Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
revert. removing another user's comment is considered vandalism
Line 907: Line 907:
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rec.sport.pro-wrestling&oldid=41833846]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rec.sport.pro-wrestling&oldid=41833846]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rec.sport.pro-wrestling&oldid=41834688]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rec.sport.pro-wrestling&oldid=41834688]

:Those aren't all within a 24-hour period, and you have been asked not to insert fictional information into the article. You also violated [[WP:NPA]] in your edit summaries for [[rec.sport.pro-wrestling]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rec.sport.pro-wrestling&action=history history], and with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chadbryant&oldid=41833497 the message you left on my talk page]. - [[User:Chadbryant|Chadbryant]] 01:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


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

Revision as of 02:54, 2 March 2006

    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.

    Click here to create a new report



    Violations

    User:Skinmeister

    Three revert rule violation on Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Skinmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Kafziel 01:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • 4th revert was made by his sock puppet, User:Rennix.
      • User:Rennix has now broken the 3RR rule by repeatedly removing the sockpuppet tag from his user page.[1] Considering his tone and intent (and sockpuppet status) I'm not sure if that should be posted here or on the AIV board, so I'm just making this note rather than starting a whole new entry. Kafziel 23:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ardenn

    Comments

    Looks like Raul315 just put on a 24 hour block.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 05:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, my apologies for forgetting it to post it here. I blocked Anderson12, and not Ardenn, because I think there may be something to the comments that Anderson12 may be a sock of Lightbringer or another user, particularly given Anderson12's knowledge of Wiki policy and terms. Ral315 (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good to me. When you make a disputed change...you should discuss. He is already on thin ice...and I didn't know about the sock issue.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 06:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not violate the 3 RR rule. I restored my edit three times that is not a violation. User: Ardennviolated the 3 RR rule by reverting four times. Secondly it is vandalism to post sockpupppet accuasations to another users page, it is vandalism to delete content from a talk page, especially a 3rr notice, it is vandalism to make rvv claim when it is not, and it is vandalism to accuse another user of vandalism when clearly they are not. I made full edit summaries and made full references, user Ardenn made no summaries at all. I demand this user be blocked for violating 3rr rules and for vandalizing my talk page and the article itself by his unsummarized edits.Anderson12 04:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MarkSweep

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

    Comments

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

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

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

    Continued Revert Harassment by User:MarkSweep

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

    User:71.118.32.15

    Three revert rule violation on Republic (dialogue) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.118.32.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Kentaur 07:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • This is about the dozenth time the anonymous user has reinserted a POV paragraph, which has just been labled as vandalism. A Request for Comment was initiated, during which 71.118.32.15 vowed that his/her "organization" is beginning a "wholescale assault on the sham that is Wikipedia". I'm not making this up: see Talk:Republic (dialogue), under the Request for Comment. A request for arbitration has also been made.

    Blocked for 48 h for 3RR, and for [3]. William M. Connolley 11:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Matthead

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


    [4][5][6][7]

    Reported by: Chris 73 | Talk 09:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    User:134.84.101.39

    Three revert rule violation on The Minnesota Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 134.84.101.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Jsaxton86 09:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The guy has a dynamic IP. Perhaps it will be necessary to block his entire subnet.

    Sprotected, for now no edits from anon or new users allowed. A number of IP's and Jsaxton86 violating the 3RR -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Emir Arven

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

    Reported by: Latinus 17:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • Arven has been deleting the Serbian side of the story and leaving only the Bosniak side in direct contratiction to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which maintains that all sourced views should be kept. I have tried to co-operate and compromise with his (obvious from the diffs) by explicitly saying that Serbian historians maintain that view and he persists in deleting it. If possible, please have a word with him about the way he describes his fellow editors as "nationalists" and their sources as "nationalistic". --Latinus 17:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not true. I asked User:HolyRomanEmperor for the source. User:HolyRomanEmperor showed me the source, a book by Corovic. When I checked the book there was nothnig there to support his thesis. I asked him again to show me the section. He said he was not able to do that. So his thesis was not verified.--Emir Arven 17:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The site that he showed me was nationalistic site quoted by Slobodan Milosevic in his trial. That site also supports nazi collabortor Draza Mihailovic. It is called Serbian Unity. I just used the right term.--Emir Arven 17:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The user is intent on hating anything that has a prefix "Serb-" so that is the reason why he didn't count that. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is crap and very serious accusation without any argument.--Emir Arven 18:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MB

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

    Reported by: —Ruud 18:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    You should warn them on their talk page; I'll do that now. William M. Connolley 20:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    User:80.90.38.214

    Three revert rule violation on Phaistos_Disc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 80.90.38.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    point direction

    point references

    museum director

    There are a lot more but 10 times seems to be enough for the moment.

    Comments

    • The page was already semi-protected because 80.90.xx.xx has violated 3RR [12]
    • The page was already protected because 80.90.xx.xx has violated 3RR [13]
    • At the moment the page is again protected, with the comment to fill 3RR. See [14]
    • 80.90.xx.xx has every day a new IP-Adress (See [15]).
      • 26.2 80.90.38.214
      • 25.2 80.90.39.118
      • 24.2 80.90.37.22
      • 23.2 80.90.37.246 ...

    Reported by Kadmos 20:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    anon refuses to get an account in spite of engaging in prolongued disputes and edit wars. his reverts are numerous, but there were at least two sets of four reverts of a single point. He was warned about 3RR at the time of semi-protection. Banning edit-warriors is preferable to protection or even semi-protection. dab (ᛏ) 21:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally deny the accusations made by User Kadmos and Mr Bachman. With one or two other of their friends (in particular Pmanderson), they are betraying the WP spirit and the WP spirit. They are the true responsible of the Editwars, by censoring any theory they don't like, acting separately and in alternance to escape to an accusation of the 3RR-violation. They have threatened WP-users who were on my side, to isolate me. A simple look at the Talk:Phaistos Disk page by an arbiter is enough (if they don't have deleted it, as they already did !) for judging of their aim which is to impose by force their POV (i.e. the disc's script is related to Linear A, the Proto-Ionic solution is vithout value, etc.).(80.90.38.214 21:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    There is no censorship going on. Just an attempt to give appropriate weight to all theories, including the one being pushed by 80.90.x. --Macrakis 14:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked, 24h. William M. Connolley 22:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    Still editing the same article under IP 80.90.38.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Admits to being the same anon in post on WM Connolley's user page. He is also repeating the same reversions; for example,
    Septentrionalis 16:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Irakliy81

    Three revert rule violation on List of sovereign states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Irakliy81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Latinus 21:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Sigh. Blocked 24h. A newbie but looks like a determined one :-( William M. Connolley 21:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Astrotrain

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [21:37, 25 February 2006]
    • 1st revert: [18:35, 26 February 2006]
    • 2nd revert: [18:38, 26 February 2006]
    • 3rd revert: [22:40, 26 February 2006]
    • 4th revert: [22:49, 26 February 2006]

    Reported by: Mais oui! 23:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    You don't provide actual diffs so its rather hard to be sure. But I can only see 4 identical edits (the first one not being a revert, in that case). The only edit for 22:49 is the page move - no? Also, whilst moving a page in the middle of an edit war might well be impolite, the move itself seems defensible, if it is indeed the only KGI going William M. Connolley 23:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    User:SeraphimXI

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

    Reported by: ALR 10:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • whilst not simple reversions these changes are removing substantive changes to the article which remove extranious material and make clear a level of ambiguity about the validity of the subject. User is not participating in constructive debate on the talk page as contributions tend towards unrelated hyperbole. VMTALR 10:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to add, I did consider reporting this as vandalism, but I think it's more appropriate as a 3RR violation, grateful for an admin view as it's becoming very frustrating trying to get any improvement in the article and it's easy to be too close to the issue.ALR 10:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am reverting unverifiable edits that ALR is making also his blanking vandalism. 3RR does not mean that a user can continue to add information that is false, or remove information that is relevant in an attempt to get the article deleted due to lack of information. I suggest instead of giving out 3rr blocks that the page be locked untill we get a mediator approved. 3rr is not intended to solve content disputes in this case ALR wants me blocked so his version of the article can stand. Seraphim 21:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • From WP:CITE "Disputed edits can be removed immediately, removed and placed on the talk page for discussion, or where the edit is harmless but you dispute it and feel a citation is appropriate, you can place [citation needed] after the relevant passage. " the reverts are of disputed edits (which you are allowed to do under WP:CITE especially on contravercial pages) and we are discussing them on the talk page, it is not a 3rr issue. Seraphim 22:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Disputed edits can indeed be removed; but all such editing is subject to 3RR, which you've broken; blocked 8h as an apparent first offence William M. Connolley 23:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:213.249.58.34

    Three revert rule violation on Edward Said (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 213.249.58.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Pecher Talk 15:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    If so, why is there nothing on the talk page? No warning on his talk page? William M. Connolley 22:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I warned him to stop disrupting on his talk page. Pecher Talk 07:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The user continues reverting 15:34, February 27, 2006, 08:09, February 28, 2006 Pecher Talk 10:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like this person has registered as Solal (talk · contribs) and keeps reverting 11:24, February 28, 2006 Pecher Talk 12:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Terryeo

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

    Reported by: ChrisO 18:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    User:Farhansher

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

    Reported by: Pecher Talk 20:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    I'm rather reluctant to block, because I see no warning on his talk page and no attempt by you (or him) to discuss your reverts on the article talk page. William M. Connolley 22:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    I have warned him on his talk page because he continues reverting. As you can see, I actively edit Talk:Dhimmi, which cannot be said of Farhansher. Pecher Talk 07:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppets of blocked User:80.90.38.214

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

    • All three accounts exist only to edit this article.
      • 80.90.38.214 blocked for "gross 3RR violation", this article 22:11, 26 February 2006
      • Rose-mary admits to being 80.90.38.214: [23]
      • 80.90.38.185 admits to being 80.90.38.214: [24]



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

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

    Back today as 80.90.37.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), as you've probably seen on your own talkpage. Lukas (T.|@) 20:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

    Reported by: Lukas (T.|@) 14:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC) and 16:10[reply]

    [User:CBDunkerson]

    Three revert rule violation on Middle-earth canon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), The Silmarillion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Middle-earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).:

    For the Middle-earth article

    For the Middle-earth canon article

    For The Silmarillion article

    CBDunkerson has been editing Tolkien and Middle-earth articles to insert his specific point of view. When I have corrected the misinformation, he has reverted the edits claiming I am inserting POV. He provides partial citations taken out of context and ad nauseum posts with the full knowledge that only someone with access to all the source books can see that he is being intentionally misleading and deceptive.

    Reported by: Michael Martinez 02:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no violation here. User warned about revert warring, but no block issued. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Michael Martinez

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

    Reported by: TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • Content dispute; user consistently characterizes alternate article version as "vandalism". Note that in above report by user against User:CBDunkerson, the first revert was several days ago.

    Mr. Dunkerson inserted his point-of-view violations into the content several months ago. When the errors of fact and misinformation were corrected, he began reverting the corrections. Michael Martinez 02:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    In subsequent comments posted to [Talk:Middle-earth TCC admits to bias in this matter.Michael Martinez 02:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sethmahoney

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

    Reported by: Lou franklin 05:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not a "bad-faith report". I was blocked for making four modifications. How many do you see listed above? Lou franklin 05:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:69.160.17.133

    Three revert rule violation on Jaffa orange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.160.17.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    against those who do not support his views. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 3RR abakharev 06:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, but the anon keeps reverting, now under IP 69.160.17.127 (talk · contribs): [32] ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked 69.160.17.127 and sprotected the article. Gamaliel 09:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Locke Cole

    Three revert rule violation on Template:Infobox Software. Locke_Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Netoholic @ 07:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • Locke Cole repeatedly re-inserts his preferred "Usage" section and the usage of the "qif" meta-template. He's been warring on this template for days, and is very clever at hiding these edits. This amounts to more than 3 reverts today for various reasons. His edit summaries say "rvv", but clearly my edits are not vandalism... just not to his liking. -- Netoholic @ 07:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note that the provided diffs don't show a 3RR violation but instead working with two different editors (see Template talk:Infobox Software). My work with CyberSkull I believe is working out and I hope we've reached a compromise. On the other hand, Netoholic is stalking me, and has been for the past month and a half; he constantly starts revert wars over WP:AUM, which is no longer policy and has been rejected by the community. I've reported his stalking habits on WP:AN/I in the past, and will probably do so again here as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I pointed out at least four reverts here - and you are certainly not cooperatively editing... just look at the history. I'm certainly not stalking, since I have been editing that template for a long time. Your recent flurry of activity popped it up on my watchlist, and I object to your changes, just as Cyberskull has. -- Netoholic @ 08:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're objecting to different things. You want {{qif}} out of the page, I note that it seemed CyberSkull was trying to use {{qif}}, and I fixed it up so it worked. He hasn't reverted me since (and hasn't had time to comment yet to my talk page comment since I finished editing it). You, on the other hand, were disruptive in your reverts. I was in the middle of trying to make it work better for our accessible readers and you kept reverting me while I was working (breaking phpBB, which I was modifying to use the new changes). —Locke Cole • t • c 08:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • So wait... are you excusing your 3RR violation on the basis that they were reverts for different reasons? I invite the admins to take a look at the history and see these actions for what they are... a hostile takeover of this template during the last couple of days and a 3RR violation today in particular. -- Netoholic @ 08:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yeah, basically I am. I hope the admin looking into this uses reasonable judgement and sees your actions for what they are: an attempt at baiting me into a 3RR violation over something that's no longer policy (and for accessibility reasons, isn't even recommended)! Also, regarding CyberSkull, you can see with this edit, that he was trying to use {{qif}}. The very next edit he reverted himself. I fixed up the template so it uses {{qif}} throughout (no thanks to your repeated disruptive edits while I was working). —Locke Cole • t • c 08:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, Locke Cole blocked for 15 hours. And Neto—It looks very provacative to revert Locke the way you did here. No cookies tonight, and please try to settle this thing, for the sake of your own (and Locke's, and mine's, and everyone's) sanity. Thank you.--Sean Black (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find the following: [33], [34], and the others I do not see as reverts. Can someone help me out e.g. this doesn't look like a revert so much as a new version and this is a self-revert, which is specifically excluded from WP:3RR. Now I'm not demanding pure reverts, and am happy with "largely reversing the changes by anohter user" or whatever the phrasing is today, but the links posted above are not really good enough for me without some explanation. -Splashtalk 09:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speaking as a previously uninvolved party that just noticed this during my research preparing WP:ARBREQ Netoholic3, please note that Netoholic incorrectly characterized Locke Cole's first edit, and that the subsequent reverts were in response to 3 Netaholic reverts (all clearly reverts by history, but only 1 with the word "revert" in the edit summary).
        1. (WP:AUM), a revert past 6 edits by both Locke Cole and CyberSkull.
        2. (Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful)
        3. (revert)
      • According to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2#Namespace and revert restriction: "2.1) Netoholic is banned from editing in the Wikipedia and template namespaces for twelve months, and restricted to one revert per page per day. This remedy is suspended while the mentorship in remedy 3 is in effect, and may be cancelled if the mentors consider the mentorship has been successful. The twelve months is counted from the date of the arbitration committee decision. Passed 5 to 0 at 22:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)"
      • "As the mentorship has now failed, remedy 2.1 is now in force. sannse (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)"
      • Therefore, all the reverts by Netoholic were in violation of his latest ArbComm decision. Locke Cole may not have known it, but s/he was enforcing an ArbComm decision.
      • Instead, it was/is Netoholic that should be blocked.
      --William Allen Simpson 10:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Not judging LC, but N has clearly broken his arbcomm judgement so I've blocked him for 48h William M. Connolley 16:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am very unimpressed that Netoholic has been editing in this fashion. There is no excuse for editing in this way without so much as a pretence at discussion. In addition, Locke Cole's "rvv" edit summaries are also extremely unacceptable. Whatever he may think, this is not vandalism, even if it is wrong (which I'm not saying it is). Both sides were being disruptive. Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the future I'll use this edit summary, I hope it's acceptable–
        rvt - user is banned from template and wikipedia namespace
      • But my patience with him is at an end. You'll have to forgive me for not playing nice and putting a more meaningful edit summary (but IMO, he was the one being disruptive; if not for violating his ArbCom ban, then for interrupting me while I was working repeatedly and breaking pages that used that template in the process). BTW: If you want to continue discussing my actions, Netoholic, or anything else (or at least regarding my thoughts on them), feel free to leave a note on my talk page. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Metaphysicist

    Three revert rule violation on Trinity College, Dublin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Metaphysicist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Demiurge 16:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Blocked 8h as first offence William M. Connolley 16:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Waya sahoni

    Three revert rule violation on Linux kernel mailing list (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Waya_sahoni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: MJ(☎|@|C) 16:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    User:Waya sahoni is an obvious (at least to me) sockpuppet of Gadugi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), aka Jeffrey Vernon Merkey.
    As usual, Jeff wants his Peyote posts taken out of his main article, and his current plan is to move the whole affair to the LKML article. As there is a consensus among the regular editors that the writings about Jeff and his LKML posts belong in the biography, not in the LKML article, these edits have been reverted, with User:Waya sahoni reverting such edits back again.
    Unfortunately, this time around there is also a sockpuppet-baiting account (User:Why you so hawny?) involved, whose only raison-detre appears to be to revert any edits User:Waya sahoni makes and to bait Jeff. The above revert war was conducted mostly with that baiting user, although other editors were involved as well.
    User:Waya sahoni has been warned repeatedly that he is permanently blocked from editing WP and as such is evading that block. Until an admin re-blocks User:Waya sahoni permanently however, he should at least be blocked for violating the 3RR rule.

    Could you clarify (with diffs) the warnings about permablock; and on whose authority this is? Also, why are there no 3RR warnings on WS's talk page? William M. Connolley 17:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I wasn't online at the time of the reverts (I reside in Europe), so I was not in a position to place 3RR warnings on the talk page. See the Gadugi blocklog for info on the permablock; User:Fvw installed it. The permablock was set after earlier attempts by (among others) Jimbo Wales to control harrasment and legal threats for shorter periods (up to a year). After initiating a Request for Arbitration against User:Fvw the arbcom decided he was to remain blocked until all legal disputes had been resolved; I need to search the arbcom history about that case as Google and WP don't seem to find it... --MJ(☎|@|C) 19:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    OK, I found the G stuff, but not any reason to identify Ws with G William M. Connolley 20:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    Evidence will take some time to accumulate, and if this is becoming a sockpuppet incidence report, perhaps we should take this to the appropriate noticeboard? --MJ(☎|@|C) 22:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    Also, the 3RR discussion is now moot, as User:Guanaco has already instituted a 24hr block for 3RR. --MJ(☎|@|C) 22:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    You're right: Guanaco blocked "Waya sahoni (contribs)" with an expiry time of 05:21 29 February 2006 (3RR violation on Linux kernel mailing list) 9actually the block log is a bit wierd [36] since there are two, one for negative time...). Sockpuppets: try requ for checkuser; see link at top of page William M. Connolley 22:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    User:Fashion1

    Three revert rule violation on Lindsey German (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Fashion1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: JK the unwise 17:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • User fausely marks edits as "rev vandalism"
    • User refuses to engage in any discusion on the talk page and has deleted any attempts that have been made to communicate on their talk page[37].
    Blocked for 24 hours. Talk page was blanked; read history and left note about blanking warnings as well. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Irakliy81 2

    Three revert rule violation on List of sovereign states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Irakliy81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Latinus 18:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Blocked again :-( William M. Connolley 20:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JJay

    Not sure how strict you are on this, JJay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be trying their luck with a total of 3 reverts to Brighton Road, 3 reverts to Longest streets in London, and serial signature interference on Talk:Brighton Road. I am suspicious that the only reason they are not going any further is to avoid tipping over 3 on either page. As evident from Talk:Brighton Road, JJay seems uninterested in dialogue, preferring to make veiled attacks, so I figure that any resolution process which calls for dialogue will likely be ineffective. 18:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

    I would point out that this anon, User:82.15.28.195 who refuses to sign his comments has repeatedly started edit wars on the Longest streets in London page. User:82.15.28.195 violated 3R on that page today:

    He also violated 3R on Brighton Road by redirecting 4 times today:

    He has placed bogus vandalism warnings on my talk page [38], left uncivil edit summaries, been reverted by other editors besides me and seems mostly interested in starting edit wars. -- JJay 06:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:69.145.215.206

    Three revert rule violation on Big Spring, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.145.215.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [19:19, February 28, 2006]
    • 1st revert: 19:28
    • 2nd revert: 19:33
    • 3rd revert: 19:40
    • 4th revert: 19:46
    • 5th revert: 19:52

    Reported by: pschemp | talk 20:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    This is the same person as perma-blocked User:Happyjoe; its broken 3RR; so I've perma-blocked the IP William M. Connolley 20:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    ARIN returns direct allocation. Nevertheless, you might want to consider shortening the block in case the IP is reassigned in the future. Jkelly 20:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah... OK. Feel free to change it yourself, or I will, but I'm unsure what would be considered appropriate. William M. Connolley 21:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Demiurge

    Three revert rule violation on Trinity College, Dublin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Demiurge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: MartinRe 20:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • This was four reverts in slightly over 24 hours (+8 mins), which appears to be against 3RR in intent, as editor in question admitted he was very careful not to breach it[39]
    • This the other side of the revert war, for which User:Metaphysicist got blocked for 3RR recently, I did ask the admin in question whether or not both sides had been treated equally[40], but he appears to have left for the day.
    • While I agree with Demiurge with the removal of the paragraph in question, I do not think a revert war is the correct way to do so, especially if that involves trying to game the system by waiting a few minutes after 24 hours before reverting again.

    Nope, I'm back :-) But I take a fairly strict view of the rule: 24 plus a bit isn't great wiki'ing but it doesn't fall foul of 3RR as far as I'm concerned - and I said that on my RFA [41] William M. Connolley 20:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Joy Crawford

    Three revert rule violation on William A. Dembski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Joy Crawford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: FeloniousMonk 23:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Blocked for 24. 7RR, and continuing after being warned, is excessive to say the least. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aucaman

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

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

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


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

    User:Chadbryant

    California State Route 15 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chadbryant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): [42] --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

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

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

    User:Rms125a@hotmail.com

    I'm just making a note here that I've blocked Rms125a for a 3RR violation at List of Catholic American Actors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Comment

    The issue is the repeated addition by Rms of Emily and Haley Joel Osment. He was warned by another editor just after the 5th revert, but continued to revert at 07:02 March 1, so I blocked him for the violation. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Leyasu

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


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

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

    In the case of this, Gothic Hero is a sock puppet of the user New Rock Star, who has been editing articles and inserting Uncited Original Research into articles. An editoroial consensus has been reached on certain content on articles such as Gothic Metal, which the user completely dismissed and violated. The user has also been removing Merger Templates for mergers that are being discussed. The user first almost violated 3RR on the Classic Metal article with the name New Rock Star [43], [44], [45], and then went on to violate the 3RR openly, marking his reverts as minor and making Personal Attacks in the edit summaries [46], [47], [48], [49].
    I had warned the user of this behaviour however on their talk page (visable here), which was completely ignored.
    Its also intresting to note how the user proclaims they are new to Wikipedia, yet also already know all of Wikipedia's customs, and how the account was created today and has only been used for reverting articles in which New Rock Star has tried to push their POV onto despite editorial consensus [50].
    As such i admit to violating 3RR by one revert. But however, as has been demonstrated, this has been a ploy by one user using a sock puppet to set me up to be banned for 3RR, and i ask for this banning to be overturned due to this sock puppet use, unless both New Rock Star and his sock puppet Gothic Hero are banned as well. Tbank yew. Ley Shade 14:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (Edit) In regards to the comment about Oxymorons, i made this comment to New Rock Star in a edit summary before the Gothic Hero user existed [51]. In this case i also linked to Oxymoron so that the user could see for themselfs that this wasnt a personal attack, as the word moron is often used in a degrading manner, where as Oxtmoron is a statement that contradicts itself.
    Also my Arbcom case has been going for over a month and involves more users than just myself, and was originally started against another user before being weighed in as action being taken against both of us. This case has currently not seen any action for weeks however, and due to an overwhelming amount of evidence in my favour not just from myself, but other users, i fail to find this as a reason to accuse me of 3RR violations, when the user has deliberatly user New Rock Star has deliberatly used a Sock Puppet to provoke me into violating 3RR. Ley Shade 14:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    User:Leyasu has again vandalised the Classic metal page. He deleted two sub-sections apart from putting "classical metal" instead of "classic metal" in a few sentences. I had to revert it. Please someone block this user as he is directly violating Wikipedia rules. The link of the version he vandalised - [[52]].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In regards to User:marnues being a sock puppet of mine, i authored a check user comment to see, [53]. Ley Shade 17:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Appropiate

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

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

    Comments:

    • See the edit summary of the previous version reverted to: "I've made account after my improvemments deleted by gorm "Funky Monkey" I HAVE BACKUPS SO I WILL ONLY RESTORE". This refers to Funky Monkey's earlier removal [54] of the same material added by 81.106.165.39. Appropiate and 81.106.165.39 are clearly the same person, and it's hard to believe that the other two IPs are not him as well. See also Talk:HIStory where Appropiate describes his opinion as "fact". android79 14:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoops. Looks like I technically violated the rule myself. In my defense, I was reverting obviously POV material, and forgot about my first revert, which I labeled as fixing grammar. I'll voluntarily cease editing for three hours and stay away from Michael Jackson-related articles for the rest of the day. android79 14:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Al-Khwarizmi article

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

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

    User:Yahya01

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

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

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

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

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

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

    User:88.152.202.122

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

    Reported by: Andrwsc 22:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • User will not abide by consensus reached at Wikipedia talk:Olympic conventions with respect to medal table formats
    • Some edits could be considered vandalism (in addition to content dispute) as the USSR/Unified Team/Russia medal total is sometimes edited as 37, clearly wrong.
    • The edit made by User:88.154.218.148 at 13:47, 25 February 2006 [55] started this whole mess. It was first cleaned up at 20:07, 26 February 2006 by User:Jizz [56]
    • I attempted to appeal to this user via the talk page, and by adding additional content to the main page, but the user persists in changing the table format, against agreed upon conventions.

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

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

    User:201.235.45.28

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

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

    Comments:

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

    User:Chadbryant

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

    Report new violation

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


    ===[[User:USERNAME]]===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|ARTICLENAME}}. {{3RRV|USERNAME}}:

* Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
* 1st revert: [DiffLink Time]
* 2nd revert: [DiffLink Time]
* 3rd revert: [DiffLink Time]
* 4th revert: [DiffLink Time]

Reported by: ~~~~

'''Comments:'''
*
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=41845820"