Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shirahadasha (talk | contribs) at 01:50, 3 January 2007 (→[] and [] reported by User:[] (Result:): comment -- warning only may be appropriate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:50, 3 January 2007 by Shirahadasha (talk | contribs) (→[] and [] reported by User:[] (Result:): comment -- warning only may be appropriate)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.

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


    Violations

    Please place new reports at the bottom.

    User:Radiant! reported by User:John254 (Result: Warning)

    Three-revert rule violation on Misplaced Pages:Discuss, don't vote (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Radiant! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: complex partial reversions

    Comments: The fourth edit by Netscott is not a reversion. John254 15:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

    John, there has been a technical violation here, but I'm not keen on blocking an established editor with no prior blocks over a tag dispute on a project page. Also, the first revert is arguably an edit. I'd prefer just to leave a note for him asking him to watch the reverting in future. SlimVirgin 11:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    He's an administrator and should know better. If he's keen on reversing things under discussion (I have seen him do this before) that is inappropriate. If he is in violation, he should be treated as any other editor would be and get a block. He should not be given special treatment and held to lesser standards of behavior because he's an administrator. -THB 12:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    It's for a number of reasons, THB. First, the report is ambiguous, because it's not clear that the first revert is a revert, and anyway if you look at the edits, you'll see they're inching toward a resolution; it's not just a pointless back and forth. Secondly, this is an established editor (admin has nothing to do with it) with no blocks to his name, despite being here since Feb 2005. Third, it was a dispute over a tag on a project page. For those three reasons jointly, I believe a note on his page is appropriate here. SlimVirgin 13:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    I totally agree. -- Szvest - 13:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    Good call by User:SlimVirgin. I agree that technically it was a vio... but SlimVirgin's reasoning is essentially sound with the slight caveat that User:Radiant!'s page/activity sat rather dormant for months. (→Netscott) 15:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:Mamin27 reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result: 24 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Han_Chinese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mamin27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: Please check his block log. Khoikhoi 05:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

    1ne blocked him for 24 hours. SlimVirgin 11:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:Chuck0 reported by User:Your honor (Result: Page protected)

    Three-revert rule violation on Chuck Munson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chuck0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    3RR warning just a short while ago previously by an administrator on his talk page:


    Comments:

    This doesn't appear to be a 3RR violation, as the first revert above appears to have been the first edit. It's a moot point anyway because Will Beback has protected the page. SlimVirgin 11:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:Hillock65 reported by User:Humus sapiens (Result: 24 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on History of the Jews in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hillock65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Warning: 01:08, 26 December 2006

    He's also been blocked before for 3RR, so 24 hours. SlimVirgin 11:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:Rajsingam reported by User:Lahiru_k (Result: 3h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Anton Balasingham ([[Special:EditPage/Anton Balasingham |edit]] | [[Talk:Anton Balasingham |talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/Anton Balasingham |history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/Anton Balasingham |protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/Anton Balasingham |delete]] | links | watch | logs | views). Rajsingam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: He is three month older wikipedian who holds 589 total edit count and can be seen on some Sri Lanka related controversial topics. So I don't think that he does need any 3RR warning prior to the report. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 15:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

    Note - He was reverting unreliably sourced info in the correct manner. I dont see why he couldnt use rediff though.Bakaman 16:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    comment the user Rajsingam is actually running a mock at the Anton Balasigham article..He had reverted other peoples edits, without making any comments in the talk page.Making comments at the talk page,before reverting is a general rule in wikipedia and I don't think we should allow this user to break this fundamental principal.Further,he reverted my edits 3 times,within last hour, thus making the total number of violations over 7.

    --Iwazaki 17:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

    comment I strongly urge the admins to take action against this individual to prevent needless revert wars. He has been persistently removing cited commentrary from a reliable source critical of the famous terrorist advisor Anton Balasingham. He has been warned several time to desist, but he has not.Kerr avon 13:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

    Seems to have gone quiet now. 3h block as a token William M. Connolley 20:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:61.68.119.205 reported by User:Coelacan (Result: no block)

    Three-revert rule violation on What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 61.68.119.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: This user has multiple IPs, at the least User:61.68.119.205 User:61.68.191.123 and User:61.68.177.89. Was warned at this talk page. Doesn't wait for consensus, insists that because a message has been left on the talk page (which was disputed by other editors), this is license to add anything at whim. Was asked to slow down and wait for consensus, but won't. The four reverts occur over 25 hours and 19 minutes, but WP:3RR says "Users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day" and in light of the warning and disputatious nature of talk page edits (user also had to be warned twice for NPA), I think this is a special case. — coelacan talk — 15:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

    User has moved on to new IP at User:210.10.150.170. — coelacan talk — 17:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

    Given that this was not within 24h, and is now fairly stale, and its multiple IPs, I can't see any point in a block. Bring it back if it recurrs William M. Connolley 20:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:Hipocrite reported by User:Netscott (Result: no block)

    Time reported: 17:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: The first three are just straight reverts across three separate editors (the third is where I tried to restore a previously stable version of the page) but the last shows that this user undid most of my last edit. According to my understanding of WP:3RR this is a revert as well. I brought this to the attention of this editor and he disagreed that it was a revert. User:Hipocrite is a user in good standing and if I am correct about these reverts then I would not want him to be blocked (just warned much like User:Radiant! above) but I would appreciate if those with a bit more authority could clarify this. Thanks. (→Netscott) 17:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

    My fourth edit, fixing your horribly broken english, is not remotely a revert. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    Additionly, my second edit is not a direct revert, as it adds the word "Many users," which seems to have satisfied you, at the very least. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    You might like to abide by CIV as well there Hipocrite... if I'm right I don't expect that your lack of civility is going to help you any. (→Netscott) 17:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    I am sorry that I called your edit "horribly broken english." I should have written instead that it was "obviously improper grammar." For this I apologize. Now, could you stop wasting everyones time trying to get useless warnings and cautions placed on users pages and refer to the talk page in question? Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

    3R; I can't see why the 4th is a rv William M. Connolley 20:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:Venom-smasher reported by User:TKD (Result:24 hour block)

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

    Warned previously.

    Comments: This user and The Filmaker (talk · contribs) have been going back and forth on a few of the Star Wars movie pages for a couple of days. I tried article protection on the Episode I page to calm things down, and warned that resumption of edit warring would result in blocks. However, I think that, having since joined relevant discussion, I should defer to someone else to block for the continuing revert war. Times are UTC -5. — TKD::Talk 19:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

    Both users blocked for 24 hours. If they continue, I'll protect the page. --Robdurbar 22:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:The_Filmaker reported by User:TKD (Result:24 hours)

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


    Comments: Times are UTC -5. See above for the other half of this revert war (Venom-smasher (talk · contribs)). I warned about 3RR when I unprotected the Episode I article, but have since entered discussion myself, so I don't feel comfortable applying blocks in this dispute. I was hoping that there would be a better solution to this, but, as the diffs show, it's gotten pretty ugly. — TKD::Talk 19:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

    As above. --Robdurbar 22:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:12.170.101.194 reported by User:Baristarim 21:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC) (Result: 12 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Baklava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 12.170.101.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

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


    3RR warning on a different article was made this morning .

    Comments: This is an IP that has been edit warring in a number of hot ethnic disputes. Even though he is an anon, he seems to know Wiki policies well. I had warned him of the 3RR before in another disputed article . User targets mainly articles concerning one ethnicity and has been making numerous extremely POV edits like the one here Baristarim 21:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:ramdrake reported by User:Benio76 (Result:No Block 24h)

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


    Comments: The user ramdrake reverted my contribution to a scientifical description of foie gras (as an effect of steatosis pathology) pretending that it "imparts a strong negative bias". But my contribution was a description of a fact, which he recognizes, and there were not any subjective valuations. Telling facts does not impart negative bias, just like telling that Saddam Hussein killed people is not a negative bias but just "letting the facts speak for themselves", as recommanded in WP:NPOV.

    • These are different reverts in different areas of the article. If Benio76 wants to call these a 3RR on Ramdrake, he himself has got 6RR on everybody else. Multiple users are reverting Benio76 on multiple sections of this article. Benio76 is a single purpose account to push an agenda at that article SchmuckyTheCat 22:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
      • The policy says "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Misplaced Pages page within a 24 hour period." Ramdrake did four reversions in less than two hours. Benio76 23:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    These strictly speaking aren't reverts. The diffs between versions are sufficiently different that I don't consider them reverts. If another admin has a different opinion, by all means, issue a block.--CSTAR 20:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

    These four edits by Ramdrake clearly are reverts. They are the plainest reverts you can get!

    • Edit 1, 18:18, December 26, 2006: Ramdrake deleted the phrase "and a number of countries and local jurisdictions" from the intro paragraph. I had just put that phrase in. To see that just go back to the preceeding edit.
    • Edit 2, 18:39, December 26, 2006: Same thing again, concerning the same phrase, except that Ramdrake also botched up the sentence by removing an additional piece. To see that it is a revert just go back to the two preceeding edits and .
    • Edit 3, 20:01, December 26, 2006: Ramdrake deleted the sentence "Its name refers to the pathology called fatty liver or steatosis, which induces an abnormal growth of the liver." and an additional two words that had just been put in by user benio76. To see that it is a revert just go back to the two preceeding edits and .

    If these are not reverts, both in the strict sense of the term and in the spirit of the 3RR guidelines, I really do not know what might qualify as a revert!

    Ramdrake, along with other users, is counting on the strict enforcement of the 3RR rule against those who disagree with them, while being able to do exactly what they want to the foie gras page. Do the rules not apply to them? Is it NPOV for one party to be able to do what it wants, while the other sits paralyzed?

    David Olivier 23:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

    The revised report specifies that this is a complex revert (reversion to previous, but not identical states.) 24h.--CSTAR 01:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:Aminz reported by User:Beit Or (Result: No Block)

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

    • 1st revert: 12:03, 26 December 2006 removal of NPOV tag, added by another user at 11:04, 26 December 2006
    • 2nd revert: 22:40, 26 December 2006 restoration of the passage "Jews were involved in a war during 66-70 AD against Rome under the lead of Bar Cochba, whom they had accepted as Messiah. This war caused a cleavage among Christians and Jews. Christians, opposing militarism, didn't help Jews in the war. They found zealot militarism contradictory with the teachings of Jesus. The murderous slaughters by Jews in Cyprus and Cyrenaica only increased the cleavage. Bar Cochba and his followers regarded the war as a national war and heavily penalized Christians for not helping their Jewish brethens. Christians's rejection of the militarism was also due to the fact that acceptance of Bar Cochba as Messiah, left no place for Jesus to be the Messiah." removed by another user at 21:58, 26 December 2006
    • 3rd revert: 08:02, 27 December 2006 restoration of the sentence "In addition, according to the book of Esther (8:14), a large number of Persians converted to Judaism out of fear of Jews during the events of Purim." removed by another user at 00:31, 27 December 2006
    • 4th revert: 09:25, 27 December 2006 restoration of the words "tend to regard toleration as a sign of weakness or even wickedness towards whatever diety they worship. Among the religous, toleration is demanded by the persecuted who need it if they are ever to become triumphant, when, all too often, they start to persecute in their turn." removed by another user at 08:17, 27 December 2006

    Comments:

    Comment. This doesn't qualify as a 3RR vio, then. There have to be more than 3 reverts.--CSTAR 20:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    What about the first revert, then? Beit Or 20:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    That doesn't look like a revert to me. Consider the diffs between the versions of the first two: : These versions substantially different--CSTAR 20:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    Reverts need not be to the same version. The second revert that you've linked above seems clear: edit summary restore the war issue... restoring the passage beginning with the words "Jews were involved in a war." Chabuk removed this passage, then Aminz restored it. It's clearly a revert. Beit Or 20:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    I don't think so. According to the definition WP:Revert
    However in the context of the English Misplaced Pages three revert rule, a revert is defined far more broadly as any change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article.
    The action taken on the second edit by Arminz does not take it back to the same version as the first edit. Please note also, that in filing a 3RR report, it is desirable that a "reverted to version" also be provided. In any case I don't see these as being reversions, but if you disagree, ask another admin to review my interpretation.--CSTAR 20:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    One further comment: I tried looking at the diffs suggested by your comparisons of additions and removals. The diffs of these versions don't appear to me to be the same. But again as I said, please feel free to ask someone else.--CSTAR 21:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

    My only purpose was to add content to the article. The first edit for example is not a revert. As one can see from the talk page User: Charlie added the tag because he thought the title of the article is inherently POV. However I argued that we have articles on Historical Persecution by Christians and Historical persecution by Muslims and removed the tag. Later he added the tag again commenting that: "I overreacted, perhaps. But I still think that much of the content is very POV..." As soon as he pointed out the content dispute, I didn't remove the tag. I didn't mean the removal of the tag to be a revert. There is a story behind each other edits. I was about to add more content to the new section I've created which specifically ties the section to Judaism but couldn't do that because I was afraid it would be considered a revert. My feeling of the situation is that Beit Or is only removing whatever I add. --Aminz 11:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

    'Warning. Whether or not there is a story behind a revert is irrelevant. The point of the 3RR linit is to avoid edit warring; in this instance I didn't see a 3RR vio, it is pretty clear that you have engaged in edit warring. Next time, if there is evidence of edit warring, I will block you regardless of whether it's technically a 3RR vio or not.--CSTAR 21:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:89.172.195.192 reported by User: Dahn 13:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC) (Result:24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Krashovani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 89.172.195.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    User:Beit Or reported by User:Hillock65 (Result: rejected)

    Three-revert rule violation on Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Beit Or (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments:

    User:jd2718 reported by User:Jd2718 (Result:No Block)

    Three-revert rule violation on Allegations_of_Israeli_Apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). jd2718 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: different versions, but 3 of the 4 were removal of the same paragraph
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    No evidence of warning, but user:jd2718 has been a wikipedian for over half a year and has nearly 1000 edits.

    Comments: There were no other edits between the 1st and 2nd revert, so perhaps they make up a single revert, in two pieces. But insofar as user:jayjg warned me I thought I should bring this here to be enforced or dropped.

    User:TheFarix reported by User:68.1.78.129 06:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC) (Result: No violation)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: removal of listed convention
    Comments
    • Attempts have been made to reason with the anon editor regarding the listing criteria, however s/he still insists that his/her convention should be included regardless of the criteria (using logic such as western Florida is not part of the same state as the rest of Florida because it is in different time zones). A localized RfC with WP:Anime has been called to help settle the matter. --TheFarix (Talk) 01:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:Fighting_for_Justice reported by User:196.15.168.40 (Result: Page protected)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: Starting point , “Fighting for Justice” first deleted the last two links in the article, then reverted not only all attempts to reinstate them, but also all other additions to the article, while making just one small addition himself.
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • “Fighting for Justice” is very familiar with the 3RR, having both warned and been warned (and recently, too).

    Comments:

    This is part of a long-standing dispute. For simplicity, I have given only his last four reverts.

    This is a frivolous addition. User:196.15.168.40 is doing this as revenge because I got an administrator to protect a page in which, we've had an edit war going on. In addition one of the above links isn't a revert. I removed useless links. Before you consider banning me for 24 hours, look into the history of the David Westerfield article. Fighting for Justice 08:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    So you admit you DID violate the 3RR. The INITIAL removal of the links is NOT included in the above four reverts.196.15.168.40 04:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    Must you vandalize every board you come across to? Do you not see that an administrator closed the matter? But, no, you gotta throw in your two-cents as usual. Fighting for Justice 04:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    196.15.168.40 it doesn't matter if he violated 3RR, since the page is now protected. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. --Wildnox(talk) 04:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    196, you need to provide diffs showing four reverts, not links to the entire article. SlimVirgin 09:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    It's protected anyway. SlimVirgin 09:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

    It's not protected any more. Here are the 4 diffs:

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

    Further Comments I'd suggest dropping the issue. Your edits were badly done(Making a line break in the middle of a sentence, removing key information from the article) etc. You keep re-instating a bad edit, and I'm not sure if that's protected under the 3RR rule. And you're at least as guilty as he is, it seems.--Vercalos 09:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

    User:Noah30 reported by User:// Laughing Man (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Kosovo Protection Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Noah30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    3RR warning (since removed from users talk page) 21:10, December 27, 2006

    Comments: lots of warring on this article, all parties should be blocked for 3RR.

    2006-12-28T20:47:05 Robdurbar (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Noah30 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr violation) and 2006-12-28T20:47:10 Robdurbar (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "KosMetfan (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr violation) William M. Connolley 20:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

    Ah, you move too quickly for me Will. Edit conflicted with - :Both User:Noah30 and User:KosMetfan blocked for 24 hours. I've protected the pag too as one or two other users have been invovled. --Robdurbar 20:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    By the way, there is an arbitration ruling applicable to any Kosovo related articles (on probation): Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo. Please log any blocks at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Regards, Asterion 22:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

    User:Ymous reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result:No violation)

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


    Comments:

    User:Oleh Petriv‎ reported by User:Bucketsofg (Result prot:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Oleh Petriv‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: Second revert is by an IP 65.94.19.47, which is "likely" him: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser#Oleh_Petriv. He has subsequently admitted the edit is his (diff) Bucketsofg 22:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Follow up:

    The last revert is reverting recently banned open proxy vandal User:Redstone357. Citing 3RR policy on this matter:
    • Reverting edits from banned or blocked users

    Editors who have been banned from editing particular pages, or banned or blocked from Misplaced Pages in general, and who continue to edit anyway, either directly or through a sock-puppet, may be reverted without the reverts counting towards the limit established by this policy.

    Therefore this revert does not conform 3RR requirement. Plus it was provoked by the admin Bucketsofg himself as I applied his justification to the revert. Please see (1) in .
    Also I would like to cite another paragraph from 3RR policy:
    • Intent of the policy

    The three-revert rule is intended to stop edit wars. For your information, article Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II have been blocked from editing and revert war stopped. Please also consider that in my 1+ year of editing experience at WP I was never involved in editing wars and have no intent to be drawn into them anymore. --Oleh Petriv 05:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    2006-12-28T15:14:00 Bucketsofg (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II: protect to end edit warring ) William M. Connolley 11:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:SchmuckyTheCat reported by User:David Olivier (Result: warning)

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

    Comments:

    The first four reverts were done by SchmuckyTheCat in less than 24 hours, on the same item: he repeatedly put back the "good article" template on the talk page of the foie gras article. Each time, he also relisted the article on the GA page. He also at least once (such as in this diff) deleted the TotallyDisputed template from the main foie gras page. Strictly speaking, he has thus done a lot more than 4 reverts in those 24 hours.

    Those reverts are on an issue that in itself shouldn't be disputed, which is the fact that the foie gras page is disputed. SchmuckyTheCat appears unable to recognize even the existence of disagreeing voices.

    SchmuckyTheCat was warned by me after the fourth revert (see here on the talk page) but he only sneered, and went on to perform two other reverts that same evening, on other issues.

    I do not think the controversy on the foie gras page is to be resolved by revert counting; however, there are rules, and the liberties that SchmuckyTheCat and others repeatedly take with those rules gives them an unfair advantage, allowing them to go on editing the page in a totally POV manner while remaining completely oblivious of all attempts to discussion. This is why I now ask measures to be taken against SchmuckyTheCat.

    David Olivier 00:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    I encouraged David Olivier to file this complaint . David is on the losing side of a POV war on Foie gras. David attempted to use the Good Article status of the article as a battle. The GA process has a review process to remove articles. When David didn't follow the process, I restored the GA template to the talk page. I then followed what David should have done and filed the GA review for him Misplaced Pages:Good_articles/Review#Foie_gras. Removing the tag in a POV war is underhanded vandalism. Restoring the tag, and listing the article for review when you don't think it should be reviewed, is good faith editing.
    Note on the article itself I'm not being strict about counting, but I'm trying generally to follow 1RR per issue. David's 5th and 6th revert have nothing to do with each other. SchmuckyTheCat 00:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    To whoever is reviewing this report - please be advised that there is an ongoing edit war revolving around two users (Oliverd, Benio76) engaged in a radical POV pushing (PETA activism). The issue has been discussed in length on article's Talk page and the user who's changes were reverted repeatedly ignored other editor's arguments. Alex Pankratov 00:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    As per WP:GA/R, the GA tag is to be removed when a user sees that the article does not satisfy the criteria. The review process is for relisting the article. That there is an ongoing edit war is uncontroversial, and it is particularly absurd to try to dispute the fact that the article is disputed. To call vandalism an edit by someone who disagrees with you is just rhetoric. David Olivier 01:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    There is a huge conflict about the neutrality of foie gras. A small group of editors are regularly boycotting other editors' improvements, in order to preserve a positive bias pushing commercialization of foie gras. These people ignore arguments, sources and quotation of WP guidelines furnished by other editors, and they have gone as far as accusing me of having created a sock puppet, which is false. Since the article does not satisfy the GA criteria, the reverts made by SchmuckyTheCat are unjustified, Benio76 01:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    I'm not very happy with all this, but... firstly, reverts to article and talk pages are (AFAIK) counted separately (this could be a Good Question). Secondly STC should not have rv'd 4 times to restore the GA tag, but its semi-stale now; and I don't think the GA tag should simply be removed. So STC gets a warning William M. Connolley 11:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    Reverting a talk page seems like disruptive behavior and should be handled separately. Though in some cases reversion in a talk page is justified (to remove obscenities, defamation, vile personal attacks etc) why should it be tolerated there in other cases at all? --CSTAR 17:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    Certainly. But what I meant was, the talk and article pages count separately towards the count of 4... at least I think they do. I'll put it onto talk William M. Connolley 18:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:Starwars1955 reported by User:Aviper2k7 (Result: 72h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Brett_Favre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Starwars1955 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: User has been blocked two or three times before, at least once for violating 3RR. here's the first time he was blocked. He's reverting to a version with no citations, which violates WP:CITE and then says that listing citations twice is against the rules. See Brett Favre history and our discussion on the talk page which he seems to ignore.++aviper2k7++ 00:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    72h given previous record William M. Connolley 11:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:R9tgokunks reported by User:LUCPOL (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Metropolis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). R9tgokunks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Comments: User:R9tgokunks (Hrödberäht) vandalise (edit war, 3RR) arcicles: Metropolis, Silesia City, Ostrava, List of famous German Americans, Father of the Nation etc, etc. He's always revert. See history in arcicles (all edit war R9tgokunks vs all users in all arcicles): , , , , etc. Please help. Please blocked this user on month (or more). LUCPOL 00:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC) PS: He manipulates, it lets old links (see highly - links discussion from... september etc). LUCPOL 00:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    First, please use the template provided. Second, you also violated 3RR in at least one of the articles. You're both violating 3RR, and if either of you get blocked, you both get blocked. --Wildnox(talk) 01:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    I will repeat. He leads many edit wars and 3RR! Not one or two - many. Please help (except Wildnox). LUCPOL 01:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    PS. This is data (links) with end of December 2006 (actually), I did not look for older. LUCPOL 02:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    How can the vandal get blocked, and the contributor who reverted the vandalism also get blocked? Surely this doesn't happen elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, does it?-- Hrödberäht 02:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley 11:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:LUCPOL reported by User:R9tgokunks (Result: 24h)

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

    Comments: Background on the situation(although it might be irrelevant to the actual report):, ,, -- Hrödberäht 03:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    It is lie!: 1st revert - 27 December, 3rd and 5th revert is not revert. This is actualization. This is previous version , letter is reverts from R9tgokunks (Hrödberäht). I did not make 3RR: see: , - My 3 corner edition and 3 reverts from R9tgokunks (Hrödberäht) - in draught 24h, 28 december 2006. I did not make 3 reverts, this is 3 corner edition. LUCPOL 03:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    Oh yes, just above the actual report is this further discussion-- Hrödberäht 03:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    Let me condense what I said above.(I Removed it) BOTH users appear to have violated 3RR on the article in question. --Wildnox(talk) 03:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    Let me also add the suggestion that possibly instead of either or both of the users being blocked, that this and the other pages involved(listed by LUCPOL in the report above) be protected. This would allow the users to discuss their issue with eachother and hopefully come to a compromise. --Wildnox(talk) 04:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley 11:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:Mithril_Cloud reported by User:Pmgomez (Result: no block)

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


    Comments: User insists the use of Infobox Secondary school template even if article is clearly that of a K-12 institution.

    Invalid statement. Reporting user obviously did not understood 3RR fully. Interestingly enough, the 2nd revert: 06:16, 29 December 2006 was actually an edit of the reporting user, making his report invalid. --Mithril Cloud 09:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    Valid statement. Revert pertains to the article, not to specific users. { PMGOMEZ } 09:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    No block. Next time use diffs not versions. The one closest to a block here is Gomez William M. Connolley 11:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    Thank you. --Mithril Cloud 12:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:NuclearUmpf reported by User:Hipocrite - «Talk» (Result: 24h)

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

    • Warning link:
    • Self revert oppourtunity:
    • Self revert rejected:


    Comments: User incorrectly believes he can revert as many times as he wants on the article as long as he reverts different kinds of changes. This is not accurate. Unwilling to engage in discussion on talk page beyond brinkmanship. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    User is vandalizing an article by removing sourced content that he claims does not exist for instance. For instance in revert 4 I was readding a quote he removed without cause, stating source doesnt support statement. However the sources first line states: He never studied, trained, or even had any intention to become an authority on terrorism. The source clearly states he is an authority on terrorism, so why is this removed? It seems Hipocrit has decided to vandalize the article after TheronJ explained my creation of it was within guidelines. TheronJ's statement shows my reversions was preventing blanking of the page. --NuclearZer0 18:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    In that same edit the user changed the fact that he was invited to a congressional briefing with the following wording "In 2005, Thompson was asked to speak at an informal briefing organized by Congresswoman ", he even argues on the talk page that it was not a Congressional Briefing, yet the title of the source and the source itself states otherwise. Source is ^ July 22nd Congressional Briefing: The 9/11 Commission Report One Year Later: A Citizens' Response - Did They Get It Right?. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (July 22, 2005). --NuclearZer0 18:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    Back room deals and black mail attempts: stating he will drop report if I agree to do what he says, this is surely not in the spirit of WP:3RR. --NuclearZer0 19:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    H kindly offered you the opportunity to self-rv. You foolishly didn't take it. 24h William M. Connolley 19:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:Hipocrite reported by User:badlydrawnjeff talk (Result:24h)

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

    Comments: Part of massive edit war. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    Please use UT for the times; otherwise it makes it more difficult for the decideing admin to compare the diffs. The fourth is close enough to be a revert.
    Blocked 24h.--CSTAR 20:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:Pernambuco reported by User:MariusM (Result: 8h)

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

    • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here. Not a new user, however I warned him 29 Dec 17:57

    Comments: Reverts are mainly about: Removing Border issues section, expanding referendum section, removing US Department of State position and opinion of Yakovlev, removing travel warnings. Some reverts are combined with some edits, like adding an infobox in reverts 2 and 3 (you need to scroll to see the reverts). I consider those reverts as vandalism also, and I and other editors as well had discussions with Pernambuco in his talk page without convincing him to change his behaviour. In revert 5 he even claim that he has my agreement for the revert, which is totally untrue - I agreed with him in a small issue (using Dniester instead of Nistru) but clearly told him not to remove the paragraphs . See also disscussion in talk page aboutparagraph with Yakovlev opinions (where he even denied he deleted) border issues, US Department of State position. In Talk he agreed that the person who delete a paragraph should explain why 29 Dec 17:25, however he kept deleting without explaining why.--MariusM 21:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    8h William M. Connolley 23:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    I have unblocked him because Diana Teodorescu (talk · contribs) was a sockpuppet of the banned user Bonaparte. Khoikhoi 00:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:69.123.136.59 reported by User:«»bd( stalk) (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Vince Russo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.123.136.59 (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:
    • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

    Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    Comments: Continually adding a section that is by no means notable, at least not to this degree. Despite claims that "theres like 12 of us doing this" all of the changes are coming from the same IP.

    Further comment, I'm almost positive, though I have no proof, that this is coming from a specific wrestling message board. The same people who continually vandalized the Lex Luger article

    24h William M. Connolley 23:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:Ravenfire reported by User: NickBurns (Result: 24hr)

    Dusty Springfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Sorry if I am not doing this right....There are many reverts (many more than 3RR today alone).....Please go to the user's contribution page. Other than edits to blank user's talk page (another no-no), user has only edited this article. Appears to be in a content dispute with User:Barleywater over external links. NickBurns 00:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:Politis reported by User:Jd2718 (Result:16h)

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


    Comments:

    • Each revert removes the link to Slavic languages of Macedonia (Greece).
    • Politis is not a new user (approx 2000 edits since December 2005).
    • When I pointed out on his talk page that he had violated 3RR dif here and suggested that he revert himself, instead he responded with this, indicating that deleting the link repeatedly does not meet his definition of 'revert.' Even were this true (I don't know) this sounds like gaming the spirit of 3RR and a likely intention to continue doing so.
    • Please be aware that the edit summaries and his note on my talk page do not necessarily reflect either the changes or the discussion on the talk page.
    16h.--CSTAR 08:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

    User:MelForbes reported by User:Bastun (Result: 8h)

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

    Comments: Reverts are to the wording of the first sentence in the article. User:MelForbes is pushing PoV that the term in question, "British Isles" is only used sometimes. This issue had already been thrashed out a month ago (30th November, section 14 of Talk:British Isles. While the term is certainly rejected by some in Ireland, it is still the term for the group of islands, is used by some in Ireland, and by a majority in the UK. Not to mention the rest of the world.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastun (talk • contribs)

    User:Bastun, has shadowed me before on WP. I haven't reverted 3 times, and I am trying to edit to a NPOV situation. I totally reject User:Bastun, and i believe that he should be ignored on this occasion. MelForbes 02:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    Excuse me?! You showed up on my talk page (with an insult) on 18th August 06. I've only ever been to yours in response to some questions from you put on mine. As for "shadowing" you - I'm Irish, you're Irish, we both edit articles of Irish interest. Bastun 02:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    You have been deeply offensive to me a couple of months ago on the British Isles talk page. I just don't have the time to find those edits now. But if i have to, I will. MelForbes 02:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    This is the second or third time you've alleged this, again without backing it up with any evidence. See here where I ask you to point them out, and you fail to respond? Please do show me where I've attacked you. Bastun 15:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

    You obviously have reverted 4 times; 8h for a first offence William M. Connolley 10:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

    I have edited, not reverted. MY edit has now bee accepted. MelForbes 18:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC) I want to make an objection against William M. Connolley's decision, how is that done please. This sort of nonsense is doing big damage to the WP project. MelForbes 19:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

    You could report report it at WP:AN/I, but I don't think that will do any good. From what it looks like to me, the block was justified. You made 4 reverts and were blocked. Those "edits" you speak of count as reverts under WP:3RR. --Wildnox(talk) 19:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    Well, firstly, I reverted what I believe to be a sock editor. I won't say whom at the moment. Then Bastun started reverting back to the "sock" edits. MelForbes 19:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    I see no evidence of sockpuppetry, nor do I see any users on that page who even edit from the same country as the IP. Do you have any actual evidence, you really can't make that claim on a hunch. --Wildnox(talk) 19:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    That's not fully correct. WP allows a "sock revert" for suspected sockpuppet, and it's not counted as a revert. I cannot state who the sock is a the moment, as I would have to go to checkuser first, and it seemed hardly worth it at the time. And checkuser is not always conclusive. It could be classed as a minor sock. MelForbes 19:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    Actually it is fully true, you need at least SOME proof of sockpuppetry, you can't just throw the claim out there with no actual proof. There appears to be none, as no other users on that article were even from the same country as the IP and it is not a known proxy. --Wildnox(talk) 19:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    See, that is a prob with WP. An editor cannot do something in good faith?, I didn't want to write sock in the edit because of the proof issue. Then WP urges its editors to be bold. It's a no-win situation. Stick ones neck out, and chop chop. MelForbes 20:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, you're assuming bad faith when you seem to have assumed that the user was a sock. Even if you had noted that in your summary, without proof, you would have still been blocked. Like I said before, you can always report this at WP:AN/I if you think there has been wrongdoing. --Wildnox(talk) 20:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    As I said, it's a no-win situation, the chicken and the egg conundrum. An editor makes a very simple rv to an anonymous user and suspected sock, then another editor with a axe to grind makes a report. Misplaced Pages has lost some very excellent editors in the past over silly little things that go out of hand. I may not bother much more with it, I'll think about it. MelForbes 20:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

    Users 203.220.171.80 and 203.220.171.90 are sockpuppets of one another. Whether malign or benign is debatable, but the broad principle is correct. Some users use dynamic IP addresses to avoid traceability and to incur vandalism and pov into articles. Details; IP Address  : 203.220.171.80 (80.171.220.203.dial.dynamic.acc01-aitk-gis.comindico.com.au ) ISP  : COMindico Australia Organization : COMindico Australia Location  : AU, Australia City  : Melbourne, 07 - Latitude  : 37°81'67" South Longitude  : 144°96'67" East IP Address  : 203.220.171.90 (90.171.220.203.dial.dynamic.acc01-aitk-gis.comindico.com.au ) ISP  : COMindico Australia Organization : COMindico Australia Location  : AU, Australia City  : Melbourne, 07 - Latitude  : 37°81'67" South Longitude  : 144°96'67" East MelForbes 12:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

    And your point is? 203.220.171.80 made (from all I can see, good-faith) edits to the previous version, explained in his/her edit summary. You reverted four times, despite me bringing it up on the talk page. I reported you here. 203.220.171.90 (almost definitely the same editor as 203.220.171.80) later reverted you. The point is, you still broke the 3RR.
    If you're assuming the 203.220.171.x users are also me, I can assure you you're incorrect, and have no problem with a checkuser being done to verify that all my edits originated from my home IP address, which will be shown to be Esat/BT (or whatever they're calling themselves today). Bastun 13:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    No Baston, I do not assume that it is you. It has been established in other cases of WP that IP addresses can be sockpuppets too. This case is no different. Technically speaking 203.220.171.80 is a different personality from 203.220.171.90, as different as chalk and cheese, but I bet that they are the one and same user. MelForbes 13:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    I won't take the bet because I agree with you. Point is - you reverted four times after 203.220.171.80's edits. 203.220.171.90 didn't show up till after I'd reported you and so is irrelevant to this report. Bastun 13:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    They are still sockpuppets, my hunch was correct, and very able Wikipedians at that. The user is no newcomer. MelForbes 13:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

    User:A Man In Black reported by User:Peregrinefisher (Result: 3h)

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

    Comments: He didn't like the result of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs). He's been trying to do this for a while; see here. - Peregrinefisher 08:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

    3h William M. Connolley 20:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:SummerThunder reported by User:tjstrf talk (Result:)

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

    Note that some of these also mess around with unrelated sections of the article or reformat it, but they all add the Moderators subsection.

    Warned by User:Hoary for both 3RR and civility violations.

    Comments: All of the above edits are part of an ongoing campaign by this user to discredit the zh.wiki administration as "government spies" for banning him. He's also either in 3RR violation or close to it (didn't check) on other pages such as Blocking of Misplaced Pages in mainland China, and has made numerous vitriolic comments on the Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous) such as this attack rant. He has been removed from both zh.wiki and meta for similar POV pushing and NPA violation, and warned by several administrators in his time here that his behaviour is unacceptable, so a more serious penalty than the standard 24hr slap on the wrist may be preferable. --tjstrf talk 08:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

    Unless I'm missing something, I don't see any reverts per se. None of the edits listed match up with other edits this user made. Also, please please do not change the times when you report someone for 3RR. It makes it very hard for us admins to match up the edits you are citing. Thanks. --Woohookitty 11:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:Kendrick7 reported by User:Beit Or (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Alphonso_de_Spina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kendrick7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    24h William M. Connolley 10:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:DanRusso reported by User:«»bd( stalk) (Result: 8h)

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

    Comments: Pretty sure this is coming from the same place as before, but have no proof. Article may need to be semi-protected down the line.

    8h William M. Connolley 20:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

    ===User:Curtis Bledsoe reported by User Jance


    User:Jance reported by User:Curtis Bledsoe (Result:Warning)

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

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

    Curtis has clearly had a warning (just below). Every other editor who has edited this agreed that a summary be added, instead of extremely lengthy & possibly copyright violation text. There have been numerous complaints by Ronz, me, l'cast, Hughgr, Wildnox on the talk page. He has continued to be insulting, and aggressive in reverting - after ALL OF THIS. He obviously has no problem flaunting WIkipedia. I do not see a warning on his page, but I ask anyone to look at all t he discussion here, all the complaints, the consensus on his edits, and tell me if he is complying with WIkipedia. I can't believe anyone would do this.Jance 19:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

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

    Comments:

    The User:Jance has persistently reverted necessary changes to this article and violated the 3RR. --Curtis Bledsoe 00:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

    First, the user was never warned and therefore is very unlikely to be blocked. Second, it appears you have violated 3RR on the article in question. --Wildnox(talk) 01:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you, WIldnox. I have opened an AN/I on Curtis, because of a barrage of insults, ridicule, and general abuse, as well as 3RR, and editing an article after someone (not I) added a copyright tag because of his edits. Most recently, he libeled an editor in another article. He has also followed me to yet another article for the sole purpose of harassment. This is already an article that has been contentious. He changed portions, without discussion, that had been discussed and debated at great length for months.Jance 02:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

    I don't understand the double-standard. Whether or not I have violated 3RR is irrelevant - I haven't violated 3RR, but if you have evidence that I have, then you're welcome to block me as well. But that doens't change the fact that Jance has demonstrably violated 3RR and should be blocked. --Curtis Bledsoe 03:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

    Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly."

    Sorry, this was my first. I normally wouldn't have reported it, but the actions of the user in question were pretty OTT. What does it mean "diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here"? --Curtis Bledsoe 04:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    It means you have to show a diff of a warning, unless you can prove he/she knew of 3RR prior to the 4th revert. --Wildnox(talk) 04:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    Both Jance and Curtis Bledsoe have contributed to 9 reverts over a variety of edits (no single point more than twice I agree) - see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Breast_implant.2C_again - do these really consitute 3RR or AN/I consideration ? David Ruben 05:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    I have no idea if this is closed or not. But I welcome anyone to see NCAHF and Curtis' edits there. Jance 17:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:SteveWolfer reported by User:Buridan (Result: no block)

    Three-revert rule violation on Template:Philosophy_navigation. SteveWolfer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

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

    Diffs not versions please. This isn't in 24h or even very close. But it is a stupid edit war, and you both risk being blocked if you don't try to work it out on talk William M. Connolley 11:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:Nadirali reported by User:Ganeshk (Result: 24h)

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

    Comments:

    24h William M. Connolley 11:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:HongQiGong reported by User:Endroit (Result: 24h)

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


    Comments:

    • HongQiGong appologised after the 1st incident here (20:37, 29 December 2006). But he broke 3RR in the 2nd incident.--Endroit 19:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment on the second "incident" - Notice the time stamp between the 1st and the 4th edits, there is more than a 24-hour gap. And my 5th edit was not a revert, but a new edit. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        • HongQiGong kept adding 2 sentences which were not new. Those were unilateral additions.--Endroit 20:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
          • The edit between my fifth edit and other edits are different, and offered as a compromise. Also, I'd like to point out, that Endroit never warned me of 3RR or notified me of his 3RR report here. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
            • We're requesting 3rd opinion from any admin. HongQiGong is a repeat violator of 3RR, as he has been blocked before.--Endroit 20:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
            • (Edit conflict with above response)But you have been given warnings in the past for other 3RR incidents, you don't need to be warned every time, just the first time. There is no requirement to notify users of the report either. --Wildnox(talk) 20:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
              • Don't get me wrong, if an admin feels I should be blocked, then I won't argue with that. My edits are in good faith and Endroit here is basically trying to use 3RR to prevent an edit that he disagrees with, notice the revert-warring on the article. And I do maintain that my latest edit, which prompted this report, is a different edit offered as a compromise. Finally, I'm only citing what I read on the top of this page, which, to be honest, makes Endroit's motives questionable, if he has neither warned me nor notified me of this report:
              • Administrators are unlikely to block a user who has never been warned. If you report a 3RR violation here it is good form to inform the person you are reporting of this on their talk page and provide a link to this page WP:AN/3RR. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
                • The thing is you have been warned in the past, there is no requirement to do so for every new violation, as you can see in the template below it's only needed for new users. Also good form does not mean requirement, though I admit good form is always preferred. --Wildnox(talk) 20:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
                • HongQiGong, I'd like to see you in the talk pages AND GAIN CONSENSUS first before making those edits. And yes, your addition about "weaving cloth", etc. (2000 years ago) was repeated 4 times in 24 hours.--Endroit 20:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley 22:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:67.175.216.90 reported by User:csloat (Result:24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Qur'an_desecration_controversy_of_2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.175.216.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: User is adding an irrelevant link to the article; he tried to do so months ago and was warned to stop. He participated in discussion only briefly, to accuse those reverting him of being abusive and bullying, and never responded to the arguments against his addition to the article. He came back today making the same edits without discussing them. csloat 00:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

    since csloat is telling essentially the same fibs he told , i'll quote from what i've written in response already.
    i am in technical violation of 3RR (i've only reverted twice "today"), but i began seeking mediation prior to my first revert. in contrast, csloat has one revert left before violation. he has so far not returned to the talk page to explain his behavior. he has refused to communicate directly with me, but has shadowed me from page to page reverting my edits and telling fibs like the one above about the matter. ...when csloat testifies that my addition of a single, relevant cross-link is "disruptive," that is a chracterization, albeit one that fails the standard of reasonability. ... but when he asserts that i "refused to explain" my "actions in talk", it is - i really don't want to use harsh language - but it is a lie, and one which can be exposed by simply reviewing the talk page.
    i hope this can be of help in administrating the issue. it is my understanding that deliberately reverting only three times per day, but in a nonetheless persistent and aggressive manner is called "gaming" 3RR and is considered a violation of its own sort. 67.175.216.90 04:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    I see no evidence of mediation, nor is it relevant to the 3RR. The evidence above shows four reverts in 24 hours. csloat 05:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    Clear cut case, it seems to me. 24h.--CSTAR

    User:Shamir1 reported by User:Mostlyharmless (Result:24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Palestine:Peace_Not_Aparthied (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Shamir1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

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

    Comments: User has been warned by others over 3RR, and continued after 4RR.

    If one actually looks, not all of the edits contained the same worded material. The last two in specific, have the information re-worded as per the discussion, which User:Mostlyharmless failed to mention. Reasons for inclusion of the short and sourced material (as per the inclusion of parallel/similar and longer material added and kept by others) can be found on Talk:Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid#The recent edit war. --Shamir1 00:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

    Note on completing a 3RR report:


    User:Raspor reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result: 24h)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: 20:53 December 31, 2006
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:
    • 7th revert:
    • 8th revert:

    Comments:

    This user has been warned in the past about the 3RR rule, and continues to violate it.

    In addition, I edited] original complaint, since it was not done in the manner required for this report. It's time to block Raspor. Please.

    Now 7. Humps 22:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley 23:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

    User:TrueBahai reported by User:Jeff3000 (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Bahá'í Faith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TrueBahai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments:

    24h, on the presumption that the anon is him William M. Connolley 09:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

    User:Emokid200618 reported by User:Apostrophe (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Organization_XIII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Emokid200618 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: User has been banned for 3RR before, thus understands the rule. His edits were against the consensus of the editors of this article. ' 06:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley 09:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

    User:Armon reported by User:64.230.123.128 (Result: 24h)

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

    Comments: There is discussion of proper references and accusations of OR but many of the things Armon is repeatedly removing are properly referenced, see the last two diffs here specifically for a clear case of edit summaries containing untrue accusations of OR or POV: , . The paragraph in those two reports has been removed 4 times by Armon, thus while there is complex partial reverts some paragraphs have been consistently targeted by Armon. Thus the link given as the previous version is not really clearly the version Armon is reverting to. --64.230.123.128 16:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

    24h (even though your prev-version is wrong...) William M. Connolley 16:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

    User:SqueakBox reported by User:Caper13 (Result:)

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning: User is experienced and aware of 3rr

    Comments: User has been attempting to push POV edits into the article. Above DIFFS are only a subset of one group of related edits within the 24 hour period. All together this user had edited this article 9 times during the last 24 hour period removing negaative information (not reverting vandalism) and inserting positive spin edits into the article. This is an experienced user who pushes a similar point of view on various articles and is well aware of 3RR. See Block Log. . Additionally, user appears to be have been using sockpuppet (has also been found to engage in sockpuppetry in the past (see block log)). The following reinsert with the same text was made by a different account User:Crud3w4re right after Squeakbox's edit had been reverted and included the summary "((rv) I added a source of this at the bottom of the page, I didn't make it up.". The referred to source was the one previously added by Squeakbox at 00:44, 1 January 2007 (not by Crud3w4re), so there would be no reason for a different user to claim that "I" added it unless the info was accidentally reinserted under the wrong account (sockpuppet). This suspected sockpuppet incident is NOT included in the above reverts. Caper13 21:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

    Not clear that rv 3 is a revert William M. Connolley 09:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

    Respectfully, I don't think the 3RR rules require the reverts to be identical. (Any four edits to a page in a 24 hour period (reverting vandalism notwithstanding) would do. In this case, they are substantially similar, editing the article to insert text questioning the trial's fairness undoing the changes of multiple editors to the same text block. User actually made 9 edits to the page that day, though I didn't list them because I personally do not believe that completely unrelated edits should be counted as reverts. These however, are not unrelated and deal with the same paragraph and the same general idea. Caper13 17:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    Its not any 4 edits, its any 4 *reverts*. And I don't see what #3 is a revert of William M. Connolley 17:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

    I am confident I dint revert anything 4 times or even close. Perhaps tehr editor accusing me of POV pushing is actually the one responsible for the pOV pushing here. All my edits are perfectly okay attempts to NPOV the article. Please check the meaning of the word revert in a disctionary, Caper, as according to your definition any prolific editor would be open to said charges, SqueakBox 22:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

    IMHO, Not over 3RR. I would suggest you continue discussing the matter in a friendly manner in the talk page. Regards, Asterion 22:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

    User:Fox33 reported by User:Merzbow (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Joseph_Stalin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Fox33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Diff of 3RR warning: Almost certainly a sock puppet of Jacob Peters (talk · contribs), who loves nothing more than to remove 'dictator' from the intro of this article, obviously somebody's sock puppet given the contribution history.

    Comments: This user is probably Jacob Peters (talk · contribs) socking for (hopefully) the last time. I'm filing this in hopes for a quicker block while the sock report is processed. See the RFCU here for the gory history. - Merzbow 22:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley 22:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

    User:BrianSmithson and User:Mwhs reported by User:Shirahadasha (Result:)

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

    • Previous version reverted to:


    Comments: Both User:BrianSmithson and User:Mwhs appear to be involved in an edit war on the Mami Wata article

    Appears to be no 3RR violation. Maybe take this to WP:AN/I? --Wildnox(talk) 01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    Correction, User:BrianSmithson has violated 3RR. User:Mwhs has not. --Wildnox(talk) 01:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    Not saying heavy-handed enforcement is required, but thinking might be good for a neutral admin (someone not involved in the article) to weigh in, explain that constant reverts are bad for Misplaced Pages, give a warning, ask for a cooling-off, etc. Best --Shirahadasha 01:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

    Sample violation report to copy

    ===] reported by User:~~~ (Result:)===
<!-- If your signature has additional fonts, please enter only your username manually -->
] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|VIOLATOR_USERNAME}}:
<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to:  
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert: 
* 2nd revert: 
* 3rd revert: 
* 4th revert: 
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
-->
* Diff of 3RR warning: 
''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->

    Note on completing a 3RR report:

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