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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:44, 9 June 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.

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356
357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366
Incidents (archives, search)
1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161
1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479
480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332
333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341	342
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Violations

User:Zer0faults reported by User:Mr. Tibbs (result: stale)

Previous version reverted to: 13:07, 28 May 2006
1st revert: 20:21, 28 May 2006
2nd revert: 15:08, 29 May 2006
3rd revert: 15:14, 29 May 2006
4th revert: 15:20, 29 May 2006 -- Reverting all the way back to Zer0fault's previous version of article here: 17:44, 26 May 2006
5th revert: 15:33, 29 May 2006
6th revert: 16:13, 29 May 2006
7th revert: 21:24, 29 May 2006 -- Reverting back to Zer0fault's previous version of article here: 21:20, 29 May 2006

Reported by: Mr. Tibbs 21:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Not sure if reverting to different prior versions all count towards one 3RR or not. -- Mr. Tibbs 21:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of these are reverts if you view them you will see that sometimes only the 2nd paragraph was changed. Mr. Tibbs has constantly reverted my work wholesale. He did this again today after me and Anoranza came to a concensus on what should be in the overview. He then removed the work me and that user did and the concensus we came to. He also didn't even post anything on talk and just reverted again without stating a why. He calls it "cleaning up the intro" when he removes all mention of anything but WMD's from the Iraq War intro. He even goes onto use this for a summary "Revert to last version by Mr. Tibbs. Its not a consensus just because Zero says it is. See poll." The poll in question is one User:CBDunkerson informed him was not addressing the concerns of those opposing his edits. He asked for User:CBDunkerson view after the mediation cabal I requested went against his view here The person who took no the mediation went on to comment on the page that Mr. Tibbs should not exclude any reason but WMD's. He asked CBDunkerson and he said the same. He went on to ask User:Nescio to comment he also supported the same. Some of those edits are me and Anoranza trying to find a middleground and Mr. Tibbs is attempting to use them against me, however Anoranza did not complain cause in the end the version we agreed on was pleasing to both of us. Mr. Tibbs has stated on numerous times he has ceased assuming good faith, has told me I attempting a filibuster when told his survey did not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Straw Polls. If you see the talk page he has refused any middleground I have offered almost as if he has sole domain of the article. You can even view 3 offers on the mediation page alone that were all refused wholesale. Mr. Tibbs indiscriminate reverts of my work and Anoranza's and User:Wombdpsw is horrible. I ask this article receive admin attention as User:CBDunkerson has stepped back as its a heated topic. I simply want more then WMD's mentioned in the overview as permitted by NPOV:Undue Weight, and I feel someone should look at Mr. Tibbs reverts as he doesn't even offer explanations, when asked. He has left snide remarks on summaries including "No one needs to pander to a filibuster.", on the Template: War on Terrorism page here He has even gone on to advocate other revert my work instead of just editing such as here User_talk:Añoranza#About_Iraq_War. This is obviously a bad faith notice as he has tried before and we both got blocked. --Zer0faults 22:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these aren't even reverts, they are me editing me, as in the case of "Revert #6" and "Revert #5" as the user being shown in #5 did not make the edits its showing I changed, I previously made them. #4 is the original expansion of the 2nd paragraph from Anoranza's which was lacking in facts. Even revert #1 is wrong as its me removing a paragraph that is entirely mentioned below in its exact contents in section "War Rationale" This is obviously a bad faith effort as Mr. Tibbs has not even attempted to review the evidence he brings, simply tagged all my edits as reverts and hoped the High number 7RR would be sufficient enough. I once again ask for an admins assistance in the Iraq War article as I am afraid Mr. Tibbs is attempting to insert Undue Weight. --Zer0faults 22:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - noone got to this in time; its now stale; no decision William M. Connolley 08:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Miskin

Previous version reverted to: 28 May 20:10
1st revert: 23:25, 29 May 2006
2nd revert: 23:29
3rd revert: 23:35
4th revert: 23:42

Nationalist revert warrior; four reverts in 17 minutes is enough. Reported by:Septentrionalis 23:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny - see only three reverts. This is not a revert, it's a first time edit. You also have three reverts, so you're just as bad as him. I'd also like to ask some admins to comment on Septentrionalis's personal attacks (the one just above) and this. --Telex 23:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Blanking of sourced material is vandalism. Septentrionalis 23:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not sourced. You're taking the original and fitting it into your WP:OR interpretation of it. --Telex 00:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not my interpretation; insofar as it is not a retelling of Herodotus, most of it comes from Sakellariou, as I stated. [1] Septentrionalis 15:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Despite what he says, there are only 2 reverts, a rewrite and some minor edits. Pmanderson on the other hand has 3 reverts and a clear personal attack [2]. I'm not going to discuss the content dispute here, it's clearly not the right place. Miskin 00:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If admins are going to take into account a description of vandalism as vandalism, they should also take account of Miskin's personal threats [3] and trolling [4]. Septentrionalis 15:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, take it elsewhere. Sept, you're wrong about: 3RR, your PA's, and Miskin's "threats", plus your "trolling" quote is quite funny. Get yourself together and let's discuss this where appropriate. This happenning here is trolling and borders WP:POINT as well. Consider this a warning. Indeed, extreme measures can apply to such behavior, as described in WP policies and guidelines... NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:DreamGuy reported by User:Centauri

Previous version reverted to: 04:45, 30 May 2006
1st revert: 10:04, 30 May 2006
2nd revert: 11:53, 30 May 2006
3rd revert: 12:00, 30 May 2006
4th revert: 12:15, 30 May 2006

Reported by: Centauri 12:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Consistently aggressive deletion of random article content by DreamGuy, without reference to talk page discussion, and accompanied by misleading edit summaries that also refer to other editors in strongly abusive terms.

I self-reverted my own last edit, so not a real 3RR violation, per the policy. I should also note that User:Centauri's claims of misleading edit summaries are false, as I explained my edits accurately. In fact, this editor is making abusive ridiculous threats against me at the moment, pulling policies out of a hat at random he claims I have violated (you know, the typical, vandalism, blah blah blah). From his edit comments and posts on my talk page, it's clear he's not really trying to give friendly warnings about policies he understands and follows, but is instead hoping to toss out accusations in an attempt to bully me. I have warned him to not post on my talk page any more, but he continues to harass me there. A block might be in order if he keeps this up. DreamGuy 13:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have posted a comment and 3RR warning on the talk page of User:Centauri, who is probably not aware that he has himself reverted DreamGuy's talkpage 5 times in a few hours (when he adds new "warnings", he usually restores all the old ones, making these edits reverts). Now that I have explained this to him, I reckon he ought to be blocked iff he should continue his reposting pattern. Also, Centauri, instead of posting a storm of policy links to an experienced user (which is itself incivil), you had much better follow the common sense principle of walking away, when it has been clearly demonstrated that your messages on a user talk page aren't wanted there. After all, as Theresa Knott said once, DreamGuy removing the messages shows that he has read them; what more do you want? Bishonen | talk 14:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

User:Ed Poor reported by User:ScienceApologist

Previous version reverted to: a number of different versions he wrote over the day.
1st revert: 07:52
2nd revert: 07:58
3rd revert: 08:52
4th revert: 09:24
5th revert: 09:32

Reported by: ScienceApologist 16:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: User:Ed Poor seems to be back to his tendentious editting ways and is effectively reverting all editors who stand in his way. Ed is engaging in what the WP:3RR page describes as "making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. "Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time; this is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR." When warned about this, the user responded on his talkpage admitting to breaking 3RR.

User:71.109.235.81 reported by User:Ohnoitsjamie

Previous version reverted to: 08:02, 30 May 2006
1st revert: 08:02, 30 May 2006
2nd revert: 08:18, 30 May 2006
3rd revert: 08:30, 30 May 2006
4th revert: 20:36, 30 May 2006

Reported by: OhNoitsJamie^Talk 20:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: As evidenced on the talk page of this article, this particular edit has been an ongoing issue, and does not represent the consensus. I'd previously placed a 3RR warning on the article's talk page. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 20:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:8bitJake reported by User:FRCP11 (second report) (result - 24hr block)

Previous version reverted to: 20:16 May 30
1st revert: 20:24 May 30
2nd revert: 21:45
3rd revert: 22:07
4th revert: 22:29
5th revert: 22:47 May 30
6th revert: 23:13 May 30

Comment: User refusing to compromise on talk page, despite multiple people from RFC disagreeing with him. Insists on deleting verifiable notable text, despite its being restored by four different editors.

Reported by: FRCP11 22:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC), updated 05:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin reply: The edits appear to have died down so I have placed a warning on User_talk:8bitJake. Kcordina ^Talk 10:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem continues, notwithstanding the warning. -- FRCP11 16:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7th revert: 15:16 May 31
8th revert: 15:32 May 31

Admin reply: User now blocked. Kcordina ^Talk 19:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem with the same article and same reverts resumed immediately upon 8bitJake's return. See two reports below. -- FRCP11 21:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rtvl73 reported by User:Zerida Result: 12 hours

Previous version reverted to: 12:02, 30 May 2006
1st revert: 12:29, 30 May 2006
2nd revert: 12:48, 30 May 2006
3rd revert: 15:48, 30 May 2006
4th revert: 16:25, 30 May 2006

Reported by: — [ziʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 23:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:Rtvl73 keeps removing content from the article with no explanation or discussion despite being asked not to [5]. User was previously reverted by two other users [6] [7]. I made User:Rtvl73 aware of 3RR on talk page [8] but user reverted for the fourth time anyway. — [ziʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 23:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 12 hours. I would greatly appreciate if another admin could please check that I did this properly as this is my first time dealing with a 3RR from the admin noticeboard. If you've double-checked my work, please just leave a quick comment here. --Yamla 02:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is 12 hours perhaps too much for a first 3RR block? --Yamla 02:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:209.135.115.121 aka User:Ndru01 aka User:Moonlight serenade reported by User:Hillman (result: 24h)

See:

first revert 13:30, 30 May 2006
second revert 14:57, 30 May 2006
third revert 15:26, 30 May 2006 (several edits)
fourth revert 16:00, 30 May 2006
fifth revert 16:22, 30 May 2006 (two edits)
sixth revert 17:49, 30 May 2006 (three edits)
seventh revert 17:56, 30 May 2006

Reported by: CH 01:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

This is not even a complete list; several reversions by this user are not listed. See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ndru01 (2nd) ---CH 01:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Ndru01 (talk · contribs) has previously been previously blocked for violating WP:3RR in Morphic field. Another suspected sock, 64.187.60.98 (talk · contribs) has also been previouslyblocked for violating WP:3RR in Gnostic infomysticism. ---CH 02:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24h William M. Connolley 21:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is back at it again today as 209.135.115.121 (talk · contribs) and 209.135.108.75 (talk · contribs). This user seems to have a well documented history of violations of WP:SOCK, WP:3RR and generally disruptive editing. Can some kind admin please look into this and help me take appropriate action? TIA ---CH 06:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1st revert 02:47, 31 May 2006
2nd revert 17:08, 31 May 2006

User:Tenebrae

Previous version reverted to: 04:01, May 30, 2006
1st revert: 04:14, May 30, 2006
2nd revert: 04:27, May 30, 2006
3rd revert: 04:37, May 30, 2006
4th revert: 08:02, May 30, 2006
5th revert: 11:58, May 30, 2006
6th revert: 13:15, May 30, 2006
7th revert: 20:27, May 30, 2006
8th revert: 20:37, May 30, 2006

Reported by: Facto 06:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User keeps inflating movie article with biased and inflammatory movie reviews and also inflates the cast list with minor characters and actors. Facto 06:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not see the diffs you provided as clearcut RVs, at least not all of them. They look like regular edits. Please try to resolve content issues at talk page. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Giovanni33 reported by User:Timothy Usher (Result: 3hr)

Previous version reverted to: 02:53, 31 May 2006
1st revert: 06:28, 31 May 2006
2nd revert: 07:27, 31 May 2006
3rd revert: 07:32, 31 May 2006
4th revert: 07:35, 31 May 2006

Reported by: Timothy Usher 08:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Besides the talk page shenanigans, this user has been edit-warring on the article, after posting an RfC[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy] and having all but one responding editors disagree with the unencyclopedic links he's been appending thereto. He has also supported his own edits and comments under the username User:Kecik. User has already been blocked several times for WP:3RR violations and puppetry.Timothy Usher 08:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: First of all this is not the article mainspace. The 3RR rule does not apply here. This is a dipute about the title of a heading in the talk page. I only corrected it to reflect the issue of consensus and the fautly math that it reported. The 3RR rule does not apply for correcting formatting issues and accuracy on talk pages as far as I am aware. Also, note that one of these I self-reverted when I realized he actually wrote somthing as opposed to simply restoring the incorrect math: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGod&diff=56088897&oldid=56088816 Timothy's other comments are not true. Kecik has not been blocked many times. He is a good user and he is not my socketpuppet as a user check has already been done which confirmed no connection. So, no block "for puppetry" has ever been issued. Timothy is simply not telling the truth. Also, Timothy has persisted in being uncivil and making personal attacks against myself and this user, besides edit warring. The links I added are valid links for the external link section and topical.Giovanni33 08:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 7:2 count was, and remains, accurate.

“...Timothy is guilty by the same logic of the 3RR violation for reverting 5 times over this issue.” - diffs?Timothy Usher 08:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I look at at it and I may be wrong on this account so I removed that claim. But everything else stands. Your math was wrong. I counted 6 vs 4 so the ratio is 3:2, not 7:2.Giovanni33 08:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni33, please stop altering prior comments, whether other editors', or your own after other editors have respondended thereto.Timothy Usher 08:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Blocked for 3 hours because it is a Talk page. However, the Three revert rule says "undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part". If I may suggest, you folks could post your versions at Talk and try to convince others without altering posts by other editors. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When Timothy says that User has already been blocked several times for 3RR and puppetry, he is presumably not referring to Kecik, but to Giovanni, who was proved by checkuser to be using the account BelindaGong for extra reverts, extra votes, and extra support for his version. His block was extended when he accidentally signed a post while forgetting that he was logged on as Freethinker99,[9] who had joined, had said he was new but agreed with Giovanni, and had then reverted to Giovanni's version while Giovanni was blocked for his BelindaGong puppetry. Through some oversight, the BelindaGong and Freethinker99 accounts were only given temporary blocks, although the standard practice is to block indefinitely in the case of established puppetry. So Timothy is telling the truth. As for Kecik, he has, from the start, behaved as a puppet whose only purpose at Wikipedia was to provide extra support and extra reverts for Giovanni. His seventh edit (one day after registering) was a vote for something Giovanni wanted, at a page he was unlikely to have found by chance.[10] He was at Wikipedia for nearly four months before he touched an article where Giovanni wasn't looking for support. He currently has 42 article edits, 37 of which are reverts to Giovanni's version. Checkuser can only establish that it's not the same IP; it can't establish that there's no connection between the users. There is extremely strong linguistic evidence linking Giovanni to eight accounts which have supported him. AnnH ♫ 11:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As expected AnnH and Timothy tag-team with the personal attacks against me with their continued false allegations my alleged socket-puppets. I just take it as a sign of the weakness of their stance that they have to resort to bringing up this issue over and over no matter how old it gets or how irrelevant it is to a given issue. But, notice how AnnH can interpret what Timothy actually said so to conclude that he Timothy is telling the truth when he is not. He states things as a fact that are only negative bad-faith speculation, which I know is not true. Belinda, as I explained is my wife, and so that is why a user checked showed a connection. Since she is different person which I offered to prove many time (her name even is Belinda Gong), this makes her not a socketpuppet. I note that no one has taken me up on my questions about ohw to prove what Im saying is true. I think they know she is not a socketpuppet but prefer not to have this shown so the attacks can continue. This is assuming bad faith. Also, with my friend Freethinker, AnnH continues her deliberate distortion of known facts, even after I corrected her on numerous occasions, each time with a new twist. Notice her bad faith assumptions which don't make sense. She says I forgot I was using Freethiner's account and forgot to sign in with my own account while I was blocked. That is nonsense. I was at my friend's house to introduced him to Wikipedia and he was trying to resolve the dispute on the talk page of Christianity, and did NOT simply revert to my version. Like Belinda, Freethiner is a different person, and I only used his account to respond to a question on my own talk page. When I was questioned about any connection to Freethinker, I had nothing to hide and admitted it openly. Why would I do that if it was a socketpuppet? Why would I edit on my own talk page as myself if i were using his accounts after a userchecked was done showing a connection with me and my wife (only one). This is why it would make no sense to think he is my own socketpuppet, while I use his account to answering on my own page-- even if I logged-out of his account, and signed into my own. Its not logical. AnnH also leaves out some pertinent information. For example, the fact that Kecik and MikaM (and anyone else who supported my POV on the Christinaity page, including Sophia), were all user checked at the same time. The results? Only BelindaGong showed a connection to me. Ofcourse, BelindaGong is a separate person who lives with me. And while I never denied any connection to her (no one asked), it's true I did not want it to be known for various reasons, and I pretended to not know her in my interactions. However, even though I tried to hide a connection, the user checked exposed it. It did not expose MikaM or Kecik. Why? They were all checked at the same time. One would logically expect that if they were my puppets they would have also been discovered along with Belinda, who I did not want it known I was connected to in some way. Since my desire to have this connection hidden failed, then so would any others who were checked at the same time. Why would I use different methods at the same time? The edits occur both both users and myself not only at different times and at the same time that I edit, proving its not me going to different locations was argued. Lastly, with these editors, while I do agree support my POV, this is not proof they are not separate people, or have any connection to me in real life. Infact, I have discovered we do not always agree, either, and we do not edit all the same articles, nor to they come to my assistence at times you'd think I want to use them if I were the puppet master. In anycase, I have never had any socketpuppets, and for Timothy and AnnH to keep making this charge on talk pages, on noticeboard, and anywhere I post, stating their belief as it it were an established fact is both wrong and disruptive, esp. suspect given their POV conflicts with me, although I have to assume good faith. Laslty, I note that AnnH brings up the issue of a perm block for these users when they already left Wikipedia on their own accord about half a year ago, after the uncivil and insulting treatment they recieved at her hands, calling Freethinker a "meatpuppet" and blocking him without any warning. And, Belinda, I still can't convince to come back until she is able to prove herself as a real, distinct individual, who AnnH denied is even possible (despite my wiling to fax ID's. etc). I guess that some people still think that women who are married are not allowed a separate existence apart from their husband's.Giovanni33 12:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kenaz9 reported by User:Cyberjunkie

Previous version reverted to: 10:26, 31 May 2006
1st revert: 16:11, 31 May 2006
2nd revert: 17:17, 31 May 2006
3rd revert: 17:27, 31 May 2006
4th revert: 17:49, 31 May 2006
5th revert: 18:04, 31 May 2006
6th revert: 18:28, 31 May 2006
7th revert: 18:38, 31 May 2006

Reported by: cj | talk 09:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Blocked both User:Kenaz9 and User:Adam Carr for excessive reverts, please use dispute resolution instead of edit warring. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 09:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:DreamGuy reported by User:Asatruer

Previous version reverted to: 23:42, 2006 May 28
1st revert: 02:04, 2006 May 30
2nd revert: 03:53, 2006 May 30
3rd revert: 04:00, 2006 May 30
4th revert: 22:52, 30 May 2006

Reported by: Asatruer 13:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: 4th revert of Oblivion reference included in a batch of NPOV corrections

Decline. First, please use diffs and not just revisions so we can see the revert. Second, removal of link once in all that copyediting doesn't constitute reverting. If he's reverting to a previous version there, I'm not seeing it. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 13:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the links. I corrected them to diffs. The edits are not exactly the same, but there is some consistancy in items in how they are changed and removed. For the 3RR the "reverts" do not have to be exact, do they? Asatruer 15:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, got it now, but the last edit seems to have been a while back. I'd suggest attempting some dispute resolution. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ed_Smith reported by Reported by: 64.12.117.12

1st revert: 14:34, 31 May 2006
2nd revert: 14:35, 31 May 2006
3rd revert: 14:35, 31 May 2006
4th revert: 14:36, 31 May 2006

Reported by: 64.12.117.12 14:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours; appears to be vandalism. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Greier reported by User:Khoikhoi

Previous version reverted to: 19:12, 28 May 2006
1st revert: 14:33, 31 May 2006
2nd revert: 14:41, 31 May 2006
3rd revert: 14:45, 31 May 2006
4th revert: 15:15, 31 May 2006

Reported by: —Khoikhoi 15:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Please check his block log. The last time he was blocked for 3RR was for 3 days, interestingly enough, it expired only half a day ago. —Khoikhoi 15:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Since this is the 8th unique block for the same disruption, I've upped to a month. If another admin feels that's a bit much, feel free to adjust. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should unblock him. He is innocent. --Preacher, or Princelet 15:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indef since checkuser suggests this is block evasion. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ahwaz reported by User:Bidabadi (result: no 3RR violation, no block)

Previous version reverted to: [11]
1st revert: 16:28, 31 May 2006
2nd revert: 16:36, 31 May 2006
3rd revert: 16:51, 31 May 2006

This is another malicious attempt to get me blocked. I have not broken 3RR in this article. There is no fourth revert.--الأهواز 17:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has repeatedly blanked content on this page without any discussion on the talk page: [12] and [13]. Now he has put up a POV tag on the article [14], but has not explained why on the talk page.--الأهواز 17:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:User:Ahwaz has been previously blocked for violating 3RR. Bidabadi 18:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed no fourth revert shown here. I have decided this user should not be blocked based on this report. I am taking no stand on any alleged vandalism, however. --Yamla 19:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ed Poor reported by User:Ashenai (result: no block)

Previous version reverted to: 14:30, 30 May 2006
1st revert: 14:52, 30 May 2006
2nd revert: 14:58, 30 May 2006

Version reverted to: 15:29, 30 May 2006
3rd revert: 15:52, 30 May 2006

Version reverted to: 16:20, 30 May 2006
4th revert: 16:24, 30 May 2006
5th revert: 16:32, 30 May 2006 (not an exact revert)

Reported by: Ashenai 19:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I have not included several reverts by Ed that could be understood to be vandalism reverts or minor reverts with community approval (restoring innocuous sections lost in the edit war). Ed was warned about 3RR, but accused us of "baiting" him. He then proceeded to continue the edit war today, and is on the edge of a second 3RR violation today. Please note that it is difficult to tell exactly which of his edits are reverts, as he tends to add modifications to his reverts, and reverts to various versions, not always the same one. The reverts listed should be sufficient to establish the fact of the 3RR violation, however. --Ashenai 19:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a nasty edit war, with many individuals (debatably) in violation of 3RR. The article has now been protected, and as blocking is a preventitive measure rather than a punitive one, I don't see a need to block for this offense. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Butchpenton reported by User:Ladlergo (result: 12h)

Previous version reverted to: 00:17, 31 May 2006
1st revert: 00:21, 31 May 2006
2nd revert: 14:59, 31 May 2006
3rd revert: 16:07, 31 May 2006
4th revert: 17:18, 31 May 2006
5th revert: 20:07, 31 May 2006
6th revert: 21:15, 31 May 2006

Reported by: Ladlergo 21:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Originally posted the following: 00:04 31 May 2006, but changed slightly. However, it was shortly after modified to the version that has been reverted to since then. Ladlergo 21:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User has knowlingly violated 3RR, even after receiving a warning. Ladlergo 21:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clear enough. 12h as first offence William M. Connolley 21:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:195.93.21.5 reported by User:Jhamez84 (result: no 3RR violation)

Previous version reverted to: [15]
1st revert: 00:43, 30 May 2006
2nd revert: 19:17, 31 May 2006
3rd revert: 20:58, 31 May 2006

Reported by: Jhamez84 21:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: A stubborn and unregistered user keeps making a minor edit so that this article says that the town of Royton is within the seperate and neighbouring town of Oldham - it is not, Royton is in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham (see the respective articles for verification). The motive of this kind of edit is unclear, but it just isn't factual and encyclopedic! I've tried to make this aware to them and also warned this user about the 3RR here. I believe a temporary block is appropriate here along with some kind of warning which should hopefully in turn halt this.... vandalism! Thank you, Jhamez84 21:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a 3RR violation. You only list three reverts (and that's all that has been done), not the four required for a violation. Additionally, the three reverts span 44 hours, thus are not confined within the 24 hours for a 3RR violation. --Yamla 21:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I misread the dates - I suspect however I will be providing a follow up here about this user(inclusive of a fourth revert within 24 hours) shortly... Thanks for the swift response however, Jhamez84 21:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ec5618 reported by User:PinchasC (result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: 02:54, 31 May 2006
1st revert: 03:06, 31 May 2006
2nd revert: 05:56, 31 May 2006
3rd revert: 13:25, 31 May 2006
4th revert: 18:00, 31 May 2006

Reported by: PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I am posting this to notify the community that I am blocking this user for 48 hours for this 3rr violation. This is this users 3rd 3rr violation. PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked reduced to 24 hours as this user's 2cd 3rr violation block appears to have been a mistake. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 10:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User seem to "own" this page to fit his political POV. there are actually more violations of 3RR not listed above. Is anyone blocking him cause he is not blocked despite the notice on his talk page Zeq 04:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks blocked to me William M. Connolley 08:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pantherarosa reported by User:Paul Cyr

User:Pantherarosa

Pantherarosa (talk · contribs):

Previous version reverted to: 03:48, 29 May 2006
1st revert: 20:08, 30 May 2006
2nd revert: 03:36, 31 May 2006
3rd revert: 15:37, 31 May 2006
4th revert: 17:20, 31 May 2006

Reported by: Paul Cyr 00:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User keeps removing sock puppeteer tag. Paul Cyr 00:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a little confused here as there are no accounts in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pantherarosa. I agree that he reverted in excess of three times, but I question if placing the tag on his userpage was perhaps, as he claims, baseless. At the same time, those tags should only be removed if they are in bad-faith. Let me go scan WP:ANI, as you said there was relevant discussion there, and see if I can get to the bottom of it. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, sorry for the confusion. The categories were recently renamed due to some consensus at some vote thing, the page is here: [16]. The blocked puppet was here: User:Abdulrahman Jaffer Al Zadjali. Although the blocking admin did not have enough evidence to publically accuse Pantherarosa, it is self evident. Basically, both accounts were created in the midst of my dispute with Pantherarosa which began attacking me, with Abdulrahman Jaffer Al Zadjali posting supportive messages on Pantherarosa's talk page. At the very least, there is enough evidence for Pantherarosa to be suspected of being a puppeteer. As for the discussion on AN/I, it was more a sub-discussion of a larger issue: [17]. Right now I've been trying to get some admin involvement given Pantherarosa's actions, but it wound up on AN/I because of conduct by the admin on WP:PAIN which I feel was inappropriate. In the mean time, Pantherarosa has been reverting the tags even after I refered him/her to the discussion on AN/I. Paul Cyr 02:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:Abdulrahman Jaffer Al Zadjali has been blocked as a sockpuppet, but the blocking admin stated he would not speculate to whom the sockpuppet belonged. Contact the admin who blocked the puppet and ask him to add the tags to User:Pantherarosa, or you can request a CheckUser; but until an admin or a CheckUser confirms him as a sockpuppet master, I'd say it best not to tag his account. Making a couple of edits as an IP does not really count as sockpuppetry, at least not in my mind. I'm not going to administer any blocks or place blame anywhere--please just leave his userpage alone for now until you have sufficient evidence to support your claim. If you'd like to continue this discussion, please do so on my talk page, so as not to clog up the 3RR noticeboard. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understand your point, however, you said At the same time, those tags should only be removed if they are in bad-faith., since you are not blocking Pantherarosa for violating 3RR, do you feel that me placing the tag was in bad faith? Paul Cyr 02:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't believe they were placed in bad-faith (otherwise I would be blocking you), but rather that there was a severe lack of communication. You believed it correct to tag his account as a puppet master believing you had sufficient proof, and he disagreed with your reasoning and reverted, believing your actions to be in bad-faith. In either case neither of you was attempting to be disruptive in my opinion. I'm also not saying that I disagree with your reasoning for believing him to be guilty of sockpuppetry, just saying there isn't conclusive proof either way as of yet, and blocking on these grounds would just add more fuel to the fire. If you would like for me to file a CheckUser for you, I'd be glad to, and if that turns up positive, then there will be no problem tagging his userpage and blocking him if he reverts the change. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        If you could that would be great. Hopefully (s)he doesn't know about proxies ;) Paul Cyr 03:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vlatkoto reported by User:FunkyFly (result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 23:09, 11 May 2006
1st revert: Revision as of 07:16, 31 May 2006
2nd revert: Revision as of 17:31, 31 May 2006
3rd revert: Revision as of 17:46, 31 May 2006
4th revert: Revision as of 01:28, 1 June 2006

Reported by: /FunkyFly.talk_ 05:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

The user persistently inserts claims that ther person is Macedonian, without citing sources. He self-admittedly edits from 194.141.39.2., has been blocked 3 times already for violating 3RR and has been warned about the current case. /FunkyFly.talk_ 05:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24h William M. Connolley 08:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:212.138.64.176 etc. reported by User:Timothy Usher (result: 24hr range block)

Previous version reverted to: 07:03, 1 June 2006
1st revert: 07:13, 1 June 2006
2nd revert: 07:17, 1 June 2006
3rd revert: 07:56, 1 June 2006
4th revert: 08:35, 1 June 2006

Reported by: Timothy Usher 08:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This suspected sockpuppet of User:Flashmorbid has been adding unsourced, highly POV material to the article, and refuses to engage on the talk page despite requests. In addition to the sockpuppet template, nearly all his addresses...

...have warnings of one sort or another. Most recently, he has been warned again about WP:3RR [18]. I think it’s time to block the range.Timothy Usher 08:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Blocking the range 212.138.64.172/29 (212.138.64.172 - 212.138.64.179) for 24 hours as a first violation. If further anons nearby that range pop up and continue reverting, let me know. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has returned as User:Falso to revert again.[19]Timothy Usher 18:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Appleby reported by User:Commonsenses (result: 48h, unblocked for rvv)

Previous version reverted to: 19:25, 31 May 2006
1st revert: 00:02, 1 June 2006
2nd revert: 04:51, 1 June 2006
3rd revert: 05:18, 1 June 2006
4th revert: 14:50, 1 June 2006

Reported by:Commonsenses 15:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Oh no, not again... 48h William M. Connolley 15:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a little bit of a mess. Appleby says he was rvv, and since Liancourt rocks redirects to Dokdo I'm accepting that William M. Connolley 20:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:For great justice.

Previous version reverted to: 06:43, 1 June 2006
1st revert:08:10, 1 June 2006
2nd revert:08:28, 1 June 2006
3rd revert:08:30, 1 June 2006
4th revert:11:44, 1 June 2006

Reported by: Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Your report is peculiar. The first revert is at 8:10 to a version created at 8:28? I'll look into this anyway, but the report is somewhat malformed. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 17:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did, indeed make these reverts - but only of Tom's reverts. I repeatedly asked him to explain his reverting, leaving messages in the comments and on his talk page. Immediately that he stopped his unexplained reverting, the situation resolved. For great justice. 17:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all; your fourth revert was to my version, undoing the work of User:Algr. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That was not a revert of the material you were edit warring about, that was the removal of Algr's POV mongering. For great justice. 17:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Previous version reverted to" is irrelevant in some cases, as 3RR doesn't require you to have reverted to the same version, just reverted four times. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 17:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which makes the  instruction rather pointless. AnnH ♫ 17:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - And people wonder why users create malformed 3RR reports. The instructions are confusing and muddling for less experienced users. Perhaps we should fix this... anyway, back to the case. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 17:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 17:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit puzzled — there seems to be an indefinitely-blocked user For_great_justice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (no sign of contributions, but they may have been deleted), and now there's this one For_great_justice. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) note the full stop (or don't Americans say "period"?) at the end. I was thinking of increasing the block of For great justice. (just to 48 hours) because of his abusive comments on his talk page, but I'm wondering now is he a reincarnation of a banned user. AnnH ♫ 18:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I normally just ignore personal attacks directed at me, especially by blocked users: taking action normally just fuels the attacks, and if I ignore them when they can only edit their talk page, it normally frustrates them more! Perhaps checkuser to establish the link between For_Great_Justice and For_Great_Justice. ? --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 19:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a checkuser would be any good, as For great justice has no visible contributions. Also, s/he was blocked nearly four months ago, so there might not be any technical evidence available. AnnH ♫ 22:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:AlexPU reported by User:Kuban Cossack

Previous version reverted to: 15:59, 1 June 2006

1st revert: 19:08, 1 June 2006
2nd revert: 19:16, 1 June 2006
3rd revert: 19:21, 1 June 2006
4th revert: 20:13, 1 June 2006

Reported by: Kuban Cossack 20:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Comments: Basically the editor continues to insert his heavily POV-laid version repeatedely (each time changing a few words to avoid 3RR. Including some extremely offensive edit summaries including:[reply]

And on the talkpage including an explanation for his articles [Talk:Soviet Partisans#No more this shit!|No more this shit]] and describing a whole community as I mean Russians rampage Ukraine-related articles on a daily basis but don't care a fuck about their own country articles. Weird, pervert shauvenistic priorities

Previously has been blocked for uncivility and has been reported (though not blocked) a second time here. If not block for 3rr can someone please teach this teenager a thing or two about civilised behaivour.--Kuban Cossack 20:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Alex has had more than enough warnings by now. Dmcdevit·t 20:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:8bitJake reported by User:FRCP11 (two violations) (result: 48h)

Previous version reverted to: 15:32 May 31
1st revert: 19:08 June 1 (mislabeled as "restore consensus version")
2nd revert: 19:42 June 1 and 19:24 June 1
3rd revert: 19:57 June 1 and 20:05 June 1
4th revert: 20:23 June 1

Comments: 8bitJake was barred 24 hours on May 31 for reverting the same Henry M Jackson 8 times in a 24-hour period; he's deleted the administrator warning and penalty from his Talk page, and I'm told his talk page history has deletions of several other warnings and penalties. This time around, he's giving dishonest descriptions of his reversions, adding miscellaneous (and usually inappropriate) text, and breaking his edits up into multiple edits to make it more difficult for administrators to notice the violation. -- FRCP11 21:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reported by: FRCP11 21:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second violation by User:8bitJake

Previous version reverted to: 19:57 June 1
1st revert: 20:26 June 1
2nd revert: 20:43 June 1
3rd revert: 21:08 June 1
4th revert: 21:47 June 1

Comment. He's also started a new revert war relating to whether there should be a subarticle about Patty Murray's political positions in the Henry Jackson article. -- FRCP11 21:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48 hours as a fourth offense. Resumed edit warring immediately following expiration of previous block on the same article. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Inigmatus reported by User:RandomP (result: No 3RR violation, no block)

Previous version reverted to: 16:48, 1 June 2006
1st revert: 16:57, 1 June 2006
2nd revert: 18:40, 1 June 2006
3rd revert: 22:34, 1 June 2006
4th revert: 23:50, 1 June 2006

Reported by: RandomP 00:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This is not, as far as I can tell, vandalism, but it does make it impossible for anyone else to edit the article, at least according to my reading of WP:3RR

These do not, as far as I can tell, appear to be reverts on his behalf. It seems to me that User:Inigmatus is making unique edits to the article which are then being reverted by User:RandomP. A violation of WP:3RR is reverting more than three times, not introducing more than three edits that are reverted. No block from me, but please try to contact the user and discuss the matter. Do not revert any further. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tony_Sidaway reported by User:Chcknwnm

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 3

Previous version reverted to: Version with his preference on everyone's signature
1st revert: 08:52, June 1, 2006
2nd revert: 09:53, June 1, 2006
3rd revert: 14:33, June 1, 2006
4th revert: 15:15, June 1, 2006

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 3

Previous version reverted to: Version with his preference on everyone's signature
1st revert: 00:48, June 1, 2006
2nd revert: 01:15, June 1, 2006
3rd revert: 01:58, June 1, 2006
4th revert: 02:29, June 1, 2006
5th revert: 02:31, June 1, 2006
6th revert: 02:34, June 1, 2006
7th revert: 09:33, June 1, 2006
8th revert: 10:17, June 1, 2006
9th revert: 13:25, June 1, 2006

Reported by: Ch u ck^(척뉴넘) 05:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Tony has been performing partial reverts on both this RfC and it's accomanied talk page. He continues to revert to a version that does not contain signatures that he is displeased with. He is admin, and therefore already aware of thr WP:3RR. Ch u ck^(척뉴넘) 05:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed every one of the diffs you provided, and no where have I seen Tony reverting to an earlier version, let alone reverting four times in 24 hours. His actions are, by all accounts, disruptive, and others have been blocked in the past for modifying others' comments; however, there is no 3RR violation here. I also think it would be a rather bad idea to block Tony from being able to respond in his own RfC without a very good reason. You may try copying this post to WP:AN/I to see if any other admins would be willing to block for disruption, but I'm not going to. Sorry. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was worth a try. Note: I'm not out to get Tony blocked, but to try to alert him to stop changing our sigs. Every other alternative, besides a block has been explored. I thought that his revisions would fall under being partial reverts and thus qualify for 3rr, guess I was wrong. to AN/I I go. Ch u ck^(척뉴넘) 06:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, complex partials maybe--I don't know; not enough for me to block. In boldface, the 3RR policy is "repeatedly undoing anothers actions is bad," which I think could likely be considered the case here, but in any case it's probably better suited for AN/I, where more admins and others will comment, even if it is within the margins of the 3RR policy. I'd still argue, however, that any block would be based upon disruption (specifically WP:POINT) rather than 3RR, and that blocking him from responding to his RfC is something that should be avoided. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AmiDaniel- if a block is warranted, it's for disruption. Let's not worry about 3RR. Friday (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously none of the above reported actions were either disruptive or in breach of the three revert rule. Refactoring, which does involve removing unnecessary noise from a userpage, is not disruption. --Tony Sidaway 13:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zora reported by User:Pecher ^Talk (result: 12h)

Previous version reverted to: 08:19, June 1, 2006
1st revert: 08:25, June 1, 2006
2nd revert: 10:26, June 1, 2006
3rd revert: 20:41, June 1, 2006
4th revert: 20:45, June 1, 2006
5th revert: 01:42, June 2, 2006

Reported by: Pecher ^Talk 07:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The 3rd revert was still a revert, even though the user did not mark it as such in the edit summary because the edit involved a re-insertion of the words "may have been", as it was the case with several other reverts. Zora is aware of the 3RR rule because she was already blocked for its violation. Pecher ^Talk 07:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. 12 hours should do. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bazzajf reported by User:Vashti 12:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 11:32, June 1, 2006
1st revert: 13:25, June 1, 2006
2nd revert: 14:38, June 1, 2006 (technically not a pure revert, but adding the questioned tag back again)
3rd revert: 09:27, June 2, 2006
4th revert: 10:27, June 2, 2006
5th revert: 11:02, June 2, 2006
6th revert: 12:59, June 2, 2006
7th revert: 13:27, June 2, 2006
8th revert (after initial report): 14:49, June 2, 2006
9th revert: 16:12, June 2, 2006
10th revert: 16:17 June 2, 2006

Reported by: Vashti 12:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Can we have some help here, please? At least three editors have been reverting him for two days, and despite his continually referring us to the discussion, he's plainly not reading it himself as no other editors agree with him. This is my first 3RR report, sorry if I messed it up any. *peers at the template* Vashti 12:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bazzajf has now also taken to altering my user page to push his POV, and reverting repeatedly there, too: [20], [21], [22], [23]. --Stemonitis 14:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right to Reply I find this mildly disturbing. All I am doing is questioning the neutrality of a section in the article and in doing so, asking them to refer to the discussion page where we can discuss our point of views, hardly a gross act of reversion vandalism, if I am reported for re-inserting a neutrality mark on the article, then liekwise there are others guilty of taking it off 3 times in 24 hours, this strikes me as the lamest excuse to report someone ever, if you are unwilling to argue the points and just go pleading to administrators, it is a very sorry situation, in fact I feel sorry for you. Why don't you try reporting people who engage in gross acts of vandalism rather than wasting your time and being petty in reporting someone whose only wish is to discuss a topic and pursue my rational point of view. Please stop being so petty and channel your frustrations and energies effectively.

You aren't demonstrating any desire to discuss, you're just insisting on your questionable point in spite of references and against every other editor working on the article. Please stop.

I shall report you if you continue this charade, how can you say "You aren't demonstrating any desire to discuss" when everytime I use a neutrality mark I refer people to the discussion page where i have written several paragraphs supporting my view, I think the citation offered is very spurious and that is why i contine questioning the neutrality of said section until the section I am objecting to is objectively qualified and please stop using sockpuppets to support your petty point of view. Can I suggest to the administrator that this disruptive contributor Vashti be suspended for 24 hours so as to teach them to stop being so belligerent and offensive not to mention disruptive. Bazzajf 14:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vashti 13:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, vandalising my user page is not likely to get you taken seriously. Vashti 13:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I plead guilty to that, that was merely a friendly jibe in order to to ease the tension that you are carrying into what were previously in any case, calm rational discussions.Bazzajf 14:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that I'm using sockpuppets, you should most certainly report me. I encourage you to do so. Vashti 14:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be as belligerently-minded as your good self and I don't let things that I have no control over bother me. You need to channel your energies effectively, you strike me as being full of bitterness with little to offer. Keep the chin up hey and if you need someone to confide in, feel free to drop me a line Bazzajf 15:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bazzajf has been blocked for 24 hours by Nlu for Personal attack, vandalism. Wales was this morning already full-protected by me due to the edit war. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 08:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nescio reported by User:217.235.210.168 (result: 24h)

User:Nescio

Nescio (talk · contribs):

Previous version reverted to: [24]
1st revert: [25]
2nd revert: [26]
3rd revert: [27]
4th revert: [28]

Reported by: 217.235.210.168

Comments: He entered discussion shortly, but then decided to use the direct approach.

Bit odd, but 24h William M. Connolley 13:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, User:Nescio was discussing it on the talk page at the same time 217.235.210.168 reverted back the second time. Discussion was nowhere near exhausted when 217.235.210.168 chose to report. Nescio has a strong record of contributions to many articles and no record I know of of bad faith editing. This block might have been technically within policy, but I think it was premature. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 08:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Premature block in my opinion too. User:Nescio is an experienced editor with a positive history of contributions. While the block is within policy, would have been good if there was discussion with Nescio prior to block. -- Samir धर्म 11:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:John Beyer reported by User:Scott Wilson (result: 3h)

Previous version reverted to: 13:29, 12 May 2006
1st revert: [29]
2nd revert: [30]
3rd revert: [31]
4th revert: [32]
5th revert [33]

Reported by: Scott Wilson 13:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Removing anti-mediawatch-uk external link. Username is the same as director of that organisation - an e-mail has been sent to mediawatch-uk to see if it is an imposter.
Still at it; has made a fifth revert.

Bit of a shame you didn't warn him... still, he can have 3h William M. Connolley 15:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Subwaynz reported by User:Llort (result: 24h, also for Lemonus)

Previous version reverted to: 19:31, May 31, 2006
1st revert: 03:07, June 1, 2006
2nd revert: 03:38, June 1, 2006
3rd revert: 19:31, June 1, 2006
4th revert: 00:43, June 2, 2006

Reported by: Llort 14:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This user tried this tactic before on Wushu and was blocked for it.

By me, too. well he can have 24h again, as can Lemonus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who would have got something for incivility even if he hadn't also broken 3RR William M. Connolley 22:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zdravko mk reported by User:FunkyFly

Nikola Karev

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 03:00, 31 May 2006
1st revert: Revision as of 02:21, 2 June 2006
2nd revert: Revision as of 12:20, 2 June 2006
3rd revert: Revision as of 12:30, 2 June 2006
4th revert: Revision as of 12:41, 2 June 2006

Lazar Koliševski (result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 06:23, 26 May 2006
1st revert: Revision as of 12:21, 2 June 2006
2nd revert: Revision as of 12:41, 2 June 2006
3rd revert: Revision as of 12:50, 2 June 2006
4th revert: Revision as of 12:55, 2 June 2006

Reported by: /FunkyFly.talk_ 16:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

The user has been removing the fact that Lazar Kolisevski's parents were Bulgarian and has been inserting the claim that Nikola Karev is Macedonian. He has been warned for potentially violating 3RR. /FunkyFly.talk_ 16:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant; clearly knows what he is doing. 24h William M. Connolley 22:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ed Poor reported by User:ScienceApologist (result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: 08:25, 2 June 2006
1st revert: 08:34, 2 June 2006
2nd revert: 10:14, 2 June 2006
3rd revert: 11:44, 2 June 2006
4th revert: 14:13, 2 June 2006

Reported by: ScienceApologist 21:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Poor (2) for examples of previous violations less than a week ago. --ScienceApologist 21:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree entirely. This is now the second 3RR violation I've seen by Ed in two days; the last one went without a block as the article was protected instead. This time I think 24 hours is more appropriate. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andries reported by User:Goethean (result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: 16:00, 2 June 2006
1st revert: 16:11, 2 June 2006
2nd revert: 16:16, 2 June 2006
3rd revert: 16:23, 2 June 2006
4th revert: 16:41, 2 June 2006

Reported by: — goethean ॐ 21:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goethean is as guilty as I am. And in other respects he is more quilty because he posted off-topic messages on article talk pages in violation of wikipedia:talk page. Making announcement on talk pages of various articles to recruit people who share your POV to push your POV on another article is, I think, inappropriate. Andries 21:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not originally post the messages. I merely undid Andries' deletion of the announcements. I am not aware of any policy that supports Andries' actions. — goethean ॐ 22:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he's entirely right as far as 3RR goes. I'm afraid that, in order to be fair in these instances, it's going to be necessary to block you as well. I apologize, but that's the way it goes. You both reverted each other four times--that's 3RR both ways. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Same situation at Talk:International Society for Krishna Consciousness. — goethean ॐ 21:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think twenty-four hours should do, though if he agress to stop, I'll remove the block. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:201.209.104.7/User:G.ELIECER/User:Guillen reported by User:Kimchi.sg

Previous version reverted to: 2006-06-01 08:35:48 (UTC+8) (as Guillen)
1st revert: 2006-06-02 07:58:57 (as G.ELIECER)
2nd revert: 2006-06-02 08:15:59 (as G.ELIECER)
3rd revert: 2006-06-02 08:20:02 (as G.ELIECER)
4th revert: 2006-06-03 07:49:29 (as 201.209.104.7)

Reported by: Kimchi.sg 00:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Guillen has already been blocked for a week (though I'll likely lengthen the block) for excessive disruption, G.ELIECER was blocked earlier today as a proven sock, and 201 was blocked for 24hrs for disruption/evading a block. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:For great justice. (result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: multiple
1st revert: 14:20, 2 June 2006
2nd revert: 14:26, 2 June 2006
3rd revert: 15:55, 2 June 2006 - removed "The Apollo moon landing hoax accusations are not technically falsifiable since...", added by User:ScienceApologist here[34]
4th revert: 17:00, 2 June 2006 - removed "Like many conspiracists, hoax believers work from..." added by User:Tom harrison here[35]
5th revert: 18:55, 2 June 2006
6th revert: 00:45, June 3, 2006

Reported by: Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Additional report by: Algr 07:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:For great justice. immediately began disruptive edit-warring as soon as he returned from his previous 3RR block. With a series of straight reverts mixed with complex partial reverts, and hostile edit summaries, he has attempted to rewrite the article against consensus. Today's edit history is long and complex, and I could be wrong. I'd suggest that the admin not rely on my report, but also look carefully at the edit history. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree: User:For great justice. performed multiple reverts demanding references that were already present, and would not discuss the problem of the article straying from topic. (too much NASA, not enough Accusation.) Essentially, he was trying to turn the article into the kind of page it is supposed to be discussing. Algr 07:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, 24h William M. Connolley 07:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ilir_pz reported by User:C-c-c-c

Commments

This user keeps on constantly revertingthe "Serbian topics" user box in the Demographic history of Kosovo page, he has not broken 3RR per say, but he has reverted almost 10 times in the last little while. [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43],[44]. This user cannot agree with neutral editors on the other pages, such as Kosovo. The page is currently protected, and the user is disagreeing with two uninvolved neutral editors who do not agree with his nationalist POV, here. he is against users Osli73, Reinoutr, Ahwaz, all uninvolved neutral editors. C-c-c-c 04:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decline. If the editor hasn't broken the 3RR, we can't do much here. Please try some of the steps in the dispute resolution process. Shell ^babelfish 06:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you read 3RR page, the following is written: The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing echnique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others. The fact that users may be blocked for excessive reverting does not imply that they will be blocked. Equally, reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context.

If a user makes sufficient reverts, 9 in this case, it may get them blocked. He has again, reverted 9 times, and not just based on what one user wrote, but multiple users. He is persistent, and unwiling to cooperate, as is obvious. Either protect the page or block him, but considering that he will probably be POV pushing on other pages, such as Kosovo, I would suggest that a small break from Wikipedia should be in order for this user. C-c-c-c 06:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

someone is back from a long break? :) ilir_pz 10:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad you're blocked :)) Cheers. C-c-c-c 18:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: C-c-c-c claims that ilir_pz is "against" me. I do not agree - I might not agree with everything he says, but I do not think he is against me. So don't put words in my mouth. There is, in fact, a great amount of incivility directed against him and a lot of vandalism to the Kosovo article, which I feel ilir_pz is attempting to stop. If admins paid attention to this [45] and other examples of disruption by those editors opposed to ilir_pz, then perhaps the situation on the Kosovo page would become more tolerable. But as it stands, making arbitrary judgement against one and not another editor involved in an edit war will not solve anything. However, I am not surprised by the level of bias among admins on this issue. It is clear that most admins are not capable of balanced judgement.--الأهواز 16:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What I meant Ahwaz was that everyone (the neutral editors) agreed that Kosovo is a UN administered province in Serbia, but it is only Ilir_pz who does not agree with this. C-c-c-c 17:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I do not consider ilir_pz to be against me - he is just taking a certain position. Disagreeing is not the same as being against an editor. I am more equivocal on the editorial dispute as the whole issue is fraught with uncertainties and doubts - that is primarily the reason for the debates on Kosovo's status in the international community! I would prefer it if people didn't put words in my mouth or portray me as against any side in that editorial conflict. As you say, I am neutral.--الأهواز 17:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ilir pz again

Three revert rule violation on {{Kosovo}}. Ilir_pz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Previous version reverted to: 01:05, May 21, 2006
1st revert: 09:39, June 2, 2006
2nd revert: 10:30, June 2, 2006
3rd revert: 12:54, June 2, 2006
4th revert: 20:25, June 2, 2006

Reported by: E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 10:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User has also been reminded about WP:OWN and WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox policies.

I encourage the admin to take a close look: The reverts are not done on the same text, last two differ from first two. Regards, ilir_pz 11:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That does not matter. Reverts do not really need to be of the same part, as long as something is reverted. You can still self-revert as I advised you. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 11:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the content, for God's sake. That is not the same as reverting. You seem to not know the difference. ilir_pz 11:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still removed a province of Serbia and Montenegro. It does not matter whether you changed the wording from entity to province later on. You still reverted previous edits to remove this fact. This is obviously a 3RR+ case. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 12:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert warrior with a history. Blocked for 24 hours. --InShaneee 17:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:UniverseToday reported by User:William Pietri (result: 12h)

Previous version reverted to: 00:11, 3 June 2006
1st revert: 00:36, 3 June 2006
2nd revert: 01:16, 3 June 2006
3rd revert: 06:07, 3 June 2006
4th revert: 06:33, 3 June 2006

Reported by: William Pietri 06:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

See also this user's entry at Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation#New_requests. --William Pietri 06:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12h William M. Connolley 07:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, as shown at Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation#New_requests, there is good evidence that this user has made several additional reverts to this article and others using a handful of sock puppets. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 07:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: This username and another one were indefinitely blocked as sock puppets of another previously indefinitely blocked username; see Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation/Archives/2006/06#Registered_users. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 02:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thameen reported by User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

Previous version reverted to: 18:16, 1 June 2006 [46]
1st revert: 17:36, 2 June 2006 [47]
2nd revert: 14:35, 3 June 2006 [48]
3rd revert: 15:11, 3 June 2006 [49]
4th revert: 15:50, 3 June 2006 [50]

Reported by: Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: User:Thameen has repeatedly reinserting extreme pov in article despite being asked politely not to multiple times.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Thameen I have been facing a problem from the Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg. Whenever I make any edit to the article Child_suicide_bombers_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict He will immediately RV my edits. I asked him many times for cooperation and discussion of my edits. He never offered any cooperation. The only way I could do some sensible edits is to ptotect myself by RV. plz help me.

Content dispute. Blocked for 24 hours. --InShaneee 17:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:GDP reported by User:Getcrunk

Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board. GDP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Previous version reverted to: [51]
1st revert: [52]
2nd revert: [53]
3rd revert: [54]
4th revert: [55]
5th revert: [56]

According to User:Anittas (who was the other participant in the edit war), User:GDP is a sock of User:Bonaparte, a banned user. (see [57])

Reported by: getcrunk juice ^contribs 16:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I was told on my talk page I stopped. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGDP&diff=56678529&oldid=56678442 --GDP 16:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False accusations won't bring you credibility. You reverted my work, as if I'm not allowed to make an archive. Why? --GDP 16:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I've notified the two users involved. -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 16:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused as to the nature of this statement? [58] Is it directed at me? -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 16:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. It was for User:Anittas.--GDP 16:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's more information and comments at User talk:Getcrunk. -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 17:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anittas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and GDP have both broken 3RR, so can have 12h each. If anyone has decent evidence that GDP is indeed a banned sock, then perhaps A deserves to be unblocked... not sure William M. Connolley 21:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of the details regarding this particular conflict between Anittas and GDP, however I can say that I don't consider GDP's edits to be made in good faith. He constantly edited the article Romania, and changed the GDP per capita to irrationally high amounts and would not cease until much later despite of ample evidence being provided that his position was not plausible. He also substituted his GDP and HDI map (the first found on his user page) for the actual maps on the List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, and the only changes that he made to this map was to increase Romania's status and virtually double that of Moldova. I suppose I have also been guilty of 3RR, however I was under the impression that there was no real factual dispute as he stubbornly added the same alogical data and I suspected him of being a sockpuppet of Bonaparte. Vox Populi (TSO) 01:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg reported by User:Thameen 17:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC) (result: No 3RR violation, no block)

Three revert rule violation on Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Moshe-Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Previous version reverted to: 16:55, 3 June 2006

1st revert: 10:18, 29 May 2006
2nd revert: 14:15, 1 June 2006
3rd revert: 19:36, 1 June 2006
4th revert: 18:58, 2 June 2006
5th revert: 15:07, 3 June 2006
6th revert: 15:46, 3 June 2006

Reported by: Thameen 17:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I tried to add some NPOV to the above article but was each time RVed by User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

Six reverts in six days? That's funny indeed. Pecher ^Talk 17:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 3rr violation here. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:CltFn

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

Previous version reverted to: [59]

1st revert: [60]
2nd revert: [61]
3rd revert: [62]
4th revert: [63]

Reported by: --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

All reverts in one hour and over same paragraph. Was warned and blocked for actions like these many times before. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours. pschemp | talk 18:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pecher / User:Anonymous editor

User:Pecher reported by User:Faisal

Previous version reverted to: 18:11, 3 June 2006
1st revert: 11:15, 3 June 2006
2nd revert: 16:34, 3 June 2006
3rd revert: 17:18, 3 June 2006
4th revert: 18:11, 3 June 2006

Reported by: Faisal 18:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This user has been banned twice because of 3RR (see his blocking log) violations and I have not reported him at least once. He keeps pushing his view on the articles. Is wikipedia failing in stopping him from not having more than 3 edits per-day? Please take some strike action that makes him stopped from continue violating 3RR. Thank you. --- Faisal 18:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit difference here was not a revert, but rather an addition of content to the timeline subsequently removed by User:Anonymous editor. Pecher ^Talk 18:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can the previous version reverted to be the same diff as the purported fourth revert?Timothy Usher 18:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It probably goes without saying that this report is without merit. Pecher ^Talk 19:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not sure that if it is a false report. However, if it is then I am sorry. I will read WP:3RR again to better understand it and next time will be more careful. --- Faisal 23:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is actually pretty simple. The "previous version reverted to" must actually be a previous version, not a duplicate of the last diff.Timothy Usher 23:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anonymous editor reported by User:Pecher ^Talk

Previous version reverted to: 07:40, June 3, 2006
1st revert: 16:42, June 3, 2006
2nd revert: 17:22, June 3, 2006
3rd revert: 18:11, June 3, 2006
4th revert: 18:26, June 3, 2006

Reported by: Pecher ^Talk 18:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The first revert related to edits by User:Yom in the intro concerning whether Muhammad was the founder or a "major figure" in Islam. The second and thord revert were removals of a sourced paragraph in the "Conquest of Mecca" section. The fourth revert was a re-insertion of the word "some" before the word "hadith" in the "Family life" section; Anonymous editor has already made the same edit during the day 17:24, June 3, 2006. Pecher ^Talk 18:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AmiDaniel has now protected the article so blocking is moot. I've trimmed the over-enthusiastic discussion. Please dont bloat this page, it gets long enough as it it William M. Connolley 21:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the now-editted discussion above, Anonymous editor wrote, "Funny since I didn't even check the earlier versions while making my first edit."[64], a claim repeated when he wrote "However, the first edit is neither undoing anyones work, it's my own edit and I don't see how anyone could interpret that as a revert. " [65]

Let's compare these two versions:

Earlier version:"Muhammad is a major figure in Islam. Muslims believe that he was God's final prophet, to whom the Qur'an was revealed. Non-Muslims consider him to be the founder of Islam."23:25, 1 June 2006
AE’s revert: "Muhammad is a major figure in Islam. Muslims believe that he was God's final prophet, to whom the Qur'an was revealed. Non-Muslims consider him to be the founder of Islam."16:42, 3 June 2006

It would seem that these versions are identical What is the chance that Anonymous editor "didn't even check the earlier versions while making [his] first edit"? Is there any way to avoid the conclusion that Anonymous editor has knowingly lied to all the editors reading this noticeboard?

If his violation of 3RR isn't itself enough to merit a block, this certainly is. He's entitled to a defense, but not a dishonest one (much less one that personally attacks other editors, as Pecher has noted above).Timothy Usher 19:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page is now protected, so 3RR blocking is irrelevant. If you have other problems, take them otherwhere. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 21:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to agree with pecher and timothy and argue in favor of a block. Although I generally disagree with the idea that 3RR blocks should be punitive, I do agree that in some case like when a violator refuses to acknowledge his wrong, a block is necessary to underscore the consequences of such a violation.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:SqueakBox / User:Wangi reported by User:wangi (result: 12h for both)

Previous version reverted to: [66]

Reported by: wangi 22:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Basically is "BB" simply the generic Big Brother (disambig page), or the more specific Big Brother (UK), and if so, why not the many other TV series (and the original book) too? /wangi 22:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look there were not more than 2 reverts on my part, less than the 3 Wangi made. Someone else has now found what i hope to be a compromise solution. BB refers to the tv programme, which I have sourced. Wangi refuses to source his incorrect claim that BB also refers to Big Brother in other contexts and needs to back up his unusual claim with sources rather than revert sourced material, SqueakBox 02:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite this report not being in the correct format, I do count four reverts from both of you. SqueakBox has had 3RR violations in the past; thus, his block should be longer. However, to be fair, I'm going to say 12 hours for both. Please refrain from edit warring when the blocks expire. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:216.15.48.10 reported by User:RWR8189 (result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: 17:38, 3 June 2006
1st revert: 10:09, 3 June 2006
2nd revert: 13:31, 3 June 2006
3rd revert: 16:46, 3 June 2006
4th revert: 16:48, 3 June 2006
5th revert: 18:09, 3 June 2006
6th revert: 18:10, 3 June 2006
7th revert: 20:10, 3 June 2006
8th revert: 20:11, 3 June 2006

Reported by: RWR8189 02:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Anon user refuses to recognize Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), or explain his edits in any way.

24 hours for an exceptional number of reverts in 24 hours. In the future please provide diffs in the place of versions. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cvene64 reported by User:138.130.217.135

Previous version reverted to: [67]
1st revert: 11:21 3 June, 2006
2nd revert: 00:56 4 June, 2006
3rd revert: 1:25 4 June, 2006
4th revert: 2:41 4 June, 2006

Reported by: 138.130.217.135 03:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Cvene64 refuses to leave the page alone. He/She repeatedly undoes edits that I place on the page claiming that they are unbacked, even though there are 3 exterior links supporting the addition to the article (sexual abuse scandal at the school). This is some sort of bad faith revert attack.

Hello all. I reverted this contribution on two occassions; as I though it was vandalism. My third edit was to remove the sub-heading, and simply remove the info that was not covered in the references which were eventually supplied. My fourth edit came when this user pasted the old info back in (I'm not sure if he/she knew that it was already there - so I removed the doubled up info). The fifth edit was the same deal. My next edit was the same. This person is out of control; leaving threats/demands on talk pages, going around raving on about how people will face consequences, calling admin "bullies", insulting me on my talk ("unfair" and "detrimental" person), etc etc. I explained my actions in some of the edit summaries; these were ignored. Cvene64 03:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question to ask is why you reverted the contribution? you did not explain yourself save for a few words in the edit summaries. you say that the references are too brief. well, not the third one. that's about 400 pages long. I have no idea why you continue this nonsense. (btw, all of the information above is accurate and is not falsified. this cvene64 has breached the 3RR). Why is it vandalism? because you classify it as such? are you accusing me of posting threats on wikipedia? that is a horrible thing to say, and I am deeply offended. all i did was say that by removing my additions, you were a vandal, and that I would report you as such (any honest wikipedian would do the same). I am quite annoyed (as anyone would be) that my contributions are simply 'wiped' off the face of wikipedia again and again. did anyone bother to go to the talk page for the Brisbane Grammar School article and see my reasons for adding the section i did? did anyone care to post in the discussion page their reasons for removing my contributions? no, and that is the sad thing. cvene64, you have breached the 3RR policy, and I am posting on this noticeboard because of that. You have not even bothered to send me a message longer than a line saying why you keep removing my article addition. I think this is unfair and unjust. that is why i am here; not because i have some compulsion for arguments, but because that section is justified in being on the Brisbane Grammar School article. --138.130.217.135 04:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:CreoleMe reported by User:Pentb (result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mulatto&diff=56778223&oldid=56778147 06:29, 4

June 2006]

1st revert: 01:58, 3 June 2006
2nd revert: 03:04, 3 June 2006
3rd revert: 03:08, 3 June 2006
4rth revert: 03:42, 3 June 2006
5th revert: 03:48, 3 June 2006
6th revert: 05:08, 3 June 2006
7th revert: 05:08, 3 June 2006
8th revert: 12:00, 3 June 2006
9th revert: 02:29, 4 June 2006
10th revert: 02:31, 4 June 2006
11th revert:06:29, 4 June 2006
12th revert:09:07, 4 June 2006

Reported by: Pentb 08:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: User CreoleMe continues to repeatedly massdelete numerous links to relevant sources as well as external websites which contradict what seems to be his personal opinion. He repeatedly deletes well documented and well researched passages of text and doesn't even take the existing content into account but just deletes. He also takes plagiarized textpassages from the following Website: [68] and adds them under the title "mulo vs. muwallad" without establishing a logical connection of how these passages fit into the context and without quoting the source. If somebody corrects this he just puts the plagiarized text passages back in. By throwing in these text passages he deliberately misleads people by making it seem as if muwallad as the etymological origin of mulatto depends on muladi which is however not the case. The sources quoted, which he deleted with the excuse that they are original sources in spanish (mulatto being of spanish origin) attest that mulatto was not derived from muladi but that both mulatto and muladi share an analogous etymology: muwallad.

He makes misleading edit summaries intended to make it look like others vandalize when in reality he deletes several large portions of text as well as links to sources and websites. This becomes especially clear here: 03:08, 3 June 2006. He also severely attacks and insults people who don't share his views in the talk section. He disrespects others by calling them "mules". In the talk section it becomes clear that a while ago users had already problems with CreoleMe's vandalizing of pages. In addition he goes even further and doesn't respect Wikipedia policy by simply repeatedly taking the page protection out and putting his version back in. see 06:29, 4 June 2006

Pentb

A not inconsiderable mess. I've blocked CreoleMe for 24h, maybe that will help. If anyone else reviews this, I suspect Pentb may be at fault too William M. Connolley 12:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:CPRice reported by User:Ibaranoff24

Previous version reverted to: [69]
1st revert: [70]
2nd revert: [71]
3rd revert: [72]
4th revert: [73]

Reported by: Ibaranoff24 16:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I've repeatedly asked this user to provide a valid source of the claims he makes, but he links only to an unofficial weblog. Internet blogs are not a valid source of information.

BLOCKED 24h. `'mikka (t) 19:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Constantzeanu reported by User:`'mikka (t) (result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: 21:08, 4 June 2006

The only difference is the replaced image, which is a nonimportant change in the context of reverts.

21:46, 4 June 2006
22:25, 4 June 2006
22:32, 4 June 2006
22:48, 4 June 2006
In fact, there was even a previous revert: 11:57 vs. 21:08 of June 4 here, but I am too lazy to redo the difs w.r.t. the still earlier version. `'mikka (t) 19:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a fair cop (unless any of the "I was reverting Bonaparte" is true)... 24h William M. Connolley 19:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:For great justice. (result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: 16:45, 3 June 2006
1st revert: 13:29, 4 June 2006
2nd revert: 12:30, 4 June 2006
3rd revert: 10:18, 4 June 2006
4th revert: 14:32, 4 June 2006 - a partial revert, removing "a collection of urban legends suggesting...", which I added here: [74]
5th revert: 14:49, 4 June 2006

Reported by: Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

After his return from his second 3RR block on this page, the user immediately reverted, and then continued editing where he had left off. He seems determined to have he page his way. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply bogus. These are not reversions. They are edits made after discussion on the talk page. Tom is the only one reverting discussed edits without explanation, in an attempt to bait people into reverting his (unexplained and POV) edits. Edits are not 'reverts' if they are in line with concensus and discussion on the talk page, otherwise the 3RR rule would be a 3 edit rule. For great justice. 19:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, not bogus at all. 24h William M. Connolley 20:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:C-c-c-c reported by User:ilir_pz

Previous version reverted to: 21:52, 3 June 2006
1st revert: 23:03, 3 June 2006
2nd revert: 23:06, 3 June 2006
3rd revert: 23:21, 3 June 2006
4th revert: 23:36, 3 June 2006

Reported by: ilir_pz 23:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Clearly this is a violation of the 3RR rule. Within a time-span of 33 mins the user reverted the article 4 times. The user kept adding a speculation, by alternating the citation from the source for serving his POV, and refused to listen to the hint that he is violating the 3RR. Furthermore the user is carrying a similar edit-war on the naming of the parts of the article. ilir_pz 23:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I put in different information each time. Each time Telex disagreed with me, I put in a new version to see whether he would agree. And the "warning" made by Telex is directed Vigank, not me. If you look in the history page you'll notice that Vigank broke the 3RR rule, and not me. He kept on changing Priština to Prishtina throghout the article, even thought the article is called Priština. How could I have broken the 3RR rule if this "supposed" 4th revert was made after I was warned of having broken the 3RR rule already? This is clearly an attempt to exact revenge for me as this user was blocked for 3RR just yesterday on Template:Kosovo, and has been called a "revert warrior" by admin InShaneee, here. I put up complaint on this page about his 10 or so reverts on Demographic History of Kosovo over a few days. C-c-c-c 23:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the hint by Telex was for you, quoting him he said "rv to Telex - it gives a selective version of events (you've violated the 3RR btw)" hinting that the source you are alternating the meaning of, was saying something different from the source you were citing, but you kept refusing. Vigank kept reverting the naming of the city, not the content of that citation. I am not reporting you for that above. Anyways, it is not about the content that 3RR stands for, but for the times you reverted the exact article. Regards, ilir_pz 23:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasn't, quoting you "4th revert: 23:36, 3 June 2006 ". This is where I supposedly broke the 3RR rule. But this edit is right after Telex edit, where it says rv to Telex - it gives a selective version of events (you've violated the 3RR btw). Where you claim Telex warned me about having broken the rule. So before you said I broke it on "3rd Revert:23:21, 3 June 2006, and then you say that I actually broke it here 23:36, 3 June 2006 . Telex comment is right above this edit, where Vigank broke the 3RR. Some flaws in your argument don't you think? C-c-c-c 00:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User has self-reverted to previous signed user's version. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 00:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite some lawyer :). Let the admin decide. ilir_pz 00:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were offered the same choice before, which you decided to ignore. There is no need to be uncivil here, thanks. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 00:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ilir, since you're so keen on getting me blocked help me out with some physics, since you offered remember. I won't be able to ask the geniuses at the reference desk if I get blocked, and I've already asked them for help on a problem yesterday, so I come to you!!! Okay here it goes: In the high jump the KE (kinetic energy) of an athlete is transformed into gravitational potential energy (PGe) without the aid of a pole. With what minimum speed must the athlete leave the ground in order to lift his centre of mass 2.10m and cross the bar with a speed of 0.70m/s? Assume 0.80 as the starting centre of mass. Also please refrain from personal attacks as you did above, it may get you blocked. C-c-c-c 00:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not editing (jet) this article, but I read it almost every day, just to see what’s new. And I can also say that User:C-c-c-c managed to break the 3RR although as he/she claims, he/she is taking a wikibreak. This user even reverted the article at least 4 times. This is a clear case to me. --Mig11 00:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually if you look at what I wrote, I gave different options to Telex and he/she rejected them all. I didn't push POV but everytime he/she said something was wrong with it, I changed it to meet their "demands". I even quoted the article. Unfortunately Telex still found it didn't agree with their POV. C-c-c-c 00:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No admin comment here???? why so?ilir_pz 10:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin: The reverts cited are, in fact, differing edits, which although relate to the same subject matter, are not direct reversions for which I, personally, would block the user. I suggest you all go to the talk page of the article and have a sensible discussion about what version should be used, rather than mud-slinging on here. Kcordina ^Talk 11:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing all this up :) C-c-c-c 12:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:RevolverOcelotX reported by User:YINever

Previous version reverted to: [75]
1st revert: [76]
2nd revert: [77]
3rd revert: [78]
4th revert: [79]

Reported by: YINever 00:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: User has been making many reverts to this and other articles and gives no indication that he is going to stop. Bizarrely, he has been leaving templates on other user's pages for infractions he is himself guilty of making. YINever 00:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has also been repeatedly warned and even blocked for 3RR infractions in the past. See User_talk:RevolverOcelotX for many examples. YINever 00:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently User:YINever has been in a long edit war with User:PatCheng over at The Epoch Times article. User:YINever is now resorting to deletion of warnings from his talk page. See User talk:YINever. --RevolverOcelotX 00:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted nothing. I am fully within my capacity to reorganize my talk page as I see fit.

Furthermore, this does not address the user's clear violation, an article in which "PatCheng" has now rescued "RevolverOcelotX" by reverting yet again. YINever 00:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this user feels he has the luxury to post multiple successive retaliatory templates and plaster them as he sees fit on my own talk page. [80] YINever 00:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:YINever has deleted warning from his talk page many times. He keeps on trying whitewashing the The Epoch Times article by deleting properly sourced content and is in a revert war with User:PatCheng at the The Epoch Times article. He keeps reverting without attempting to reach consensus. RevolverOcelotX 00:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, that answers my question. YINever 00:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YINever has been amply warned before, yet he keeps reverting The Epoch Times article and deleting his warnings. There is no sign of YINever to stop reverting BOTH The Epoch Times article and his talk page warnings. He seems to be a new user with an intent on reverting to fit his POV. See his talk page[81]. RevolverOcelotX 01:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He can't even keep a story straight. I haven't been reverting The Epoch Times since the report because I was at my limit, but he keeps putting more and more templates on my page to troll me. So far he has failed, and PatCheng has already been blocked. Yet, this account remains free even though he is clearly breaking 3RR and has now been making bad vandalism reports. YINever 01:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect YINever is a sockpuppet of User:65.33.167.138 who has once again reverted The Epoch Times without discussing the changes. There has been a VERY long revert war at the The Epoch Times which YINever and his suspected sockpuppets have been engaged in. RevolverOcelotX 01:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That IP is from Florida. I am from West Virginia. Have fun proving this. YINever 01:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been MANY revert war edits in The Epoch Times article by YINever who blatantly refuses to discuss his edits. ALL the other users that were engaged in this revert war were all new users who keep deleting the sourced information from The Epoch Times article. I suspect User:Freereader, User:Web spy killer, and User:65.33.167.138 are the Sockpuppets of YINever. RevolverOcelotX 01:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment - The 3RRR is filed incorrectly, as Revolver reverts John Smith to the version by Giovanni and then does so three more times - he didn't revert to the John Smith version. However, there is definitely a fourth revert. The reverts are identical except that Chinese Communist Party is used instead of Communist Party of China, and that "Mao Tse-Tung" is used in addition to Mao Zedong. In the spirit of [[WP:IAR|Interpreat all rules, I believe the reverts are identical up to isomorphism and a 24hr block applies. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:YINever reported by User:RevolverOcelotX

Previous version reverted to: [82]
1st revert: [83]
2nd revert: [84]
3rd revert: [85]
4th revert: [86]

Reported by: RevolverOcelotX 00:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: User:YINever has been making many reverts to The Epoch Times article and many other articles and gives no indication that he is going to stop. He has been warned for such for this and other infractions he is guilty of making. User:YINever is also repeatedly deleting warning from his talk page. --RevolverOcelotX 00:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this user is time-challenged, considering those edits do not occur within the allotted period. YINever 00:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently User:YINever has been in a long edit war with User:PatCheng over at The Epoch Times article. User:YINever is now resorting to deletion of warnings from his talk page. See User talk:YINever. --RevolverOcelotX 00:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating his misdirection above and providing no explanation of how this is a violation. YINever 02:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YINever have violated the 3RR rule on The Epoch Times article with his sockpuppet which is User:65.33.167.138. I suspect that User:YINever is a likely sockpuppet of User:Freereader, User:Web spy killer, User:65.33.167.138, and User:141.153.74.246. They are all new accounts with a history of edit warring over at The Epoch Times article. See here where User:YINever used his sockpuppet to violate the 3RR: [87] --RevolverOcelotX 03:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no merit to the RFCU anymore than this report. Apparently his strategy is simply to dilute every reporting page with enough accusations that no one will wish or bother to respond to anything out of sheer bewilderment. --YINever 03:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that User:YINever is a sockpuppet of User:Freereader, User:Web spy killer, User:65.33.167.138, and User:141.153.74.246, and possibly User:TJive which User:YINever is using to bypass the 3RR rule. See here for evidence of User:YINever violating the 3RR. [88] --RevolverOcelotX 03:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So is anyone going to attempt to sort through this insanity? Or just leave it all unremarked? YINever 03:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is now clear that User:YINever is a sockpuppet of User:TJive and has used it to repeatedly violate the 3RR. I hope an administrator takes the appropriate action on these violations. --RevolverOcelotX 03:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the first part of this assertion has no bearing on the report, and the latter remains unproven. YINever 04:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been proved that User:YINever is a sockpuppet of User:TJive. See this: [89]. And here is where suspected sockpuppet of User:YINever, violated the 3RR. [90] --RevolverOcelotX 04:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you have "proof" for something I readily admit and transfer this into "proof" of a violation concerning a completely separate user and issue. Sad. YINever 04:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you deny that User:65.33.167.138 is not another one of your sockpuppets? User:65.33.167.138 has the same editing patterns as you and broke the 3RR at The Epoch Times article when User:YINever was at the limit for breaking the 3RR. See here: [91] where he reverted to your version. --RevolverOcelotX 04:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you deny that

Because it isn't true? Have you anything at all to suggest otherwise? No. YINever 04:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:65.33.167.138 has the same editing pattern as User:YINever. See here: [92] --RevolverOcelotX 04:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can an administrator block User:YINever's account and sockpuppet accounts for 3RRV, or do other steps have to be taken? --RevolverOcelotX 05:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good first step would be me violating policy in the first place. For an example, see the above section. YINever 05:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is evidence of User:YINever using his sockpuppet to violate 3RR. See here: [93] --RevolverOcelotX 06:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment - no 3RR, they are not within 24 hours of each other. Dismissed.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stefanp reported by User:Cfvh

Previous version reverted to: 19:23 June 4, 2006
1st revert: 20:23 June 4, 2006
2nd revert: 20:32 June 4, 2006
3rd revert: 20:55 June 4, 2006
4th revert: 21:11 June 4, 2006

Reported by: Charles 00:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Stefanp's edits, before the presented "previous version", are shown to be repeatedly disruptive and inflammatory and now have become slight. I feel his edits are vandalism because he is removing more neutral ways to explain Radu Duda's monogram and downright stating that he has no right to bear his monogram, which is pictured in the article. A previous editor warned him of the 3RR, so he changes which areas he edits and then comes back to edit again. He states that any change to the material he inserts is vandalism. I think he needs a time-out. Charles 00:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles's edits constitute vandalisms, as they clearly disregard the text of the decree I posted in the Discussion page, which constitutes the basis of my edits, which he obviously dislikes and which he has thrice reverted. He brings no counter proof, no source for his edits, while ignoring my source. His present report is, therefore, fraudulent and is meant to cover up his vandalisms. Stefanp 01:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

67.0.72.247 reported by Zetawoof

Previous version reverted to: 04:34 June 5, 2006
1st revert: 04:55 June 5, 2006
2nd revert: 05:02 June 5, 2006 (slightly different version)
3rd revert: 05:06 June 5, 2006
4th revert: 05:10 June 5, 2006
5th revert: 05:13 June 5, 2006

Return of a persistent troll. Zetawoof^(ζ) 05:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006-06-05 05:35:09 Sasquatch blocked "67.0.72.247 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 months (recurring vandal) William M. Connolley 08:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I approve of the gesture, but the user appears to have already moved on to 67.0.72.226 (talk · contribs). Zetawoof^(ζ) 09:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, if that helps... William M. Connolley 09:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not - the user has demonstrated their ability to change IPs, and will probably continue to do so - but thanks anyway. Zetawoof^(ζ) 09:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dent2000q reported by User:Appleby

Your recent editing history at Dent2000q shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

1st revert: [94]
2nd revert: [95]
3rd revert: [96]
4th revert: [97]

Reported by: Appleby 06:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Irishpunktom reported by User:Karl Meier

Previous version reverted to: 17:15, 3 June 2006
1st revert: 12:14, 4 June 2006
2nd revert: 17:48, 4 June 2006
3rd revert: 19:46, 4 June 2006
4th revert: 00:53, 5 June 2006

Reported by: Karl Meier 08:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Irishpunktom know the rules, and has been blocked 10 times before for violations of 3rr -- Karl Meier 08:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's just reverted again, then realised he would get blocked for it and said "better wait an hour or so". Sounds totally unrepentant!

Indeed. He just made his 5th revert within 24 hrs. and then reverted himself, with that comment. I can't help myself thinking that the revert and the commment was actually an attempt to avoid his 11th (!) 3rr block... -- Karl Meier 17:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked him for 31 hours. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sentiment expressed in the commentary "self revert - gotta wait an hour or so" makes it very clear what brand of faith Irishpunktom is expressing here. This block should definitely be enforced. Netscott 18:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more closely at the page's edit history, I've unblocked Irishpunktom and locked the page instead. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Another clear 3rr that Irishpunktom doesn't get blocked for. I guess the message is that he can just go wild. -- Karl Meier 18:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he takes that message from it, he'll quickly find out he is mistaken. Alternatively I could have blocked both him and Dbiv; I think in this case it's better to lock one page than two editors. Further comment and discussion is welcome on WP:ANI Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dbiv didn't violate 3rr. He did. But anyway, let's just forget about it. It doesn't matter much anyway. -- Karl Meier 18:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have just come back in after an afternoon/evening meeting. I have to say that the standard of 3RR enforcement is clearly dropping if Tom Harrison thinks he could have blocked me under it. The fact that there is an editing dispute does not mean that both sides must have violated policy. Irishpunktom seems to be the only one on his side of the debate. I explained exactly what I was doing on the talk page, and I'm prepared to listen to arguments over individual sentences, but the blank reverts with no justification by Irishpunktom are simply not acceptable. It is a consistent way that he edits. David | Talk 20:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bless sins reported by User:Timothy Usher

Previous version reverted to:00:55, June 4, 2006
1st revert: 16:43, June 4, 2006
2nd revert: 17:34, June 4, 2006
3rd revert: 20:40, June 4, 2006
4th revert: 03:14, June 5, 2006

Reported by: Timothy Usher 09:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The fourth revert reverted to an older version in a different section[98], but it was a revert nonetheless because it restored a previously removed quote from Muwatta, and counts towards 3RR according to the rules as they’ve been described here during several recent actions.Timothy Usher 09:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin: I've reviewed the history and offer the following - the fourth revert is completely unrelated to the revert war going on in the first three. There seem to be a lot of parties warring over that edit, and there seems to be more than one user opposed to the version which user:Timothy Usher proposes, and supporting the other version. User:Timothy Usher has reverted 3 times. Please try and sort it out on the talk page, and stop edit warring. Kcordina ^Talk 10:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of which parties arrived[99] in response to advertisement at "The Muslim Guild"[100], [101].

You're correct that the fourth revert was unrelated, but that hasn't stopped other users from being blocked quite recently, and various admins have very recently posted comments to this noticeboard to the effect that it doesn't matter if the reverts are related, only that the editor is undoing other editors' work. Comments?Timothy Usher 11:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:3RR, the reverts need not be related; the policy limits the number of reverts per page per 24 hours: "Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part." What I see here are exactly four reverts by Bless sins in a space of less than twelve hours.Pecher 11:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also very surprised to see that this 3rr report is rejected. When looking at the diffs, it seems obvious to me that it's a straightforward violation of the 3 revert rule. There is nothing in the WP:3RR#Exceptions that apply here. -- Karl Meier 11:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I'm asking the admin to reconsider the decision. Pecher ^Talk 11:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kashk reported by User:Aldux (Result 24hr)

Previous version reverted to:5:07, June 4, 2006
1st revert: 11:10, June 4, 2006
2nd revert: 12:08, 4 June 2006
3rd revert: 12:12, 4 June 2006
4th revert: 08:23, 5 June 2006
5th revert: 09:35, 5 June 2006

Comments: The editor certainly knew of the 3RR, as can be seen by here. The editor appears also to be on probation.--Aldux 10:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin: Clear revert warring. User:Grandmaster also blocked as part of same edit war. Kcordina ^Talk 16:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Matthead reported by Molobo

Three revert rule violation on Klaipėda Region. Matthead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 08:41, 3 June 2006
1st revert: 20:23, 3 June 2006
2nd revert: 18:11, 4 June 2006
3rd revert: 19:14, 4 June 2006
4th revert: 19:23, 4 June 2006

Reported by: --Molobo 11:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Lysy, one of the main participants in the revert war, said after the 3RR violation that he had no interest in blocking him, and Matthead was only one hour short of 24h. Besides, the whole report comes one day late... now there's finally some discussion. Sciurinæ 12:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zdravko mk reported by User:Telex (result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: 16:41, 2 June 2006
1st revert: 11:53, 5 June 2006
2nd revert: 12:16, 5 June 2006
3rd revert: 12:26, 5 June 2006
4th revert: 12:37, 5 June 2006

Reported by: Telex 12:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User has been blocked for violating the 3RR on previous occasions, one on the same article less than a week ago (see here), and now has managed to violate it again pushing radical unsourced POV and calling people nationalists in edit summaries. --Telex 12:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly lots of edit warring there. But only Z seems to have broken 3RR... 24h William M. Connolley 19:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:216.227.82.35/User:205.231.31.238 reported by User:Tsetna

Previous version reverted to: 16:07, 3 June 2006 216.227.82.35 (varies)

1st revert: 16:00, 4 June 2006
2nd revert: 20:32, 4 June 2006
3td revert: 21:09, 4 June 2006
4th revert: 00:10, 5 June 2006
5th revert: 03:17, 5 June 2006
6th revert: 12:41, 5 June 2006
7th revert: 15:37, 5 June 2006

Reported by: Tsetna 15:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User has multiple IP addresses all going back to the same ISP. User will not discuss substance of debate in Talk. User has vowed to stop using Talk [102], although looking through history, he has not defended edits before. He has been warned and doesn't seem to care (called my warning a "threat," when all I want to see as an editor is other editors playing fair and trying to resolve the issue. Tsetna 15:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ars Staff and members were notified of the problems with their Autobiography style of editing, where all criticisms are repeatedly removed. I refused to respond to every single post they make in Talk, as I do not have days to spend typing in response to Ars Fans trying to whitewash the article. DaveG, TomServo3000, Maramba, and Kristi_ski seem by their history and Talk to agree with me. Also, a previous disagreement between myself and Last_avenue was worked out in Talk, with the help of Hamilton_Burr. Tsetna and Clintology have been engaging in a revert war that does not maintain NPOV. The article was awash with self-promotion, and I and other editors added some common criticisms of the site/forums. I defended the criticisms, for which they labelled me as someone who had a grudge against Ars. This is not true. Also, my most recent edit on the article was to add references, which I refused to do last night as I was too tired and Ars search is too slow (solved the problem with Google). There are now new references. After I added them, Tsetna reported me on this page. Note that this was not a reversion or minor edit, as it required an hour of my time to research and add the appropriate links. Thanks for listening. --216.227.82.35 16:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the multiple IP addresses are not my fault. I do not have a static IP. Also, our region has had numerous power outages, which probably led to new DHCP leases.--216.227.82.35 16:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More truthiness. All criticisms have not been removed, and I have improved some of the ones that were there, including the plagiarism criticism which you even relented and agree that I was correct on. Stop lying and trying to present this dispute as some whitewashing BS. Criticisms’ success or failure is based on their sources. You have not added any true references to the article that I have seen. You look for anything that shows Ars Technica in a negative light, and add it to the article as a source for whatever criticism you think it maybe sort of some day might kind of relate. How else do you explain adding a forum discussion thread for a journal post to a criticism about the front page news? All of your editions are like that. They’re not accurate, although you do a great job of presenting stuff that might appear almost accurate. Truthiness indeed. More importantly, WP states that if you want to include something, it’s your job to include a reputable source. Can you explain how a link to a forum index is a reputable source for the claim about subscriptions taking 4 weeks to set up? No, you can’t, because the link doesn’t link to anything. You might as well link to CNN. And one final mistruth needs to be addressed. Of the 4-6 criticisms on the page, only two of them have been discussed in Talk. It is wrong to portray these as criticisms that have been discussed and for which there was a consensus. They have not been discussed and there is no consensus. Try focusing on the facts for once. Please, this is turning out to be a giant waste of time, and I and others have gone out of our way to engage you and others in Talk only to be called names and ignored. Tsetna 16:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what names have I called you? As for links to subscription status, I did not add these. There was originally an Amazon review/complaint (not added by me) and a complaint in the subscription issues section of the forum. Someone added this a while ago, and I looked at the reference, which appears to corroborate at least part of the criticism. Initially, an editor had entered that complaints about it seemed to result in a ban. This was later changed to "account suspension". Again, not by me. Considering that you did in fact remove nearly every piece of criticism (you left one, maybe two items) in your edits, which had references (despite your disagreement with those references), I restored that criticism, along with the rest.

Maybe you should address the person who initially added the criticism, and see if they can provide you with a source more satisfactory. Also, you seem to address me almost exclusively, while failing to mention the historical discussion which occurred in the Talk page and explained why the content was being left in. Again, not by me. I'll quote it, so you don't have to dig...

It is understandable that being one of the site administrators, you're going to want to minimize criticism of your website. but that does not mean the criticism should be removed from the article. There is verification. Please reference the wikipedia section dealing with vanity articles. WP:VANITY Kristi ski 00:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That was posted in the ArsTechnica Talk page by Kristi_ski on April 1, 2006. On his/her user page, he/she lists herself as a member of the "Constitution Party" and "Former Democrat". So much for your "right winger" theory, which is the only real name calling I have seen.--216.227.82.35 02:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tommac2 reported by User:brianZ (result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: 15:32, 5 June 2006
1st revert: 15:23, 4 June 2006
2nd revert: 21:10, 4 June 2006
3rd revert: 13:54, 5 June 2006
4th revert: 15:10, 5 June 2006

Reported by: BrianZ 16:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User has been blocked for spamming previously as IP 207.45.240.31. Created a username and continues to spam the article and accuse me of false vendettas. At the minimum, the user needs to be told what Wikipedia's policy on external links is by an admin.

Lots of edit warring here and it's pointless.

Blocked 24h Tommac2 and 207... William M. Connolley 20:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Amherst5282 reported by User:Ardenn (no block)

Three revert rule violation on User talk:Amherst5282. Amherst5282 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

1st revert: [103]
2nd revert: [104]
3rd revert: [105]
4th revert: [106]

Reported by: Ardenn 19:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Continues to blank talk page. Ardenn 19:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think its best if you just stop bothering them. I'm not blocking anyone for blanking their own talk page William M. Connolley 20:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:TopRank reported by User:Jayjg ^(talk) (result: 12h)

Previous version reverted to: 13:08, 4 June 2006
1st revert: 04:48, 5 June 2006
2nd revert: 13:06, 5 June 2006
3rd revert: 16:09, 5 June 2006
4th revert: 18:15, 5 June 2006

Reported by: Jayjg ^(talk) 21:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

TopRank has insisted on restoring quotations from a speech by Ahmadinejad (e.g. "The young tree of resistance in Palestine is blooming and blooms of faith and desire for freedom are flowering.") as well as a POV intro to it. The last two times he has restored slightly less of the speech, but still insists on restoring it. He has been warned by two people about 3RR on his talk page, but insists that he hasn't really done it using various rationalizations, while also insisting that any edit at all by those who disagree with him should count as a "revert". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12h for a first offence. He was fairly well warned William M. Connolley 21:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nistar/User:12.218.144.90 reported by User:Jayjg ^(talk) (result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: 00:23, 2 June 2006
1st revert: 18:31, 5 June 2006
2nd revert: 19:25, 5 June 2006
3rd revert: 19:43, 5 June 2006
4th revert: 20:30, 5 June 2006

Reported by: Jayjg ^(talk) 21:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

There's a fair bit of game-playing going on here. Nistar is reverting to slightly different versions, or versions with different formatting, to make the 3RR violations harder to notice. Also, Nistar has reverted as his IP address as well, but insists that it's not really him, but a "friend" who uses the same IP and forgot to login. He was informed of the 3RR violation, but refused to revert him/herself. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both blocked for 24 hours. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:84.49.108.14 reported by User:Rhobite (result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: 05:24, June 5, 2006
1st revert: 06:17, June 5, 2006
2nd revert: 06:35, June 5, 2006
3rd revert: 14:39, June 5, 2006
4th revert: 16:28, June 5, 2006
5th revert: 16:34, June 5, 2006
6th revert: 16:41, June 5, 2006
7th revert: 17:11, June 5, 2006
8th revert: 17:38, June 5, 2006

Reported by: Rhobite 21:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Blocked for 24 hours; I think he was up to nine by the time I blocked him. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Necrothesp reported by User:Guettarda (result: self-revert)

Previous version reverted to: 22:56, 3 June 2006
1st revert: 17:20, 4 June 2006
2nd revert: 09:10, 5 June 2006
3rd revert: 09:23, 5 June 2006
4th revert: 10:47, 5 June 2006

Reported by: Guettarda 22:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

The editor is an admin and has been here longer than me, so it's safe to assume that s/he is familiar with the 3RR. Guettarda 22:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has self-reverted after warning: no block. Note: both sides are edit warring there; be good William M. Connolley 23:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnstevens5 reported by User:Khoikhoi

Previous version reverted to: 20:27, 5 June 2006
1st revert: 21:17, 5 June 2006
2nd revert: 22:08, 5 June 2006
3rd revert: 22:28, 5 June 2006
4th revert: 22:55, 5 June 2006

Reported by: —Khoikhoi 23:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User knows about 3RR because I told him about it here, but he reverted anyway. —Khoikhoi 23:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for 24 hours. Naconkantari 03:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Margana reported by User:I@n

Previous version reverted to: 11:10, June 6, 2006 KimvdLinde
1st revert: 10:40, June 6, 2006
2nd revert: 10:50, June 6, 2006
3rd revert: 10:58, June 6, 2006
4th revert: 20:46, June 6, 2006

Reported by: I@n ≡ talk 14:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

User was warned of possble 3RR violation here, but chose to ignore.
Blocked 24 hours -- I@n ≡ talk 14:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Amibidhrohi reported by User:Pecher ^Talk

Previous version reverted to: 03:51, June 5, 2006
1st revert: 21:44, June 5, 2006
2nd revert: 21:57, June 5, 2006
3rd revert: 14:30, June 6, 2006
4th revert: 15:04, June 6, 2006
5th revert: 15:28, June 6, 2006

Reported by: Pecher ^Talk 16:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I have combined several consecutive edits into one edit difference giving the time of the last edit. The first two reverts were repeated removals of an entire section "Dhimmi"; the last three reverts were reinsertions of a number of tags into the article. The user knows about the 3RR because they have already been blocked many times for its violation. Pecher ^Talk 16:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 31 hours. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bazzajf reported by User:Powers (result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: 17:00 5 June 2006
1st revert: 05:09 6 June 2006
2nd revert: 09:20 6 June 2006
3rd revert: 10:30 6 June 2006
4th revert: 11:18 6 June 2006

Reported by: Powers 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Claims his preferred wording has been in place for weeks, which is untrue.

Edited to add: He has also recently been involved in repeatedly changing User:Stemonitis's user page. Has now resorted to personal attacks in his fifth revert here: 13:01 6 June 2006. Powers 18:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24h William M. Connolley 18:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hipocrite

Previous version reverted to: [107]
1st revert: [108]
2nd revert: [109]
3rd revert: [110]
4th revert: [111]

Reported by: 64.229.209.82 19:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Where's the 3RR violation? The edits are three days apart? Monkey-baiting. -- FRCP11 21:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He reverts once per day ! I don't think the time is relevant 64.229.209.82 21:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting the contibutions of a blocked user evading a block is not considered a revert for the purposes of 3rr. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionaly, the "previous version reverted to" is nothing like the 4 reverts, which are seperated by 3 days. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not blocked. User:Hipocrite was banned since April as he had a sockpuppet User:Hpuppet he has been back for four days and is spamming, time to shut him down ! 64.229.209.82 22:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Osli73 reported by User:Live Forever (Result:warned)

Previous version reverted to: 9:57, 2 June 2006
1st revert: 19:26, 5 June 2006
2nd revert: 20:23, 5 June 2006
3rd revert: 10:12, 6 June 2006
4th revert: 18:59, 6 June 2006

Reported by: Live Forever 21:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin: user warned that future breaches may result in a block. Kcordina ^Talk 08:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:205.188.116.10 and User:WCityMike reported by Hetar

Previous version reverted to: 21:07, 6 June 2006
1st revert: 21:22, 6 June 2006
2st revert: 21:24, 6 June 2006
3nd revert: 21:28, 6 June 2006
4rd revert: 21:30, 6 June 2006

Originally WCityMike was removing a personal attack (a very mild one, but still a personal attack) but after the anonymous user replaced the RPA template with a valid statement WCityMike continued to remove it. Kind of a complex situation here, but if an administrator would look at it, it would be appreciated.

Reported by: --Hetar 21:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

sorry, I must be out of place to mention the spew of other nominations you've made today is removable under RPA, in my judgement. We could do with more civility William M. Connolley 21:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mwhs reported by User:BorgQueen

Previous version reverted to: 14:12, 6 June 2006
1st revert: 14:18, 6 June 2006
2nd revert: 14:53, 6 June 2006
3rd revert: 21:06, 6 June 2006
4th revert: 21:57, 6 June 2006

Reported by: BorgQueen 03:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule violation on John Wayne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 195.93.21.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): NOTE While not yet in violation (only two reverts thus far) will likely be in violation of reverting my deletion of an entire section of text that contained no sources and each time he has reverted he's added more inflammatory and unsourced statements to the article. As you can see by his unsigned talk page contributions his main goal is to slander the name of John Wayne no matter how long it takes. If an admin could warn him about he rule and then watchlist the page so that we can be sure to stop it if it becomes a problem. Batman2005 13:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

The user, engaged in edit war, does not reply to warnings and remarks, and continues to ignore WP:MOS. --BorgQueen 03:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BLocked for 24. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tommac2 reported by User:brianZ

Previous version reverted to: 14:17, 7 June 2006
1st revert: 01:01 7 June 2006
2nd revert: [01:06, 7 June 2006
3rd revert: 04:05, 7 June 2006
4th revert: 13:57, 7 June 2006

Reported by: BrianZ 16:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User has been blocked for spamming previously as IP 207.45.240.31. Created a username and continues to spam the article and accuse me of false vendettas. User was blocked on Monday for 24 Hours for violation of 3RR and this is my second reporting of him. This time, he is reverting the article back two weeks which is nullifying many other edits besides my deletions of his spam. I have warned him in the history page and he conitinues to revert. BrianZ 14:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Tommac2's comments as to not interrupt my text. He has reported me for fixing the article from his reverts as well. See below. BrianZ 14:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have fully protected the page and blocked for 12 hours. Please come to a resolution on the talk page. Naconkantari 15:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:BrianZ reported by User:Tommac2

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: 7 June 2006
2nd revert: 13:51, 7 June 2006
3rd revert: 02:54, 7 June 2006
4th revert: 20:45, 5 June 2006

Comments: This is an ongoing issue. He had his site removed from the External Links section and now has deleted all other External links. As I try to revert back to the initial form he changes it. Currently this is in dispute but he wont stop reverting and delting the External Links. This has been happening for the past week or so ... to many reverts to put here.

I have fully protected the article and also blocked for 12 hours. Please come to a resolution on the talk page. Naconkantari 15:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wiki-star reported by User:Voice of Treason (result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: 16:05, 7 June 2006
1st revert: 16:35, 7 June 2006
2nd revert: 16:42, 7 June 2006
3rd revert: 17:45, 7 June 2006
4th revert: 18:31, 7 June 2006

Reported by: Voice of Treason 18:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Wiki-star ignores consensus of other three users on article, frequently displays WP:OWN or tells others how things must be done. Ignored 3RR warning with blaming comment on talk page. Voice of Treason 18:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24h (JPG got there 47 seconds before me) William M. Connolley 18:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:For great justice.

Previous version reverted to: multiple
1st revert: 16:09, 6 June 2006, removing "Hoax theorists have said that their ideas cast a pall on all of science...", added by User:ScienceApologist at 15:12, 6 June 2006
2nd revert: 20:15, 6 June 2006
3rd revert: 13:19, 7 June 2006
4th revert: 14:44, 7 June 2006

Reported by: Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Nice. More trolling by Tom. Insert some outrageous POV, and then sit back and wait. Of course, those who care of the NPOV guidelines care more for that than rulemongering about edits, and you can block them. Thus, your POV stands without scrutiny. Nice gaming the system, Tom. For great justice. 20:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, on looking at them, they're not even reverts. Nice. For great justice. 20:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh give over. You're just spoiling for an argument. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 20:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I take NPOV seriously. Tom's trolling is totally unacceptable, and he has been reverted many times by other people. He is trying to bait people who try to represent a minority opinion into getting blocked by repeatedly pushing his pov. For great justice. 20:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV applies to reliable sources, not to crackpot conspiracy theories. In those cases, we merely report that such theories exist.Timothy Usher 20:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's indefblocked at the minute so can't respond. I can't imagine anyone will want to unblock him. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 20:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:LtPowers reported by User:Bazzajful

Previous version reverted to: [112]
1st revert: [113]
2nd revert: [114]
3rd revert: [115]
4th revert: [116]

Reported by: Bazzajful 19:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments User bazzajf was blocked for 24hours for 3 reverts, user ltpowers was guilty of as many if not more reverts within the same period and is surely guilty of breaching this rule. bazzajf's initial addition was preserved for upto a week, he was simply trying to revert to the accepted addition whereas User Ltpowers was merely engaging in edit wars. I speak with vested interest however as I am his housemate but I have not hidden this fact as he has asked me to log in with his username plus two letters in order to not disguise this fact or to be accused of sockpuppetry as he is against this. He asks this drastically unfair situation be addressed. Thank you very much. Paul

A cooling off period for both 3RRers may help. If it's not too late, try to sit down and have a nice cup of tea. I hope it's not too late for that. --Flawiki 19:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently under a self-imposed 12-hour block for violating the 3RR due to miscounting. I am violating that block now only to mention this fact, and won't comment further on this dispute until the block period has expired. See here: [117]. Powers 20:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are 12 hour blocks provided by policy somewhere? --Flawiki 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite no hard wording in the 3rr policy above, there are several examples of 12h / 8hr / 48hr blocks in the records above (lower values for first offenses). As Lt Powers has never been blocked for 3rr, and Bazzajf has been blocked for 3rr just a few days ago I would consider the disparity in their blocks justified. Syrthiss 20:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe a disparate blocking will help improve the article in question? Looking at it from the blockee's side, I'm not sure how to square it with 3RR prescription that states "Where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally." Flawiki 20:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bazzajful is pretty clearly a sock of Bazzajf and as such I've blocked it indefinitely for evading the ban. I'll extend Bazzajf's block too William M. Connolley 21:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One muses that both parties have a case perhaps. One suggests that it is most definitely sock-puppetry in play on bazzajf's part and hence the extension of his ban is fair perhaps. One wonders whether a 12hour ban, particularly a self-imposed one is useful in WP as users in certain time zones simply sleep off the ban and it does not serve as being punitive perhaps. One concludes a 24hr ban would be appropriate for LT Powers and the extension ban on bazzajf should be indefinite perhaps. One advises relaxation now for everyone perhaps. Thank you

One investigates WP:3RR and maybe one should refer to this line perhaps. If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally. 62.77.181.16 10:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My self-imposed moratorium over, I have just a couple of items to add. I imposed the moratorium for only 12 hours because I've seen first-time offenses garner a 12-hour block before, and because I was not the only one reverting Bazzajf's changes. The clause for treating all sides equally assumes that the two sides are just reverting each other back and forth. While I did violate the 3RR, it was interspersed with other editors also reverting Bazzajf's changes (which is what resulted in my miscounting of my reverts). I did not just "sleep off" the block, either, but if it's any consolation, I'll further restrict myself to obvious vandalism reverts and talk page comments until 24 hours have expired. I have apologized to Bazzajf for overreacting over these changes and I hope we can seek a consensus on the talk page instead of mindlessly reverting back and forth. Powers 12:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I accepted my ban for what turned out to be 27 hours when I instructed my flat-mate to plead my case, a form of quasi-sockpuppetry but it wan't deceitful in that he logged in using virtually the same username and I instructed him to advise that he was speaking as a vested interest. I received LtPowers qualified apology which is fair enough but for his wrong-doing he has not been punished, not yet anyway and it doesn't appear he will. I think most fair-minded people would agree he deserves the same punishment as me as we both commited the same infringements. His defence that his reverts were interspersed with others reverting me doesn't ring true and is not a fair depiction, we were both reverting each other's contributions, one and only one person came into revert me besides you in our edit war so please don't exaggerate the situation. In fact, my contribution which had preserved for 3-4 days had been reverted back to my version by more than one other editor in that period. I feel a 24hour block must be issued to LtPowers to uphold the integrity and credibility of the WP system of administration in these disputes. It is nothing personal, I just feel unfairly slighted and marginalised as a relatively new user if no action is taken against someone equally as guilty as myself where I have just suffered an embargo. Bazzajf 21:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Touth reported by User:Golbez

Previous version reverted to: [118]
1st revert: 23:36 June 7
2nd revert: 00:22 June 8
3rd revert: 00:36 June 8
4th revert: 01:00 June 8

Reported by: Golbez 05:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The user has some issue with an image. He removed it four times, then reverted a valid edit to the article as "vandalism". In the past of 4 hours, this user has made editing this article unbearable. I would block him myself were I not involved in the fight. --Golbez 05:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I originally had the wrong name here. Whoops. --Golbez 05:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:CFLeon reported by User:Circeus

Previous version reverted to: [119]
1st revert: 20:15, June 7, 2006
2nd revert: 20:41, June 7, 2006
3rd revert: 21:16, June 7, 2006
4th revert: 22:13, June 7, 2006

Reported by: Circeus 14:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The user seems to have some serious issues with my applicationof WP:EL and WP:SPAM and continues to accuse me of biased removal even after I clearly stated my issues with his linking. I'd block myself, but I am involved in the dispute. The same generic link is being added to all crocodylianspecies, which amounts to WP:SPAM. Circeus 14:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've *both* broken 3RR on this article, sigh. What to do with you? I'm not sure, so I'll leave it for an hour or so... William M. Connolley 16:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, I have been reverting linkspam.Circeus 16:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a judgement call... not sure tha makes you immune from 3RR. In fact I'm pretty sure it doesn't... linkspam isn't simple vandalism William M. Connolley 17:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspam is, I believe, only vandalism if it's obviously irrelevant or obviously commercial advertising. The link in question is neither. Powers 17:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, yes, but I wouldn't block the reverting user. The reverts were made in good faith, in an attempt to guard Wikipedia. Damned good reason for doing it in my opinion, even if it was misguided. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 17:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will accept any block put on me. I wasn't very attentive when I reverted and I did break the rule. Circeus 21:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither deserves a block. Sure looks like linkspam on first glance, so I can see where Circeus was coming from. Answer to this is to link the subpages of the Crocodilian site. Have posted on the relevant talk pages -- Samir धर्म 08:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Asina reported by User:Eupator (result: warning)

Previous version reverted to: [120]
1st revert: [121]
2nd revert: [122]
3rd revert: [123]
4th revert: [124]
5th revert: [125]

Reported by: Eupator 14:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Simple, user kept adding nationalist pov that can't be verified, eventually adding a disputed tag.--Eupator 14:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if #4 counts as a revert, but #5 is, so thats 4... first offence, seems to have stopped... just a warning for now William M. Connolley 15:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:71.96.102.35 / User:66.136.91.33 reported by User:Sidasta

Previous version reverted to: [126]
1st revert: [127]
2nd revert: [128]
3rd revert: [129]

Reported by: Sidasta 15:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I'm really not sure if this qualifies, but I've been noticing that this user keeps adding content to this page as if it was a discussion board (referring to the previous line, stating "this is NOT true," etc). I have tried to revert it, leaving informative reasons for reverting ("if information is incorrect, please correct it"), but so far, this person has simply reverted it back. I don't think they're actually looking at the history to see my revert reason. If this doesn't come under the 3RR rule, could someone suggest what I do about this? Should I just ignore it? Am I doing something wrong? Sidasta 15:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may.... first of all, assuming the two IPs are the same person (a reasonable assumption), they are not yet in violation of the 3RR (they need a fourth reversion). It's obvious that whomever it is isn't reading your edit comments, or is ignoring them intentionally. Since I'm guessing you're concerned about violating the 3RR yourself (although I would say this qualifies as reverting obvious vandalism, and thus an exception), I will try replacing the inserted text with an HTML comment like so: . Alternatively, you could try leaving that message on the talk pages in question. Beyond that, options include temporarily blocking the IPs, or semi-protecting the article. Powers 15:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input Powers, we'll see if that helps anything and will bear what you've suggested in mind for the future. I appreciate your input - I'm kinda new to editing Wikipedia and I want to make sure I'm doing things right! Sidasta 16:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:8bitJake reported by User:FRCP11 (Case No. 3) (result: 12h each)

Previous version reverted to: 17:32 June 7
1st revert: 18:32 June 7
2nd revert: 18:40
3rd revert: 15:28 June 8
4th revert: 15:58 June 8

Reported by: FRCP11 16:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I reported 8bitJake for multiple violations of 3RR on Henry M. Jackson, which resulted in two separate blocks. He retaliated by repeatedly reverting my edits on Christine Gregoire and Moby. Rather than getting into a revert war, I simply added a POV tag to the Gregoire article, and made a RFC for both articles; he's now removed the POV tag four times in 20 hours, as well as violated WP:NPA on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics page. Beware that 8bitJake regularly claims "consensus" when none exists (he was in a 1:6 minority on Henry Jackson and is in a 2:3 minority on Gregoire). -- FRCP11 16:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think FRCP11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 8 have both broken 3RR; so they can have 12h each William M. Connolley 19:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a question as a third party who's been directly involved in this ongoing battle w/8BJ, how does 12 hours work for a user's 5th offense and his third in less than 10 days? Is there a formula that admins use on this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no fixed rules. 8bit would probably have got 24h from me had he been the only violater William M. Connolley 21:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So one's past isn't taken into account? The fact that he's a serial violator means nothing in this case? I'm puzzled. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia really needs to rethink its procedures. Because I reported this guy and he got a tiny block last week, he's been wikistalking me, systematically reverted all of my edits, and regularly personally attacking me. I followed the rules, discussed on the talk pages, and issued RFCs, no effect. When I reported him again, I got blocked; if I had just let him keep vandalizing the page, I wouldn't have been blocked. Meanwhile, this guy, who's been blocked five times now, and hasn't ever attempted compromise, gets the same penalty I do -- except he didn't waste time drafting a complaint. (8bitJake understands the effect of this arbitrary ruling, even if the administrators don't: Look at him gloat as he gets taught how to make bad-faith edits.

If Wikipedia makes its editors worse off for reporting violations, then violators are going to act with impunity. I'm certainly not going to spend time writing up one of these notices any more: I'm stunned anyone does after what I went through for doing so. Nor am I going to waste my time editing Wikipedia any more, either, because if it doesn't treat the bad-faith editors any differently than the good-faith editors, it means that this place is doomed to have the noise outweigh the signal. Gresham's Law.

I'm not going to waste two weeks going through three levels of procedure to get this guy to stop harassing me when the administrators can't even distinguish between the placement of a POV tag and a 3RR violation, and count compromise edits that add sources as counting towards 3RR violations.

So, congratulations: you chased away an educated editor who'd contributed over 2000 edits in favor of a bad-faith editor who ignores the RFC process. -- FRCP11 10:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Panairjdde reported by User:Nissi Kim (result: 3h)

Previous version reverted to: 08:37, 7 June 2006

Note: User:Panairjdde has several other reverts of the same issues before this 24 hour period.

1st revert: 09:43, 7 June 2006
2nd revert: 08:54, 8 June 2006
3rd revert: 08:54, 8 June 2006
4th revert: 12:50, 8 June 2006
5th revert: 14:22, 8 June 2006

Reported by: Nissi Kim 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:Panairjdde continues to input biased, non-NPOV, irrelevent, unsupported-uncited-unreferenced opinions. He has been told numerous times that he has put in biased, degrading material and information but repeatedly reverts the edits. I'm fairly knew to this article and upon entering the Discussion page, it seems as if he has been warned by several others in the WIki community. His original edits seem to be NPOV but has verged far from that. The exact lines and etc. can be seen discussed in the Talk page.

3h first offence William M. Connolley 19:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Envix reported by User:older ≠ wiser

Previous version reverted to: [130]
Note there were also several reversions before the current 24hr period.
1st revert: 14:58, June 8, 2006
2nd revert: 15:05, June 8, 2006
3rd revert: 15:08, June 8, 2006
4th revert: 15:10, June 8, 2006
5th revert: 15:17, June 8, 2006
6th revert: 17:50, June 8, 2006

Second round after making a few superficial changes:

Previous version reverted to: [131]
1st revert: 18:36, June 8, 2006
2nd revert: 18:43, June 8, 2006
3rd revert: 18:47, June 8, 2006
4th revert: 18:49, June 8, 2006

Reported by: older ≠ wiser 18:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User is new, and may be a DeVos campaign worker (see Talk:Dick DeVos), but in any case seems to have developed a sense of ownership over the article and their preferred version. older ≠ wiser 18:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006-06-08 18:59:51 Naconkantari blocked "Envix (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR on Dick DeVos) William M. Connolley 19:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mikhail Frunze reported by User:User:Ultramarine

Previous version reverted to: 20:28, 8 June 2006
1st revert: 21:25, 8 June 2006
2nd revert: 22:18, 8 June 2006
3rd revert: 22:37, 8 June 2006
4th revert: 22:44, 8 June 2006

Reported by: Ultramarine 23:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Four reverts to exactly the same version. Is behaving similarly on Holodomor.Ultramarine 23:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Mikhail Frunze probably uses also IP 69.111.8.1 (talk · contribs) for reverted --Yakudza 01:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Looper5920 reported by User:217.235.205.150

Previous version reverted to: 12:17, 8 June 2006
1st revert: 12:24, 8 June 2006
2nd revert: 18:34, 8 June 2006
3rd revert: 22:19, 8 June 2006
4th revert: 22:55, 8 June 2006

Reported by: 217.235.205.150

Comments: Looper keeps reverting improvements to the article named above. From his statements on /Talk I understand that he wants the article to represent the official position of the US Military instead of facts.

This is not the place for content disputes, but be aware that even if Looper is blocked (since Looper did violate the 3RR), that does not represent an endorsement of your change. I would suggest you seek a consensus on the talk page before reverting it again. Powers 01:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What, 3RR can be broken as long as it is related to a content dispute, but not if everyone agrees? What idiotic argumentation is that?

It's not one I made. I'm not saying 3RR can be broken, I'm saying that it doesn't mean you're right and Looper is wrong, just that Looper went too far in enforcing Looper's preferred version. It's a moot point now, since Looper has tried a compromise, and I'm frankly not sure which of you is correct anymore. =) Powers 12:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:68.112.25.197 reported by User:cholmes75 (chit chat)

Previous version reverted to: 13:35, June 1, 2006
1st revert: 00:12, June 6, 2006
2nd revert: 00:26, June 6, 2006
3rd revert: 06:33, June 6, 2006

Reported by: cholmes75 (chit chat) 05:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I'm not sure if it's too late to report this, but user 68.112.25.197 engaged in a mini-edit war for the sole purpose of placing a non-fair use image into an article. He/she has already been blocked once for 3RR violations. He was also warned about 3RR again on his talk page, and as far as I can tell did it anyway. (unless I'm getting the times mixed up)

User:Objectman reported by User:Deiaemeth

For An Jung-geun

Previous version reverted to: 04:14, 9 June 2006
1st revert: 04:50, 9 June 2006
2nd revert: 05:25, 9 June 2006
3rd revert: 06:30, 9 June 2006
4th revert: 07:48, 9 June 2006
5th revert: 08:43, 9 June 2006

For VANK

Previous version reverted to: 9 June 2006
1st revert: 04:49, 9 June 2006
2nd revert: 05:24, 9 June 2006
3rd revert: 06:29, 9 June 2006
4th revert: 07:47, 9 June 2006
5th revert: 08:42, 9 June 2006

Reported by: Deiaemeth 08:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Warned numerous times for 3RR violation through user talk, article talk, and edit summary, deleted warning template off user page, keeps inserting personal POV like "Ahn Jung-geun is regarded as stupid man who killed an old guy", inserts POV templates in many articles just because the article doesn't suit his POV, etc. He has more edits that violate 3RR but i'll just list these. "only a stupid terrorist who killed a defenseless old man. " This seems very encyclopedic and NPOV. Deiaemeth 08:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Report a new violation

===[[User:VIOLATOR-USERNAME]] reported by User:~~~===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|USER NAME}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

* Previous version reverted to:  [http://VersionLink VersionTime] <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
* 1st revert: [http://DiffLink DiffTime]
* 2nd revert: [http://DiffLink DiffTime]
* 3rd revert: [http://DiffLink DiffTime]
* 4th revert: [http://DiffLink DiffTime]

Reported by: ~~~~




'''Comments:'''
<!-- This is an *example*! Do not leave your report here - place it ABOVE the header"!!-->

@@ Line 2,018: / Line 2,018: @@
 '''Comments:'''  I'm not sure if it's too late to report this, but user 68.112.25.197 engaged in a mini-edit war for the sole purpose of placing a non-fair use image into an article.  He/she has already been blocked once for 3RR violations.  He was also warned about 3RR again on his talk page, and as far as I can tell did it anyway.  (unless I'm getting the times mixed up)
-===[[User:Homeontherange]] reported by User:[[User:Pecher|Pecher]] <sup>[[User talk:Pecher|Talk]]</sup>===
-[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Apartheid_outside_of_South Africa}}. {{3RRV|Homeontherange}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
-* Previous version reverted to:  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apartheid_outside_of_South_Africa&oldid=57383091  17:24, June 7, 2006] <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
-* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apartheid_outside_of_South_Africa&diff=57627315&oldid=57607608  01:19, June 9, 2006]
-* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apartheid_outside_of_South_Africa&diff=57636800&oldid=57636502  02:37, June 9, 2006]
-* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apartheid_outside_of_South_Africa&diff=next&oldid=57637829  02:46, June 9, 2006]
-* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apartheid_outside_of_South_Africa&diff=57662684&oldid=57658742  06:42, June 9, 2006]
-Reported by: [[User:Pecher|Pecher]] <sup>[[User talk:Pecher|Talk]]</sup> 07:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
-'''Comments:'''  The first three reverts were repeated removals of material from the section on Israel; the fourth revert was a reinsertion of the original research tag, initially inserted by Homeontherange at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apartheid_outside_of_South_Africa&diff=57645343&oldid=57641767  03:48, June 9, 2006] and removed by another editor at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apartheid_outside_of_South_Africa&diff=57653049&oldid=57650653  05:03, June 9, 2006]. This is the third 3RR violation by Homeontherange on various apartheid-related articles. The user was blocked for one of the first two violations, but not blocked for the other one on condition of not editing the article in question for 24 hours. [[User:Pecher|Pecher]] <sup>[[User talk:Pecher|Talk]]</sup> 07:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
-'''Comments:''' This editor appears to have become fixated on the metaphorical use of the term "Apartheid" in certain strains of political discourse to describe situations outside South Africa, to the point where it's disrupting Wikipedia.  His involvement in disciplinary actions against users with whom he's disputed content on these and closely-related subjects has raised eyebrows[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Homeontherange/archive3&diff=56855110&oldid=56832522], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Homeontherange/archive3&diff=56856496&oldid=56855110], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Homeontherange/archive3&diff=prev&oldid=56883425], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Homeontherange/archive3&diff=56883966&oldid=56883425], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHomeontherange&diff=56988427&oldid=56986595], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Homeontherange&diff=57408243&oldid=57405400].  He's created a number of articles[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_apartheid], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Apartheid], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_apartheid], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apartheid_wall&redirect=no], some of rather questionable value, which use the phrase in more-or-less novel ways, seemingly in order to justify the existence of [[Apartheid (disambiguation)]], which became the subject of contentious and time-consuming AfD's[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sexual_apartheid], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gender_apartheid], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Global_apartheid], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Apartheid_wall], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Apartheid_%28disambiguation%29].  He solicited[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bertilvidet&diff=57561091&oldid=56651018] and joined in a vacuous report about a content dispute related to a link to the disambiguation page from [[History of South Africa in the apartheid era]] on [[WP:AN#Disambiguation vandalism|WP:AN]], and now he's here on [[WP:3RR]] regarding the same very specific issue.  I think it's time he take a few steps back from this subject and gain some perspective on the way he's been impacting Wikipedia.[[User:Timothy Usher|Timothy Usher]] 08:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
-'''Comment''': '''I'm being accused of a 3RR violation for reiniserting an Original Research tag that did not exist until after the prior reversions? ''' a) the tag is not in what is listed as "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apartheid_outside_of_South_Africa&oldid=57383091  the previous version reverted to]] so inserting it is not a violation b) it was a questionable act to remove the tag in the first place. I'm not familiar with the reinsertion of a tag *ever* being cited as a 3RR. Pecher and Usher are overreaching. There is no violation. [[User:Homeontherange|Homey]] 12:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
-::*Please see this version, it already included the  Original Research tag  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apartheid_outside_of_South_Africa&oldid=57650653] it was removed so yes re-inserting it is clearly a revert of a section of the article. {{3RRV|Homeontherange}} insreted it at least wtice in the last 24 hours (on top of other reverts):
-::Here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apartheid_outside_of_South_Africa&diff=57645343&oldid=57641767]
-::and here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apartheid_outside_of_South_Africa&diff=57662684&oldid=57658742]
-This is not the only time he disrpted editing to make his [[WP:point]]
-::::{{3RRV|Homeontherange}} also praticipated in an edit-ring to circumvent the 3RR law. (i.e.) he disrupted Wikipedia while violating [[WP:Point#Gaming_the_system]]
-::::*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_South_Africa_in_the_apartheid_era&diff=57507517&oldid=57251778 09:34 June 8, 2006–06–08]
-::::*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_South_Africa_in_the_apartheid_era&diff=57509240&oldid=57507517 09:53 June 8, 2006–06–08]
-::::*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_South_Africa_in_the_apartheid_era&diff=57509834&oldid=57509240 10:00 June 8, 2006–06–08]
-::::*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_South_Africa_in_the_apartheid_era&diff=57560196&oldid=57509834 17:43 June 8, 2006–06–08]
-:::::reported by [[User:Zeq|Zeq]] 13:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 ===[[User:Objectman]] reported by User:[[User:Deiaemeth|Deiaemeth]]===

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Revision as of 13:44, 9 June 2006

Violations

User:Zer0faults reported by User:Mr. Tibbs (result: stale)

User:DreamGuy reported by User:Centauri

User:Ed Poor reported by User:ScienceApologist

User:71.109.235.81 reported by User:Ohnoitsjamie

User:8bitJake reported by User:FRCP11 (second report) (result - 24hr block)

User:Rtvl73 reported by User:Zerida Result: 12 hours

User:209.135.115.121 aka User:Ndru01 aka User:Moonlight serenade reported by User:Hillman (result: 24h)

User:Giovanni33 reported by User:Timothy Usher (Result: 3hr)

User:Kenaz9 reported by User:Cyberjunkie

User:DreamGuy reported by User:Asatruer

User:Ed_Smith reported by Reported by: 64.12.117.12

User:Greier reported by User:Khoikhoi

User:Ahwaz reported by User:Bidabadi (result: no 3RR violation, no block)

User:Ed Poor reported by User:Ashenai (result: no block)

User:Butchpenton reported by User:Ladlergo (result: 12h)

User:195.93.21.5 reported by User:Jhamez84 (result: no 3RR violation)

User:Ec5618 reported by User:PinchasC (result: 24h)

User:Pantherarosa reported by User:Paul Cyr

User:Vlatkoto reported by User:FunkyFly (result: 24h)

User:212.138.64.176 etc. reported by User:Timothy Usher (result: 24hr range block)

User:Appleby reported by User:Commonsenses (result: 48h, unblocked for rvv)

User:AlexPU reported by User:Kuban Cossack

User:8bitJake reported by User:FRCP11 (two violations) (result: 48h)

Second violation by User:8bitJake

User:Inigmatus reported by User:RandomP (result: No 3RR violation, no block)

User:Tony_Sidaway reported by User:Chcknwnm

User:Zora reported by User:Pecher Talk (result: 12h)

User:Bazzajf reported by User:Vashti 12:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Nescio reported by User:217.235.210.168 (result: 24h)

User:John Beyer reported by User:Scott Wilson (result: 3h)

User:Subwaynz reported by User:Llort (result: 24h, also for Lemonus)

User:Zdravko mk reported by User:FunkyFly

Nikola Karev

Lazar Koliševski (result: 24h)

User:Ed Poor reported by User:ScienceApologist (result: 24h)

User:Andries reported by User:Goethean (result: 24h)

User:201.209.104.7/User:G.ELIECER/User:Guillen reported by User:Kimchi.sg

User:For great justice. (result: 24h)

User:Ilir_pz reported by User:C-c-c-c

Ilir pz again

User:UniverseToday reported by User:William Pietri (result: 12h)

User:Thameen reported by User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

User:GDP reported by User:Getcrunk

User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg reported by User:Thameen 17:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC) (result: No 3RR violation, no block)

User:Pecher / User:Anonymous editor

User:Pecher reported by User:Faisal

User:Anonymous editor reported by User:Pecher Talk

User:SqueakBox / User:Wangi reported by User:wangi (result: 12h for both)

User:216.15.48.10 reported by User:RWR8189 (result: 24h)

User:Cvene64 reported by User:138.130.217.135

User:CreoleMe reported by User:Pentb (result: 24h)

User:CPRice reported by User:Ibaranoff24

User:Constantzeanu reported by User:`'mikka (t) (result: 24h)

User:For great justice. (result: 24h)

User:C-c-c-c reported by User:ilir_pz

User:RevolverOcelotX reported by User:YINever

User:YINever reported by User:RevolverOcelotX

User:Stefanp reported by User:Cfvh

67.0.72.247 reported by Zetawoof

User:Dent2000q reported by User:Appleby

User:Irishpunktom reported by User:Karl Meier

User:Bless sins reported by User:Timothy Usher

User:Kashk reported by User:Aldux (Result 24hr)

User:Matthead reported by Molobo

User:Zdravko mk reported by User:Telex (result: 24h)

User:216.227.82.35/User:205.231.31.238 reported by User:Tsetna

Tommac2 reported by User:brianZ (result: 24h)

User:Amherst5282 reported by User:Ardenn (no block)

User:TopRank reported by User:Jayjg (talk) (result: 12h)

User:Nistar/User:12.218.144.90 reported by User:Jayjg (talk) (result: 24h)

User:84.49.108.14 reported by User:Rhobite (result: 24h)

User:Necrothesp reported by User:Guettarda (result: self-revert)

User:Johnstevens5 reported by User:Khoikhoi

User:Margana reported by User:I@n

User:Amibidhrohi reported by User:Pecher Talk

User:Bazzajf reported by User:Powers (result: 24h)

User:Osli73 reported by User:Live Forever (Result:warned)

User:205.188.116.10 and User:WCityMike reported by Hetar

User:Zora reported by User:Pecher ^Talk (result: 12h)

User:Anonymous editor reported by User:Pecher ^Talk

User:TopRank reported by User:Jayjg ^(talk) (result: 12h)

User:Nistar/User:12.218.144.90 reported by User:Jayjg ^(talk) (result: 24h)

User:Amibidhrohi reported by User:Pecher ^Talk