3RR report by MatthewFenton is but the latest example of this extreme and disruptive behavior. -- PKtm 19:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the history you will ntice a user tried to cite the source however was reverted. Also what is wrong about adhearing to policy? Are you telling me i'm not supposed to adhear to policy?

Also i think you need to stop going on about "wikilawyering" i have not taken any exams to become a solictor or work in law nor am i old enough to enter into such a proffesion in law. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 19:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, You call these edits vandalism yet the opening paragraphs of Misplaced Pages:Vandalism make it blatently obvious that these edits are in fact not vandalism and the ones causing disruption are your selfs.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Misplaced Pages. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.

Now if it was classed as simple vandlism then 3RR would not apply, however this is not the case and 3RR does apply, i did warn the user and i did make my intentions pretty clear that i did not wish to have to report him! (See also: WP:3RR#Reverting vandalism) Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 19:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you show you have no concept of policy. Wikilawyering states that:

Wikilawyering refers to the frowned upon practices of:

  1. Using formal legal terms inappropriately regarding Misplaced Pages policy.
  2. Asserting that technical interpretation of Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express.
  3. Hiding behind misinterpretations of policy to justify inappropriate edits.

And according to the ADMINISTRATOR that PROTECTED the article due to VANDALISM, it is 'the case'. SergeantBolt 19:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to calm down and stop talking in caps, now i am not trying to justify any edits so i dont have a clue what you are talking about, furthermore i do not see a policy/guideline sticker on that page.

Also.. Please stop refering to me as a lawyer, as i have stated im not a lawyer! Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The "source" that was cited is a fan rumor site (spoilerfix.com), and therefore not acceptable by WP standards of verifiability. This was pointed out to Matthew. Again, please refer to the RfC for multiple editors' voiced concerns about Matthew's disruptive behavior in incidents like this. -- PKtm 19:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you've made your point.. i have an RfC.. and? Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And therefore, that is proof of your past and similar behaviour like this as well as you being biased in this argument because you made an edit for the opposing side. SergeantBolt 20:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted as it was cited. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 20:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

But not by acceptable WP standards of verifiability, so it didn't count. SergeantBolt 20:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Result: No action as 3RR does not apply to vandalism. Adding unreliable content to Misplaced Pages is vandlaism, and SergeantBolt (along with another user) was reverting that in GF. The JPS 20:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Corn Man reported by User:Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) (Result:1month)

Previous version reverted to:
1st revert: Aug 9
2nd revert: Aug 9
3rd revert: Aug 9
4th revert: Aug 9
5th revert: Aug 9

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) : Yes (see user talk)

Time report made: 20:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Warned for 3RR, i will not revert again as i do not wish to violate 3RR. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 20:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Result: User has already been blocked for one month for vandalism. The JPS 20:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Paul_E_Ester reported by User:(→Netscott) (Result: 4h)

Previous version reverted to: 14:40, 9 August 2006
1st revert: 17:06, 9 August 2006
2nd revert: 17:56, 9 August 2006
3rd revert: 20:54, 9 August 2006
4th revert: 20:59, 9 August 2006
5th revert: 21:36, 9 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

21:01, 9 August 200

Time report made: 22:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I think this individual is acting in good faith relative to citing WP:BLP but is a bit confused about the reliability of sources like Wired, CNET News.com.com, and Ars Technica relative to reports about concerns surrounding the health of Steve Jobs. Unless both myself and User:Banzai! are wrong this individual could do for a warning (a block should be the last step imho). (→Netscott) 22:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Netscott. See Talk:Steve Jobs#Analysis_of_Steve.27s_WWDC_2006_speech for a summary of this dispute. (Scroll past Paul's original comment. He hasn't replied since then, so maybe he hasn't seen our replies yet.)

I think someone, a third party, just needs to step into his talk page and explain why his reversions are misguided, even if made with good intentions. —Banzai! (talk) @ 22:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The Poorly sourced material that Netscott and Banzai would like to introduce into the article comes from an opinion column from a wired columnist, a CNET blog, and ARS article about the wired columnists column, Per WP:BLP I have removed these less than high quality sources and the speculation they bring to the bio. I outlined my concerns with the sources here. One should be able to distingush between news and opinion. The speculation these opinion pieces bring to the article is a clear violation of WP:BLP thanks, --Paul E. Ester 22:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If there was ever a problem with this material, the the San Francisco Chronicle wouldn't be citing Wired's report themselves. (→Netscott) 22:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Scott your citing here " A daily dose of postings from The Chronicle's technology blog (sfgate.com/blogs/tech)". We need to distinguish between blogs and news articles. Blogs like columnist columns are opinion pieces and as such are not reliable sources. --Paul E. Ester 22:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS does not permit "personal blogs" but for blogs and opinion pieces from well established and reliable sources (as has been mentioned above) that correspond to the subject matter mentioned in the article there is no problem. (→Netscott) 22:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Paul, it was in the print edition of the Chronicle too. Look on page C1. Regardless, opinion pieces (in addition to blogs, independent commentary, and the like) are perfectly acceptable to cite as sources for the statement that people are speculating about Steve Jobs. —Banzai! (talk) @ 05:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider the reverts to be exempted, Paul should have taken it to talk earlier and is blocked for 4 hours. Stifle (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:193.1.172.163 reported by User:Gsd2000 (Result: 24h)

1st revert: 14:44, 9 August 2006
2nd revert: 15:06, 9 August 2006
3rd revert: 15:18, 9 August 2006
4th revert: 15:21, 9 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

21:15, 28 July 2006

Time report made: 23:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley 07:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Francespeabody reported by User:Mmx1 (Result: 72h)

Previous version reverted to: 00:23, 8 August 2006
1st revert: 21:11, 9 August 2006
2nd revert: 21:15, 9 August 2006
3rd revert: 21:30, 9 August 2006
4th revert: 22:07, 9 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

22:13, 12 July 2006 User previously blocked for 6-revert 3rr violation.

Time report made: 03:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Blocked for 72 hours (repeat offense) + personal attacks. --Aude (talk contribs) 03:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Kenosis reported by User:User:Lucaas (Result: No violation)

1st revert: (cur) (last) 17:14, 10 August 2006 Kenosis (Talk | contribs) (Back to last intelligible version by KillerChihuahua)
2nd revert:(cur) (last) 15:25, 10 August 2006 Kenosis (Talk | contribs) (Revert vandalism)
3rd revert: (cur) (last) 14:26, 10 August 2006 Kenosis (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 68802987 dated 2006-08-10 12:10:56 by Kenosis using popups)
4th revert: (cur) (last) 02:49, 10 August 2006 Kenosis (Talk | contribs) (→Heidegger - Replace an edit by Tercross in first paragraph of section which simplified terms-of-art somewhat)

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) : Given notice on userpage and in talk page.

--Lucaas 18:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This is bogus retaliation by a tendentious editor (formerly User:Tercross who has now switched names to User:Lucaas, and who merely wishes to get his way on bogus ideas in a currently expanding philosophy article. I reluctantly used my righteous three reverts helping to keep this article stable as it develops, while making appropriate points on the talk page. The fourth "instance" shown above is not a reversion but a synthesis of currently developing content implemented last night. Two other editors also have reverted the same material trying to get it back in bounds. (We had a WP:NPOV problem, a WP:OR problem and an unintelligibility problem, along with some personal musings thrown in the article for good measure.) If you note the time of this "report", it was placed after my report of five reverts by User:Lucaas located farther below on this page. Sorry to bother the administrators with this nonsense. ... Kenosis 19:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, the only "notice" involved was either ex-post-facto or a simple reproduction of my notice to Lucaas displaying his own reverts as of that time (here). ... Kenosis 19:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the report being malformed (look at all the others for what it should look like), #4 is clearly not a revert, no block. Stifle (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Kertenkelebek reported by User:TigranTheGreat (Result: 24h)

Previous versions reverted to, if applicable: Prior versions are given individually in the description of each revert.

1st revert: 07:21, 10 August 2006 (reversion to 09:16, 5 August 2006)

2nd revert: 08:00, 10 August 2006 (reversion to 07:21, 10 August 2006)

3rd revert: 09:05, 10 August 2006 (reversion to 08:53, 10 August 2006)

4th revert: 09:14, 10 August 2006 (reversion to 09:05, 10 August 2006)

Please note that this user is fully aware of the 3RR rule, as he has been blocked before for 24 hours.

Time report made: 09:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The user reverts other editors, removing a consensus version and introducing POV edits.

--TigranTheGreat 09:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This user has now made a total of 7, that's right 7 reverts today on that page!--Eupator 17:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24h. -- Natalya 22:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Kwame Nkrumah reported by User:Palffy (Result: No apparent violation)

Previous version reverted to: ?
1st revert: 18:34, August 9, 2006
2nd revert: 19:59, August 9, 2006
3rd revert: 12:07, August 10, 2006
4th revert: 12:14, August 10, 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

12:11, August 10, 2006

Time report made: 16:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user has made 7 reverts in the past 3 days on the article. He was warned prior to making his 4th revert today, but he simply decided to use another screenname to make his 4th revert and left the following for me . --Palffy 16:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The fourth edit was not mine. Thanks.--Kwame Nkrumah 16:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You are the only person on Misplaced Pages soccer pages arguing for uniforms to not show their exact designs. Your edits have been reverted countless times on other pages and you have gotten into very harsh uncompromising discussions such as , while posting retribution such as your post on my Talk page. Additionally, it is not a coincidence that you would stop posting from 12:09 till 12:42 under Kwame Nkrumah , while your second pseudonym posts from 12:14 to 12:38 while you're under watch, . --Palffy 16:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an acuse of sockpuppetry. I hope you have more solid proofs for such an act.--Kwame Nkrumah 18:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's 2 things--posting as a sock puppet and breaking the 3RR. Hopefully the admins have more advanced tools to confirm that this is indeed the case. --Palffy 19:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Missing two things here, firstly the previous version reverted to (which would prove that the first listed item is indeed a revert and not just a regular edit) and second, four reverts by the same person. The fourth was by a different account. Stifle (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:70.249.197.46 reported by User:DeLarge (Result: 2 weeks)

Previous version reverted to: 21:38, August 8, 2006
1st revert: 17:13, August 9, 2006
2nd revert: 20:49, August 9, 2006
3rd revert: 14:30, August 10, 2006
4th revert: 15:27, August 10, 2006
5th revert: 16:55, August 10, 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

17:10, August 10, 2006

Time report made: 17:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: As seen on User talk:User talk:70.249.197.46, repeatedly warned for spamming several article pages. Can be seen as only contributing "external links" on his User contributions log. Deserves a permanent block, but a 3RR block will suit me fine just now. DeLarge

We don't indef block IPs unless they are open proxies. Given this guy's contribution history, however, I think 2 weeks would be justified. Stifle (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Lucaas reported by User:Kenosis (Result:48h)

Previous version reverted to: 12:10, 10 August 2006
1st revert: 13:51, 10 August 2006
2nd revert: 15:21, 10 August 2006
3rd revert: 15:35, 10 August 2006
4th revert: 16:30, 10 August 2006

Notice given after four reverts, then

5th revert: 17:17, 10 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) : Notice given twice:

Time report made: 17:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:Note also the fabricated retaliatory report filed by User:Lucaas (formerly User:Tercross) ... Kenosis 20:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, blocking 24h for 3RR and another 24h for incivility by filing a retaliatory report, removing warnings, etc. Stifle (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:UberCryxic reported by User:Marneus (Result: No violation)

Three revert rule violation on Template:Blue-water navy. User:UberCryxic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime
1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:
5th revert:

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

DiffTime

Time report made: 17:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

He continues to impose his beliefs instead of citing sources and ignoring the previous consensus and not resorting to the talk page.

--Marneus 17:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User Marneus is being extremely deceptive here. I actually reverted the specific point we are haggling over only twice. You can see that my other changes to the article were either additions or deletions of other material that the user was not contesting. Only my first and third edits in the article were reverts. If you look at the article, you will find I edited it a total of five times, three of them not being reverts of anything. Thank you.UberCryxic 18:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you actually look at the history of the article, you will find that Marneus HAS violated 3RR, but I did not report him/her because I do not like this rule/system.UberCryxic 18:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There has been no violation of WP:3RR. However, it is advisable that you both settle the argument completely on the talk page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:ParalelUni reported by User:JzG (Result: Blocked 24h)

Revert 1:
Revert 2:
Revert 3:
Revert 4:
Revert 5:

Classic WP:SPA. Article now sprotected. Warned by uninvolved BucketsofG Please wield cluebat as I am now involved. Just zis Guy you know? 22:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. JoshuaZ 22:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Kmaguir1 and sock-puppet User:Truthseekers reported by User:LotLE×talk (Result: User:Kmaguir1 blocked for 24hrs)

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

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

DiffTime

Time report made: 05:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User repeatedly inserts homophobic WP:OR material in bio. Latest edits are by brand-new sock-puppet that was created entirely to hide 3RR violation. "Truthseekers", FWIW, is a phrase repeatedly used by Kmaguir1 on my talk page and several article talk pages in the last few hours (hence making the sock-puppetry obvious). Similar recent 3RR block on Judith Butler (also homophobic rants). Sock-puppetry is also reported at: Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Kmaguir1

Clarification: There are actually two (related) changes going on above. One inserts a claim about Foucault "spreading AIDS"; the other inserts a claim about Foucault being subject to a "faculty investigation" (both are false and/or unverifiable, FWIW). Some of the above edits reinsert both parts, some just one of the two; but however you count it, four or more reversions have been made to either claim (both were first introduced to the article by Kmaguir1 a few days earlier).

I'm sorry--this is not Kmaguir1. Check the IP address. I am just a loyal supporter of the truth, and his attempt to get it out, and this is not sock-puppetry. Any block is invalid. I just recently created this account. -Truthseekers 05:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This is all fabricated. He's a friend, he made these edits of his own volition. Lulu's allegations are false. The material is not homophobic--it states claims cited from a published article. -Kmaguir1 08:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The first two she claims are reverts are not that. They add citations only, which is what was requested by another user. I know the 3RR rule well, and did not break it. -Kmaguir1 09:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And the fifth revert she puts on there was not done by me. -Kmaguir1 09:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Truthseekers and Kmaguir1 dispute being in a sockpuppeteer/sockpuppet relationship, but by their own admission are in a meatpuppeteer/meatpuppet relationship, at least for the time being. This may stem from being new to wikipedia (we all were new once), but hte current effect of these two accounts is to be acting as one, and thus disrupting wikipedia.--Anthony Krupp 15:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Kmaguir1 blocked for 24 hours, 2nd violation. If the suspected meatpuppet reverts again he will be violating 3rr as well. -- Миборо в ский 18:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Ati3414 reported by User:Gregory9 (Result: 48hrs)

Previous version reverted to: 03:57, 10 August 2006
1st revert: 04:06, 10 August 2006
2nd revert: 13:46, 10 August 2006
3rd revert: 17:36, 10 August 2006
4th revert: 18:00, 10 August 2006

Comments:

The user keeps removing the phrase "The relativistic mass of such a particle may be taken to be its energy divided by c." Despite many requests to stop by User:MichaelCPrice, User:Pervect, User:Trovatore, and others, User:Ati3414 continues to incite an editting war.

Note (sockpuppets): sometimes User:Ati3414 forgets to sign in and shows up as User:67.170.224.36. It is apparrent in the editting, but if you have any doubt this edit proves it: changed signature after logging in. Also, edit logs show he is probably User:12.36.122.2 and again here is proof.

Also, note that User:Ati3414 has been involved in multiple editting wars, and has already been banned twice (up to 1 month) for behavior relating to such disputes (including a 3RR violation). Heck, here's documentation of another reverting war within the last week even: Photon 3RR violation that people decided to not report. User:Ati3414 knows the rules and continues to flagrantly violate them while showing absolutely no evidence that he can be "rehabilitated".

Time report made: 07:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. -- Миборо в ский 18:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:71.228.10.185 reported by User:Propol

User:71.228.10.185 has violated the 3RR on mutliple occaisons. See the Eric Hoplin article for an example. The user has been warned multiple times, see User talk:71.228.10.185, and has even been blocked before. Unfortunately, the behavior has continued. Would an administrator please block this user. I greatly appreciate your help. Propol 17:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Palffy reported by User:Kwame Nkrumah (Result:)

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 01:59, 10 August 2006
1st revert: 18:03, 10 August 2006
2nd revert: 18:09, 10 August 2006
3rd revert: 17:27, 11 August 2006
4th revert: 19:30, 11 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

17:40, 11 August 2006

Time report made: 18:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

'Comments:

Maybe he made only 3 reverts in 24h, but made 4 in 25.5h, and did thid just to force his POV before the page protection he asked for an edit war he was making.--Kwame Nkrumah 18:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Report Example

BEFORE REPORTING, PLEASE MAKE SURE THE USER IS FAMILIAR WITH THE 3RR RULE. IF IT IS A NEW USER OR ANON IP, PLACE A WARNING (ie: {{3RR}} ) ON HIS/HER TALK PAGE AND REPORT THEM ONLY IF THEY CONTINUE TO REVERT.

Here's an example of what a listing should look like:

===] reported by User:~~~ (Result:)===
] violation on {{Article|PROBLEM ARTICLE/PAGE NAME}}. {{3RRV|VIOLATOR_USERNAME}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to:  
<!-- If you cannot fill this in, do not make a report. It absolutely must be included, either here or separately for each revert. -->
* 1st revert: 
* 2nd revert: 
* 3rd revert: 
* 4th revert: 
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* 
Time report made: ~~~~~
'''Comments:'''
===] reported by User:] (Result:)===
] violation on {{Article|Blue-water navy}}. {{3RRV|UberCryxic}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
He does not cites sources and uses just his beliefs instead of consensus or sources.
# (cur) (last) 14:05, 10 August 2006 UberCryxic (Talk | contribs) m (added crucial corollary in definition that i'm a little dismayed has been left out up to this point)
# (cur) (last) 04:32, 10 August 2006 UberCryxic (Talk | contribs) m (removed unnecessary source for france having a blue-water navy)
# (cur) (last) 03:59, 10 August 2006 UberCryxic (Talk | contribs) m (see talk page; i did discuss it)
# (cur) (last) 18:50, 9 August 2006 UberCryxic (Talk | contribs) m
# (cur) (last) 18:50, 9 August 2006 UberCryxic (Talk | contribs) m (removed spanish navy; the only true blue-water navies in the world are the american, british, and the french)
Time report made: ~~~~~

Categories: