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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:20, 28 March 2006

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

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)
343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352
353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362
Incidents (archives, search)
1138	1139	1140	1141	1142	1143	1144	1145	1146	1147
1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
464	465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472	473
474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320	321	322
323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Violations

User:WegianWarrior

Previous version reverted to: 19:30, March 16, 2006
1st revert: 00:11, March 17, 2006
2nd revert: 00:16, March 17, 2006
3rd revert: 00:21, March 17, 2006
4th revert: 01:02, March 17, 2006
5th revert: 01:33, March 17, 2006

Reported by: Seraphim 06:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Pretty clear 4rr violation. User should have stepped back and let the other editors revert. Seraphim 06:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And yeah, I got carried away. Mea culpa. I guess I have to find something else to do for 24 hours. WegianWarrior 07:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours.Gator (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hamsacharya dan

Previous version reverted to: 21:45, 16 March 2006
1st revert: 22:14, 16 March 2006
2nd revert: 22:47, 16 March 2006
3rd revert: 23:03, 16 March 2006
4th revert: 23:59, 16 March 2006
5th revert: 01:43, 17 March 2006

Reported by: Baba Louis 19:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:Hamsacharya dan keeps removing a conflicting views section with which he does not agree. He is a true believer in the subject of the article and is guarding it against what he considers disrepect for his teacher. I believe the section is valid and can be supported, but he won't leave it in long enough for myself and others to work on it.

Blocked 24h: first offence but deliberately deceptive edit comments annoy me William M. Connolley 19:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Swedenman

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

Reported by: Probert 21:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 1 week based on 3d or 4th violation. Pretty clear cut. Very unfortunate.Gator (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Durova

Previous version reverted to: 17:17, 16 March 2006
1st revert: 01:08, 17 March 2006
2nd revert: 07:08, 17 March 2006
3rd revert: 14:29, 17 March 2006
4th revert: 20:23, 17 March 2006
5th revert: 21:09, 17 March 2006

Reported by: — Dzonatas 21:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User has been warned in the past. Page was previously protected. However, Durova is the only one out of all the editors that has reverted more than once a day on this article in the last two days.
Looks like vandal-fighting, reverting to consensus version. Perhaps this should be directed to WP:RFPP. Nothing to see here, move along now... Just zis Guy you know? 22:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JzG is impartial to certain editors to make a determination on this. There is further consensus (archived on talk page) about particular edits. — Dzonatas 22:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right, I find Durova to be a good and impartial editor. Just zis Guy you know? 23:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, I just chanced across this accusation. Thanks for the vote of confidence. Dzonatas, I could have reported you here but I didn't. Please just provide a regular citation to a reputable source. Durova 02:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I only applaud the effort to not block. I disagreed with the "vandal" part. — Dzonatas 17:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:88.106.232.89 User:Parkinsons User:Japanese_historian

Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
1st revert: [7]
2nd revert: [8]
3rd revert: [9]
4th revert: [10]

Comments The 3 users listed above are one person. This user is waging a many-against-one edit war on this article. He has been arguing for weeks about an addition he wants to make, and at least 7 editors have either removed his edit or argued against it on the talk page. He is adamant and does not respond in a meaningful way to the criticisms of his edit. Lately he has started logging in under a new user name as well as his usual (varying) IP address in an attempt to circumvent the 3RR rule. Not all of his edits are "pure" reverts, as other changes have sometimes been made to the article in the interim. But he has a single section that he repeatedly insists on adding. Sometimes he does this by reverting, other times by pasting in his edit. Reported by: KarlBunker 18:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked the anon for 8h as first offence - clearly over the limit. JH has amde identical reverts, but only twice I could see - what evidence is there that these are the same people? William M. Connolley 22:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's made no attempt to disguise that JH is the same person. He makes the same edit, with the same sort of comment, and he's continued an ongoing discussion in the Talk page under this name--he even signed his entry in the Talk page with the same joking name "Daffy Duck", I believe. Also note that when he comes in under an IP, the address varies: it's 88.106.232.xx. KarlBunker 12:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's back again today, now using the sockpuppet user:Emperor Hirohito

1st revert: [11]
2nd revert: [12]
3rd revert: [13]
4th revert: [14]

Note the identical comment and content of reverts #1 and #4 (#4 under the sockpuppet Emperor Hirohito) KarlBunker 20:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5th revert: [15] KarlBunker 20:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6th revert: [16] Now under the sockpuppet user:JJU754 KarlBunker 20:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7th revert: [17] Now back under his current IP: user:88.106.194.101 KarlBunker 20:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8th revert: [18] as user:Emperor Hirohito EricR 00:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked JJU754, JH and several anons. Not sure if that will help, but we can but try. Maybe sprotect William M. Connolley 17:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, KB has broken 3RR too, so gets blocked too William M. Connolley 20:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pm_shef

Previous version reverted to: 06:24, 21:24, 14 February 2006
1st revert: 01:24, 2 March 2006
2nd revert: 01:48, 2 March 2006
3rd revert: 01:48, 2 March 2006
4th revert: 02:42, 2 March 2006
5th revert: 05:37, 2 March 2006
6th revert: 05:38, 2 March 2006

Reported by: HarsA 21:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the reverts?Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 21:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something weird here. This is HarsA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) HarsA's only edit. So HarsA is someones sock; presumably, Hars_Alden's. Errm... but why? William M. Connolley 22:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hold on... this is the same report I removed a day ago [19] since its weeks stale (I have a special interest in that kind of thing, you know :-). William M. Connolley 22:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This report is trolling. It's the same report from before by User talk:Hars Alden who can't understand what 3RR is. I checked it out before and Pm shef is adding comments not reverting. Ignore it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vulturell

1st revert 23:31 March 18
2nd revert 01:01 March 19
3rd revert 01:05 March 19
4th revert 01:15 March 19
5th revert 01:48 March 19

Reported by: SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

A group of eight editors recently voted to get List of British Jews in order, [20] because many of the names on the list are poorly sourced, and are neither Jewish nor British. Vulturell was the only person to oppose this and keeps reverting our efforts. He was blocked for 3RR on this page on March 02 [21] and has reverted ~~four~~ five times within two hours today (complex, partial reverts). Because he's reverting as I'm removing names, but I don't know he's reverted, I end up removing names from a version he has already put all the names back into, which means I'm completely wasting my time. I've asked him to at least wait until I signal that I've finished editing, but he refuses to do even that, which suggests to me that he's being deliberately disruptive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not 3rr by any defnition. Different material every time - first edit - Ben Kingsley and Sellers. Second edit - Kingsley and Sid James (that makes it twice for Kingsley). Third edit - Sohpe Okonedo. 4th edit - Okonedo, Kingsley and James (and a few unrelated others). That makes it Kingsley 3 times - at the most - and not 3rr. Vulturell 01:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the policy. It makes no difference whether they're different names you're restoring (and anyway, they're not): the point is that you keep reverting another editor's work, and you've now reverted even after being reported here, which makes five reverts in just over two hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As SlimVirgin points out, they don't have to be the exact same revert. Complex reverts, partial reverts, multiple reverts of different material, they all count. Please re-read the policy, and revert yourself, before you end up getting blocked, which would be a shame. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To SlimVirgin The reverts I did just now are past 24 hours from my revert yesterday, actually. And don't say "anyway, they're not" when I've just shown you they are different names. That's a flat-out falsehood. A "revert" is either a taking out, inserting, or changing specific material. It doesn't mean I can't edit the page in a different way that has nothing to do with the other edits. And furthermore, the exact same group of editors - SlimVirgin, JayJG and GraceNote - have been enforcing a definition of "Original Research" that is up for a lot of debate, have enforced a "Policy" that was voted on by 10 people - including the three of them, and have been agreeing with each other on the exact same issues without bothering to discuss - sometimes one of them reverts my edits without even saying anything, either to their own version or one of the others', and have been refusing sources that fulfill exactly what their "policy" demands. Also acting in bad faith - removing names and not A. placing them on discussion B. or examining the new sources provided and reverting anyway. How am I supposed to handle that? Even I have to admit that I am clearly outnumbered, as most editors who've worked on the page before - like User:Newport, User:Arniep, and User:RachelBrown have been scared off the page by these tactics. Vulturell 02:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're enforcing WP:V and WP:NOR, which you are flouting on this list and several others. But even if you were 100 per cent correct, you still can't violate 3RR, which is independent of the quality of the edits. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither User:RachelBrown nor User:Newport have been "scared off the page"; since they're the same person, and have edited it recently (e.g. [22] [23]). More to the point, discussions of Wikipedia policy are all fine for policy discussion pages, but you have unambiguously broken the 3RR policy here. I wish you had taken the chance to revert yourself when it was offered, but it is now obvious you have contempt for the 3RR policy, and only blocking will convince you that it is serious; this is an unfortunate turn of events. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hrs. El_C 02:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[I've ventured to remove the rather lengthy discussion here - should have been on talk. This page gets long enough as it is - William M. Connolley 10:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)][reply]

User:TruthInAdvertising

Three revert rule violation on REALbasic by User:TruthInAdvertising.

1st revert: [24] 08:39, 18 Mar
2nd revert: [25] 15:36, 18 Mar
3rd revert: [26] 20:14, 18 Mar
4th revert: [27] 22:51, 18 Mar

(All timestamps are PST.)

Reported by: Zetawoof 07:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User has been pushing POV on this article for five days or more now, and has attempted to place the article on AfD. Zetawoof 07:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24 hour block. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rschen7754

On Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads - see the history. (This is SPUI, using an obvious sockpuppet as I've been blocked for supposed vandalism.) --Sockenpuppe 07:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Sceptr e ^(Talk) 13:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:RichFarmer

Five revisions to this version of Steven Levitt between 19:10 18 March and 18:10 19 March. RichFarmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Warned after the fourth, too. Would block myself but strongly involved in the present dispute. Rd232 ^talk 21:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 8h for a first offence William M. Connolley 22:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rjensen

Previous version reverted to: 13:43, 19 March 2006
1st revert: 15:52, 19 March 2006
2nd revert: 16:51, March 19, 2006
3rd revert: 19:01, March 19, 2006
4th revert: 19:49, March 19, 2006

Reported by: Skinwalker 03:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Rjensen is insisting on whitewashing unfavorable facts about Richard J. Daley from the article. He has been warned in the past for 3RR violations, and continues to unilaterally reject any edit that presents information that contradicts his view of the former mayor. I am considering filing an RFC for the article.
Not a 3RR violation. Different edits each time. Use an RFC if there's a dispute about the content. Stifle 14:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Duffer1

Previous version reverted to: 10:20, 19 March 2006
1st revert: 13:39, 19 March 2006
2nd revert: 15:05, 19 March 2006
3rd revert: 09:53, 20 March 2006
4th revert: 12:13, 20 March 2006

Reported by: 82.88.103.38 12:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Has more reverts than just the 4 shown. Others make different edits, but he reverts everything back to the same version.
Blocked for ten hours. Stifle 14:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:DJac75

1st revert: [28] [Revision as of 05:47, 20 March 2006]
2nd revert: [29] [Revision as of 06:07, 20 March 2006]
3rd revert: [30] [Revision as of 14:47, 20 March 2006]
4th revert: [31] [Revision as of 17:19, 20 March 2006]

Reported by: TheDookieMan 17:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)TheDookieMan[reply]

Comments: This user has been vandalizing the Joseph Sobran and other articles. He has also made callous comments to other editors

Not obvious that the first revert is a revert - to what? William M. Connolley 21:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Str1977 and User:TrumpetPower!

Str1977 is waging war on Jesus-Myth and has massively broken the 3RR. Please can something be done? Robsteadman 21:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's still at it. See [32]. This is exactly the sort of vandalism I've been trying to protect. I'll let somebody else deal with it this time. TrumpetPower! 23:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article's history can be found here. Once a decision has been made, I would ask the deciding admin to post the repsonse on Mr. Steadman's talk page too so that he can see what happens here. Thanks.Gator (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a shame that Gator, just like Musical Linguist who only warned Str1977 about 3RR when he broke it on the 15th March, has not taken action - this is almost certainly because they are "editing pals". This is a misuse of admin positions by both of these admins - not blocking someone for clear violation, twice within a week, because they are their mate. Appaling. Robsteadman 21:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained to Rob, I am conflcited out of this one. I've heavily edited with Str on a related page. When in doubt, do nothing. A neutral uninvolved admin needs to handle this. Nothing "APPALING" about it. Enough of the paranoid cabal talk, Rob, it's getting very old.Gator (talk)

Gator is not acting against an editing pal - just the same way that Musical Linguist only warned Str1977 about 3RR when he broke the same rule on the 15th. This is misuse of admin poweers by both of them. Clear evidence of the cabal for which there is much evidence - I agree it is tired, so why not start doing genuine ediuting and not the POV pushing and misuse of admin powers that you're doing? Robsteadman 22:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that both Str1977 and User:TrumpetPower! reverted plenty of times; the administrators might want to consider blocking both if action is deemed necessary (it looks as if both have stopped at this point). But, let me point this out...

1st revert by TrumpetPower!: 20:33, 20 March 2006 TrumpetPower!
1st revert by Str1977: 20:37, 20 March 2006 Str1977
2nd revert by TrumpetPower!: 20 March 2006 TrumpetPower! 20:57
2nd revert by Str1977: 21:09, 20 March 2006 Str1977
3rd revert by TrumpetPower!: 21:21, 20 March 2006 TrumpetPower!
4th revert by TrumpetPower!: 21:30, 20 March 2006 TrumpetPower!

Both editors (and others) made edits during this period, but, as I count it, TrumpetPower! exceeded the limit. Both may have violated earlier in the day, but fair is fair. KHM03 ^(talk) 22:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is not accurate - Str1977 has done many more reverts in the 24 holur pewriod - KHM03 is yet another cabal member out to protect his pal. Please look at the evidence. Str1977 broke 3RR and Gator (as well as well as Musical Linguist) took no action. Robsteadman 22:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I make the Str1977 tally of reverts to be 6 in 12 hours. Possibly slightly more. Robsteadman 22:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When conflicted or in doubt, bring in a third party; don't let your friend have a free pass. If admins are allowing Str1977 to get away with 3RR violations, then I don't see how they can turn on someone like TrumpetPower! who's simply defending the article against this edit warrior. Str1977 should have gotten banned a while back, and he should get banned now, but there's too much of an appearance of partisanship to justify banning TrumpetPower! over this. Alienus 22:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, TP was trying to proetct the page against the POV pushing, vandalism and reverts of Str1977 - it is ONLY Str1977 who should be banned - along with the TWO admins who have not taken action against one of their "edit pals". Robsteadman 22:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I have indeed exceeded the limits, I am sorry about that and will accept any chastizing for that.

However, I have to point out that quite in contrast to what Rob has written, it was I who made valid edits (even if they were deletions) according to the evidence provided by Trumpet, which he repeatedly reverted based on consistently misunderstanding both my point and his evidence (whether intentionally or not I cannot tell), including misrepresenting of my posts in his edit summaries.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever Admin is going to deal with this issue, please check the article's history carefully, as the "reverts" may not necessarily be reverts. There was quite a bit of actual editing taking place, so an extra word of warning on this one. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away from the computer for the last hour or so, so have just got back and seen this. I haven't yet looked at the alleged violations, but I would like to point out that my "warning" to Str1977 a few days ago was a joke, as Str1977 had not violated the rule. (I did count on that occasion.) I even had a wink in the section heading. Str1977 reverted vandalism four times that day: two said something like "Christians are smelly", one said "God is a cooter", and one said something like "Christ comes from Athletes rubbing in oil. Do not change this." Someone fairly new, who didn't realize that vandalism didn't count under 3RR reported Str1977 to me, thinking that I would block him, and I posted a joke (possibly in bad taste) to his talk page saying that if he put "Christians are smelly" back into the article, I would overlook his disgraceful behaviour on that occasion! Maybe I shouldn't have made that joke, but I honestly didn't think anyone would take it seriously.

I would also point out that Str1977 has been opposed by editors (Giovanni33, Robsteadman, etc.) who were grossly violating 3RR (meaning that they would make six or seven reverts, rather than an accidental slip into a fourth one), and his policy has generally been to point out the violation and say that he wasn't going to report it. His generosity is probably not a reason not to block him if he has violated the rule, but it's certainly something that should be noted. Anyway, that's all for the moment from someone who has just come back online. AnnH ♫ 22:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Str1977 still broke the 3RR on March 15th - excluding any vandalism correction. And nothing was done..... Robsteadman 22:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the count back then, I did in fact not break 3RR on 15 March. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may put in a word or two of self-defence, most, though not all, of my reverts included additional exposition or attempts at re-wording. I don't recall Str1997 from doing anything but simply delete content. TrumpetPower! 22:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand the revert rule, it doesn't apply to content disputes, which is what we have here. If both of these users violated WP:3RR, both should be blocked by a neutral administrator. KHM03 ^(talk) 22:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for what it's worth, I just spent a couple of minutes looking through the history, and it doesn't really look like this is a 3RR violation... it looks to be more of a content dispute where Str1977 changes something and TrumpetPower changes it back (and a few others jump in here or there). It never really stays in one area of the article like a traditional 3RR. Perhaps a page protection and some talk page usage would be in order here, as this is more of a content dispute than a revert war? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STr1977 began reverting at 9 a.m. - he has clearly brokewn 3RR. Robsteadman 22:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT content dispute - it is simple POV vandalism - deleting chunks for no good reason, with no discussion. Robsteadman 22:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a content dispute and I have, AFAIK, explained my edits every time. If not it was an oversight.

I have to contradict KHM - content dispute is indeed subject to the 3RR rule (only vandalism isn't), and if I have broken rules in heat of this all I am sorry. But it wasn't me who provided the heat.

Finally, Rob, it wasn't vandalism at all - it was valid edits on content, explained every time. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The time that he began reverting is irrelevant. It's the nature of the reverts that count.

"No discussion?" Wow! Str1977 has posted to the Jesus Myth talk page six times today.

I presume Robsteadman is referring to me when he calls for the banning of the two admins who haven't taken action against on of their "edit pals". First of all, Rob should try to allow for the fact that I wasn't around when it was reported. Secondly, I have already said elsewhere that I don't like blocking for 3RR. The only time I have ever done so was with Robsteadman himself. I had had no prior encounter with him, and I had never edited the article on which he had violated it. I prefer not to block unless someone puts in an edit summary "Johnny, that was your seventh revert", and Johhny goes right ahead and reverts an eighth time. AnnH ♫ 23:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, now's your chance. Str1997 has committed the exact same revert just recently, even after posting here about his violations of 3RR. TrumpetPower! 23:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made any revert or content change pages subject to this complaint since I posted here. In fact, I did consciously desist from doing that and instead flagged a section because of its content. That's not a revert. Goodday, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC) ... Now that I have checked again, I see that the software bug has struck again. I reinstated what I accidently removed, though I still think it utterly inaccurate and think that it should go. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then what, pray tell, is this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus-Myth&oldid=44727134 TrumpetPower! 00:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've since reverted your own deletion of the reference to the Doecetics, introducing a typo into the article, but you didn't revert your deletion of the sub-section of Justus, which is what I believe got you reported for 3RR in the first place. TrumpetPower! 00:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My deletion of the subsection o Justus? When did I delete the subsection on Justus after this complaint was made? I agree that it should be deleted and I have clearly given the reasons why. But right now, I have only flagged it. Your misrepresenting facts will fall back on you, TP. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have only ever reported 3RR three times, although I have seen many more violations. I prefer to ask people to stop, rather than catch them out. I reported only when people had been given many "second chances" and were just abusing my reluctance to report. I even told TrumpetPower on 16 March that I wasn't going to report him. I have also in the past told Alienus that he had violated the rule but that I wasn't going to report him. As far as I know, Str1977 has never reported either, although I can vouch for the fact that he has seen his opponents violating the rule.

I very much doubt if any admin will want to ban me for not blocking Str1977, as urged by Robsteadman. He has now said on his own talk page that it would make sense for me not to block an opponent, but to leave it to a neutral admin, but that I should be suspended as an admin for not blocking my friend. I have said here that I reserve the right to treat my friends with the same amount of leniency as I treat my opponents. If I have on numerous occasions told fellow editors from the opposing POV that they had violated the rule but that I'd prefer not to report them, I am certainly not going to block a friend who edits the same articles as I do. As I see it, an administrator MAY block for a 3RR violation, but is under no obligation to do so, especially if it can be resolved in a different way. I know that other admins enforce the rule more strictly. They are certainly entitled to do so. Since I have never blocked an opponent, I object strongly to any implication that I am obliged to block a friend — that is, if he has indeed broken the rule, which has yet to be established.

On the day on which Str1977 was reported to me, I checked carefully, and I can categorically say that when you remove the vandalism reverts, he was not in violation. And by "vandalism", I mean pure vandalism which matches the definition. Robsteadman's accusation of vandalism against Str1977 does not match the definition. If it did, he could report it at WP:AIV rather than here, since it seems not to be a clear case of 3RR.

I have not looked at TrumpetPower's reverts either, but based on his comments above, I would point out that it is the act of reverting or partially reverting (i.e. edit warring) that counts. It makes no difference whether or not the reverts are all to an identical version. I asked TrumpetPower to review WP:3RR a few days ago, and it is all laid out there.

This is a complicated situation, made more complicated by utterly inaccurate accusations of vandalism, a misunderstanding of a silly (on my part) joke from a few days ago, and a completely unreasonable expectation that an admin who has never blocked the 3RR massive violaters who were opposing her should block her own friends for either a non-violation or a much milder one. AnnH ♫ 23:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jkelly (below), although I may be one of the naughty ones clogging up the noticeboard. A few brief points before I go to bed, as I have now looked through the history of the article.

This "violation", if it was one, was not reported properly. Robsteadman had plenty of time to post long accusations of vandalism and admins protecting their pals, but did not take the time to provide diffs. Admins are busy and should not have to do the extra work to see whether or not a violation really has taken place. There is a format to follow, with links for diffs, and times of reverts.
KHM03 provided some help, in giving times, but his links were page versions rather than diffs.
Robsteadman's accusations of "vandalism" are utterly untrue. That word should not be used for edits that oppose one's own POV. He weakens his own case in making such accusations.
Robsteadman says that Str1977 started reverting at 9:00. I can see no evidence that the early edits were reverts. In some cases Str1977 made two edits one after the other (nobody having edited in between). I don't think they can both count as reverts, as it could be done as a full-page edit. It's complicated counting the reverts, but there were certainly not six.
There were some less than civil edit summaries.
If Str1977 violated 3RR, then TrumpetPower certainly did so as well.
It was unfortunate that Str1977 seemed to make another revert after he had been reported here. However, that was not intended as a revert. He made an edit, adding a tag, and the software bug undid the edit of the previous contributor when he pressed "save". In his edit summary, he made it clear that he intended to flag it, not to revert. I have seen that software bug acting like that on numerous occasions. He undid his "revert" when he realized what had happened.
Str1977 did not violate the rule last week, once you remove the vandalism reverts from the count. I counted carefully at the time; the reverts and non-reverts were more clear cut than today. The silly joke I made "warning" him was intended for simply for him.

AnnH ♫ 02:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the above is untrue and is an admin misusing theior position to prtect an edit pal. Shameful. STr1977 DID violate on the 15th MArch, take a look not just the joke but the actual breach of 3RR, and also violated yesterday - at least 6 reverts. Action should be takjen against Str1977 and the 2 admins who have acted in a manner to protect and not block their mate. Shameful. Str1977 is a POV ppusher and a regular vandal who is supported by a small cabal of "christian" editors - including the tw admins who are trying to prevent him being banned. Robsteadman 07:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Str1977#That_silly_joke_I_made - "Your friend who won't block you or her enemies" - rather not carrying out admin duties then! Robsteadman 07:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob there is no "admin duty" to block people who are heavily involved in editing pages that the admin edits (which is generally how one makes "friends" and "enemies" here at Wikipedia). Such decisions should be taken by uninvolved admins. There is also no "admin duty" to block anyone for 3RR. Some admins do a lot of vandalism rollback; others do a lot of closing of AfD votes. I carry admin duties that has nothing to do with 3RR blocks. You made accusations but omitted the diffs (quite a wise decision, since any admin looking at the diffs would have started off by saying, "that's not a revert, this one is reverting vandalism, this isn't a clear revert," etc). In other words, you didn't follow the proper procedure for reporting, and then you call for admins to be blocked or suspended because they don't go hunting for the evidence that you didn't provide. In future, if you find a real violation, please report it using the proper format, with times given, and with links to the diffs. Then, calmly wait for an admin to decide whether the violation really took place, and if so whether or not it should be dealt with by a block.

Please be aware, also, Rob, that if you keep removing User:TrumpetPower! from this improperly-formatted report, you will be in violation of 3RR, and could be blocked, though not by me, as I don't block people who edit the articles I edit.

I note, anyway, that Mongo decided last night to protect the Jesus Myth page as an alternative to blocking either of the two editors. AnnH ♫ 10:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of this noticeboard

Hi. I would like to encourage those editors involved in this article to reconsider using this noticeboard as a forum for discussing their differences. If there has been a WP:3RR violation, and if that editor is continuing to revert back to their preferred version of the article, please use the reporting template at the top of the page and calmly request attention from an administrator. Thanks. Jkelly 00:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:tasc

Previous version reverted to: [[33]]
1st revert: [March 20, 2006]
2nd revert: [March 20, 2006]
3rd revert: [March 20, 2006]
4th revert: [March 20, 2006]
5th revert: [March 20, 2006]

Reported by: OrbitOne 21:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: tasc has been reverting this page to protect a single image three (four counting me) would rather have removed. Has failed to give clear reasons to this. Yes, I am involved, but I am pulling my hat out of the ring to avoid edit wars or personal conflicts. By all accounts, five reverts is rather excessive. *Note* Hasn't made any perfect reverts to my knowledge, but always changes back the same picture.

it's just ludicrous. You've tried to make a point by replacing image to totally strange picture. There was a discussion on talk page and you were aware of it. You haven't provided any reasons for your replacement, neither on talk page nor in edit summary. --tasc 21:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point: don't settle content disputes with revert wars William M. Connolley 22:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 8h as first offence William M. Connolley 22:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:151.138.254.21

Previous version reverted to: 12:33, 14 March 2006
1st revert: 11:07, 20 March 2006
2nd revert: 14:08, 20 March 2006
3rd revert: 16:29, 20 March 2006
4th revert: 16:44, 20 March 2006

Reported by: NEMT 21:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

For weeks this anonymous user has been reverting this page, and ignoring the discussion and ongoing search for sources and commentary on the talk page. Recently an agreement had been made about the wording of the final paragraph which was suitable to all involved in the discussion, however, it is still reverted by this user - without any comments on the talk page or explanation. He/She has been repeatedly warned with appropriate templates on his/her talk page, to no avail. The first three edits in this sequence all revert back to the same version, though the fourth revert also removes the "references" section as well. --NEMT 21:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've both broken 3RR, so you can have 12h each William M. Connolley 22:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fair. My reverts of this anon's vandalism and information removal are clearly a violation of Wiki policy, right? --NEMT 15:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User: Metta Bubble

1. 3RR Violations:

reverting to an earlier version per POV without discussion and consensus

In the links above Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverting the page according to POV.

2. Vandalism:

deleting another editors comments

In the links above Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is vandalizing another editors comments or just deleting some of them.

3. Vandalizing another editors comments:

destructing another editors comments

In the links above Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making changes on comments of another editor to change the course of discussion or change the intension of the editor.

Reported by: Resid Gulerdem 23:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Vandal Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalized, destructed and reverted continuously the discussion page Wikipedia:Wikiethics according to POV. Uncivil comments can be found in the history page. I want an action be taken although this note is about some of the vandals earlier actions. I was not able to post for last two days.

This is an attempt of Resid's (yet another attempt by Resid) to deal with people he disagrees with in a dispute on Wikipedia:Wikiethics. Please disregard lest we all be subject to blocking for disagreeing with editors who know how to make a 3RR/vandalism complaint. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 00:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The claims are clear and linked above. There is no room for conspricy theories. Resid Gulerdem 01:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another revert without discussion. Can anyone take care of this. Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started to destroy other editors edits again. Resid Gulerdem 03:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An immediate action is required, please. Here is the vandal's anotherrevert. Resid Gulerdem 04:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone help me with this please. Vandal started again to reverting.

undiscussed revert POV

I was wondering when someone will take the issue: Here is another revert without discussion:

vandal reverting without discussion

And here is last action taken by vandal:

reverting without discussion, uncivilic comments, insult!

I am so surprised and saddened that although there is such a list of vandalisms and reverts, no action is taken by yet. Resid Gulerdem 13:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comments:

This appears to be another revenge action by Rgulerdem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was blocked previously for 3RR and disruption, including posting a false notice about me once before. Please check with any of the following admins for clarification: Superm401 (talk · contribs), NSLE (talk · contribs) Zoe (talk · contribs)

ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 09:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I doing these vandalisms and reverts for a revenge? These are clearly refers to your actions... Resid Gulerdem 13:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This false 3RR notice is one of several that is reported in full here. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 05:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot hide your violation by blaming on me. The list above is your violations as documented. Everybody is responsible for his own mistakes. That is a rule of thumb... Resid Gulerdem 18:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Imacomp

Previous version reverted to: 19:42, March 20, 2006
1st revert: 20:18, March 20, 2006
2nd revert: 20:25, March 20, 2006
3rd revert: 20:39, March 20, 2006
4th revert: 21:07, March 20, 2006

Reported by: Seraphim 02:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: User keeps re-inserting a paragraph about hitler. He was warned both in the article edit history and on his talk page. User used misleading edit summaries for the 3rd and 4th reverts, where he edited a completly unrelated section of the article, commented on that change, but still re-inserted the paragraph without mentioning it. Third rv comment was "John Coustos" and fourth was "Nice edit blueboar. We will keep it I think. Plus this edit about Knights of Pythias" Seraphim 02:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 24h: 3RR, plenty of warnings, aggraveted by incivility [34] William M. Connolley 08:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kingjeff and Dr31

Previous version reverted to: 22:51 19 March 2006
1st revert: 23:14 19 March 2006 (UTC)
2nd revert: 13:12 20 March 2006 (UTC)
3rd revert: 13:31 20 March 2006 (UTC)
4th revert: 16:05 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Reported by: Metros232 02:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: These users have been engaged in an edit war concerning discussion found here. The two are in disagreement as to how the format of the page should look. Kingjeff feels that it should be standard throughout the world for football articles, while Dr31 feels that the MLS should stand alone with its own style. The two have done this on other articles as well, but none were in violation of the 3RR. These are single reverts by Dr31 of Kingjeff revisions: [35] [36] [37] [38]. I am concerned that their discussion on the talk page is getting testy, that these reverts might only continue, and that this can become uncivil, as highlighted by such taunts as "you are PATHETIC" by Dr31--Metros232 02:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:SeraphimXI

Previous version reverted to: [39]
1st revert: [40]
2nd revert: [41]
3rd revert: [42]
4th revert: [43]

Reported by: Ardenn 03:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User won't discuss edits. Ardenn 04:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User won't discuss edits? Did you try looking at the article's talk page? Seraphim 04:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please whatever admin deals with this, actually look at the content being presented, the reporter did not provide correct links and times because they would make it clear it's a junk report, the "previous version" he has listed is a version of the page an hr after what he has listed as "first revert". This is an invalid 3rr report, where the reporter was unable to present a previous version reverted to since he had to list it as 1st revert to get 4. I've edited the page 4 times today. In the first I made a change to a section that has been in the article for over a month (which is incorrectly labled as "first revert", there was nothing being reverted). I then reverted back to that version 3 times and stopped to prevent a 3rr from being filed. The reporting user (Ardenn) obviously knew there were only 3 reverts, since he filled in the "Previous version reverted to:" field with a completly unrelated diff. The actual report should show what is listed as "First Revert" as the previous version reverted to. Then 2nd 3rd and 4th reverts are actually revert 1,2, and 3. 3 reverts is not a 3rr vio. Seraphim 04:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - What the report should look like
  - Previous version reverted to: 19:12, March 20, 2006
    - 1st revert: 19:21, March 20, 2006
    - 2nd revert: 20:36, March 20, 2006
    - 3rd revert: 20:59, March 20, 2006
    - 4th revert: Doesn't exist. Seraphim 04:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~You've broken 3RR, this is clear enough. Blocked 24h William M. Connolley 08:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oh no she hasn't - sorry. Block removed William M. Connolley 08:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rgulerdem

Previous version reverted to: [08:31, 21 March 2006]
Revert 1 08:42, 21 March 2006
Revert 2 08:45, 21 March 2006
Revert 3 08:53, 21 March 2006
Revert 4 10:09, 21 March 2006

After 1 Hour block expiration:

Reported by: Netscott 10:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Simple clear cut case of 3RR, despite having been warned User:Rgulerdem made reverts against 3 seperate editors. Netscott 10:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 additional reverts against a 4th editor. Netscott 10:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional revert. Netscott 11:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 1 hour to let him cool down, I'm not blocking 24 (another admin may if they see fit) as he'd then go running off yelling 'oppression'. NSL E _(T+C) at 11:10 UTC (2006-03-21)

I would recommend at least a 24 hour block as it appears that in one hour's time an edit war will re-commence. Additionally User_talk:Rgulerdem has shown a lack of civility by referring to my edits as "vandalism" and has called me a "vandal". Netscott 11:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure enough, just like clock-work User:Rgulerdem has made an eighth revert... after 1 hour block expiration. Netscott 12:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His intractability on this issus really needs at least 48 hours. Trödel 12:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9th revert: Please note, no other editor has broken 3RR regarding this violation. Netscott 13:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10th revert: Against a 5th editor (Trödel)... I don't think I've ever seen anyone who flagrantly violated 3RR with such impunity across such a wide swath of editors like this. Netscott 14:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11th revert: I guess User:Rgulerdem thinks we're all 'vandalizing' his ~~article's~~ Policy's talk page. Funny how he has to resort to time-wasting bad-faith (and false) 3RR reports in revenge. Netscott 14:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours. Guettarda 14:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your adminstration Guettarda. Netscott 15:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gleng

Previous version reverted to: 17:39, 20 March 2006
1st revert: 19:28, 20 March 2006
2nd revert: 19:40, 20 March 2006
3rd revert: 11:49, 21 March 2006
4th revert: 12:02, 21 March 2006

Reported by: Geni 12:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5th revert:12:23, 21 March 2006 after being informed about the 3RR on the article talk page.Geni 12:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts incorporated constructive elements and all fully explained on Talk page. This began when Geni removed an element of text that had previously been placed on the Talk page in advance of being introduced, and was revised after comments from other editors. It did not seem reasonable to bypass this discussion, so as far as I was concerned these were reverts of vandalismGleng 13:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I did was vandalism as defined by Wikipedia:Vandalism.Geni 13:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept this, not accusing Geni of lack of good faith, merely breaching etiquette in a case where text had been inserted only after discussion and review; felt that removal should equally have been discussed firstGleng 14:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gleng blocked for 3 hours for first vio/block, but Geni may have violated 3 RR too. I'll let another more experienced admin handle that decision.Gator (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. version created 11:21, 20 March 2006 followed by three reverts. The regualar revert of Aegeis was more than 24 hours before my third revert.Geni 17:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netscott

Here is the reverts by Netscott. Vandal is trying to kill the proposal and manipulating the sections accordingly. Here are the reverts he had recently:

reverting without discussion

reverting again without discussion

he started reverting again his POV

another similar revert done by 72.21.33.130. I am highly suspicious that this anonim user User:72.21.33.130 is Netscott. I am not sure how to check it. Can anybody help me with that? Thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgulerdem (talk • contribs)

Reported by: Resid Gulerdem 13:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

He is trying to kill a proposal. It requires immediate attention. Resid Gulerdem 13:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have only listed 3 reverts.Geni 13:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually only 2... the first 'revert' he cites is an initial change. Netscott 13:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is continuously vandalizing the page. I did not report the earlier ones. These are the last three. Resid Gulerdem 13:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Resid has me confused with someone else for I've not done any vandalizing of WikiPedia, ever! Netscott 13:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is essentially a Bad faith 'revenge' report on the part of User:Rgulerdem. Netscott 13:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a 3RR violation here by Net or Resid. Another opinion would be appreciated.Gator (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gator, thanks... It is nice to hear natural voices here... Resid Gulerdem 18:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like about 5RR by Resid (the original report was that page; its the talk page where the reverts were). Blocked 24h... oh, hold on, I've been scooped: Guettarda blocked "Rgulerdem (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (11RR vio) William M. Connolley 16:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on Connolley, aren't you the person left this message on the discussion page. Hold on and slow down. You are an admin remember... Resid Gulerdem 18:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why the people wit hviolations here repeating my name like a baby calling her dad. The documented lists above is not my violations... Resid Gulerdem 18:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mostssa

Previous version reverted to: [08:00, 20 March 2006]
1st revert: 03:01, 21 March 2006
- 03:05, 21 March 2006
- 03:15, 21 March 2006 revert completed
2nd revert: 16:30, 21 March 2006
3rd revert: 16:50, 21 March 2006
4th revert: 17:10, 21 March 2006 in progress

Reported by: EurowikiJ 18:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: User:Mostssa who also broke a 3RR on March 18 has been inserting the article with hateful, unsubstantiated and POV remarks for almost a month. Sometimes he makes several successive changes to the article in order to arrive at his version. He dismisses as POV and erases any reference that is not to his liking. Also, any attempt by other contributors to reason with him is met with accusations of a cover-up and aggressive Croatian propaganda. He pours insults on those who try to stop him and labels them as fascists, anti-Serbs and vandals. He dismissed the warning not to transgress the 3RR left on the discussion page as not applicable to him. EurowikiJ 18:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 19:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mccready

Previous version reverted to: 09:05, 20 March 2006
1st revert: 02:05, 21 March 2006
2nd revert: 05:17, 21 March 2006
3rd revert: 10:29, 21 March 2006
4th revert: 19:30, 21 March 2006

Reported by: —Ruud 19:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Already blocked for 24 hours, but feel free to review. —Ruud 19:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:DJac75

(cur) (last) 04:57, 22 March 2006 DJac75 (I am quite willing to test the 3 RR rule in this instance. An edit war over a NPOV/disputed context warning seems to settle the instant
(cur) (last) 00:38, 22 March 2006 DJac75
(cur) (last) 21:50, 21 March 2006 DJac75
(cur) (last) 08:25, 21 March 2006 DJac75 m
(cur) (last) 08:24, 21 March 2006 DJac75 m
(cur) (last) 08:24, 21 March 2006 DJac75 m
(cur) (last) 08:23, 21 March 2006 DJac75
(cur) (last) 08:21, 21 March 2006 DJac75 m
(cur) (last) 08:21, 21 March 2006 DJac75
(cur) (last) 07:24, 21 March 2006 DJac75 (rv)
(cur) (last) 07:17, 21 March 2006 DJac75 (rv. POV vandalism)
(cur) (last) 06:29, 21 March 2006 DJac75 (rv. "What this country is suffering from is not
(cur) (last) 05:51, 21 March 2006 DJac75 (new para)
(cur) (last) 17:19, 20 March 2006 DJac75 (rv. Which wiki rules would those be?)
(cur) (last) 14:47, 20 March 2006 DJac75 (rv vandalism)

... trimmed [WMC]

Reported by: Rogerman 06:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Rogerman[reply]

Comments:

I'm not sure why this hasn't been dealt with yet. This user has violated the 3RR rule numerous times in the past few weeks.

Blocked 24h William M. Connolley 09:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No dispute on the 3RR enforcement, but the reason that it had likely not been enforced thus far was the involvement (in that dispute) of several new user accounts that all seem to know the ropes, and seem to only edit 1 or 2 articles. Also, numerous WP:NPA violations have been noted on the part of User:CaliforniaDreamlings and User:TheDookieMan against others involved in this dispute. Those editors gave the appearance of editing in bad faith. Dick Clark 15:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've just protected the page in question. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 15:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:TuzsuzDeliBekir

Previous version reverted to: [44]
1st revert: 16:37, 22 March 2006
2nd revert: 17:04, 22 March 2006
3rd revert: 17:40, 22 March 2006
4th revert: 18:43, 22 March 2006

Reported by: Khoikhoi 19:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User knows about 3RR because I warned him about it here. --Khoikhoi 19:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Sceptr e ^(Talk) 21:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:213.122.143.43 & related IP's

Previous version reverted to: 01:37, 22 March 2006
1st revert: 03:09, 22 March 2006
2nd revert: 14:19, 22 March 2006
3rd revert: 18:38, 22 March 2006
4th revert: 19:12, 22 March 2006

Reported by: Aquilina 19:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The IP mentioned second is the same user - he signs as such on the Talk page here

The user is removing references to the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham from articles relating to Shaw, Crompton and his/her old school Crompton House because he doesn't want potential employers reading his CV to be put off by the mention of the neighbouring big town if they check it up in Wikipedia! (see edit summary here)

Editor was warned about WP:3RR [45] and [46], but has threatened to continue reversions (see bottom of Talk:Shaw and Crompton

Blocked Sceptr e ^(Talk) 21:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Croatian historian

Previous version reverted to: 12:31, 22 March 2006
1st revert: 17:14, 22 March 2006
2nd revert: 18:29, 22 March 2006
3rd revert: 19:41, 22 March 2006
4th revert: 19:48, 22 March 2006
5th revert: 23:39, 22 March 2006

Reported by: Latinus (without prejudice - on behalf of User:PANONIAN) 00:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Fixed - what would you do without me? ;-) --Latinus 00:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[removed some personal attacks] Please fill out the report correctly, else I will not block. —Ruud 00:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC) User:Croatian historian violated 3rr here (Serbia article):[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Serbia&action=history

He reverted this page 6 times between 12:31, 22 March 2006 and 23:39, 22 March 2006. Enough data now? PANONIAN (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but Latinus did fill out the report correctly, so blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 00:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pegasus1138

reverting without discussion

third revert already.

forth revert. Immediate attention is required, please...

Reported by: Resid Gulerdem 23:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

This user is used to revert and vandalize the discussion page Wikipedia:Wikiethics. He already reverted twice already in 10 minutes. I would appreciate if anybody could look at it. Resid Gulerdem 23:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First link is not a revert, the diff before my first edit was moving Resid's poll down in placement on the page which I did not have any part in at all. the latter 3 difflinks are me archiving the poll and thus are the reverts so I have not broken the 3RR rule any more than Resid, nor are my edits vandalism as Resid keeps claiming because he does not agree with them. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 23:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That are only three reverts. —Ruud 00:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:69.205.1.109

Previous version reverted to: 17:06, 21 March 2006
1st revert: 04:38, 22 March 2006
2nd revert: 04:54, 22 March 2006
3rd revert: 16:38, 22 March 2006
4th revert: 20:55, 22 March 2006

Reported by: Antaeus Feldspar 23:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

This is not the first time this user has violated 3RR on this article; the user [User talk:69.205.1.109|has been asked]] to discuss on the talk page but refuses. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. —Ruud 00:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Metb82

Previous version reverted to: 17:06, 19 March 2006
1st revert: 16:57, 22 March 2006
2nd revert: 19:24, 22 March 2006
3rd revert: 20:05, 22 March 2006
4th revert: 23:47, 22 March 2006

Reported by: Latinus 23:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User keeps adding an image of uncertain copyright status. --Latinus 23:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 31 hours. —Ruud 00:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:CltFn

Previous version reverted to: 14:15, 21 March 2006
1st revert: 16:39, 22 March 2006
2nd revert: 00:37, 23 March 2006
3rd revert: 01:08, 23 March 2006
4th revert: 01:37, 23 March 2006

Reported by: —Ruud 00:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Please check his block log. —Ruud 00:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About time to go up to 48h William M. Connolley 13:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:DickClarkMises

(cur) (last) 23:51, 22 March 2006 DickClarkMises (look, the replaced content isn't accurate; make your argument on the talk page, and please abide by community concensus)
(cur) (last) 23:46, 22 March 2006 DickClarkMises (let's provide the pertinent information)
(cur) (last) 22:58, 22 March 2006 DickClarkMises (wikify; return collaboration on Sam Francis controversy to place under Criticism heading)
(cur) (last) 22:39, 22 March 2006 DickClarkMises (I'm attempting to defend WP:NPOV, not Lew. And I'm not a secretary, thank you very much <g>)
(cur) (last) 22:21, 22 March 2006 DickClarkMises (rv POV-pushing by User:CaliforniaDreamlings; use the talk page please!)
(cur) (last) 15:19, 22 March 2006 DickClarkMises (→Criticism - return answer by LRC columnist to charges by Palmer)

(cur) (last) 22:13, 21 March 2006 DickClarkMises (rv POV deletion of pertinent material; please do not accuse me of vandalism—this is a content
(cur) (last) 17:44, 21 March 2006 DickClarkMises (rv deletion, as per my argument on the talk page)
(cur) (last) 20:42, 20 March 2006 DickClarkMises (rv - it doesn't matter what you've "found" it matters what a notable person has said in a verifiable source; please use the talk page to make arguments for your controversial edits)
(cur) (last) 19:43, 20 March 2006 DickClarkMises (cite Kinsella's affiliation with LRC; this is a relevant response by an individual associated with the dispute.)
(cur) (last) 17:43, 20 March 2006 DickClarkMises (rv - you are refusing to look at the vote that was already taken on this issue. While Voting is Evil, this should be seen as some indication of consensus on this issue; refer to talk page)
(cur) (last) 17:21, 20 March 2006 DickClarkMises (you are incorrect; the community has spoken on Kinsella's notability; please find reference at this article's talk page)
(cur) (last) 16:19, 20 March 2006 DickClarkMises (rv - the source cites a notable individual pertinent to this issue who claims that the criticisms are inaccurate; that's worth having here)

Reported by: Rogerman 05:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Rogerman[reply]

Comments:

As can be seen above, this user has clearly violated 3RR and in fact done so on numerous occassions. Thanks, Rog

I would respond by noting that the reporting user is involved with me and others in a content dispute at the noted article (LewRockwell.com). I have done my best to abide by the 3RR, and I believe that my edits, if examined, will be seen to not only include reverts, but serious attempts to come to better wording, etc. The other users involved in the dispute are highly suspicious to me in that they all seem to know basic policies of Wikipedia, and yet have very few, and very concentrated edits. They have consistently refused to discuss edits on the basis of Wikipedia policies and guidelines on the article's talk page, and they seem unwilling to compromise on wording as per talk page discussions. Regards, Dick Clark 07:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note this 3RR false alarm by User:Rogerman. Dick Clark 07:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 24h. William M. Connolley 13:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I never did a false alarm with regards to 3RR.

Can you please place the offending "diffs" at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR? I'd rather not block people on an article that I'm involved in. Thanks, -Will Beback 23:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback stated the reason he didn't want to do the block himself was that he deals with articles that Dick Clark also deals with. I don't buy that reason as legitamite but that's what it is, not because I was making a false alarm.

Rogerman 20:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Rogerman[reply]

User:80.90.39.149

Previous version reverted to: 14:10, 20 March 2006
1st revert: 08:30, 23 March 2006
2nd revert: 08:43, 23 March 2006
3rd revert: 10:43, 23 March 2006
4th revert: 11:08, 23 March 2006

Reported by: Latinus 12:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

As the user behind this dynamic IP is known to change his IP when blocked (happens all the time - check the revision history) - would it be possible to get semi-protection for the article. I know that it's strictly for vandalism, but I do think that this may be a WP:IAR situation. Just because he's smart and chooses to log out, whereas we dumb users stay logged in, I don't think that this kind of thing should be encouraged. --Latinus 12:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked the IP, let me know if s/he returns. —Ruud 13:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:64.18.16.251

Previous version reverted to: [02:56, 22 March 2006]
1st revert: 13:51, 22 March 2006
2nd revert: 18:01, 22 March 2006
3rd revert: 18:06, 22 March 2006
4th revert: 18:31, 22 March 2006
5th revert: 19:43, 22 March 2006
6th revert: 20:01, 22 March 2006
7th revert: 20:15, 22 March 2006
8th revert: 22:29, 22 March 2006
9th revert: 23:51, 22 March 2006
10th revert: 00:06, 23 March 2006
11th revert: 13:07, 23 March 2006

Reported by: EurowikiJ 13:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This anonymous is adamant about inserting his POV views allegedly based on a neutral work. Although resisted by other contributors he is adamant and blatently disregards 3RR. EurowikiJ 13:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8 hours; first offence and no warning, but lots of reverts... William M. Connolley 13:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Regulus_marzo4103

Previous version reverted to: 2006-03-18 06:47:47
1st revert: 2006-03-18 19:26:02
2nd revert: 2006-03-19 04:21:25
3rd revert: 2006-03-20 23:16:06
4th revert: 2006-03-22 04:53:15

Reported by: JACooks 14:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This user has been warned by me and other users because the changes being made to this article (and others) are inaccurate. User continues to revert.

You have misunderstood the rule: its 4R in *24h*. You want WP:DR if the problem is a slow revert war William M. Connolley 15:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I was directed to post on this page from requests for investigation, but I appreciate the clarification.

User:Nightwing99

Previous version reverted to: 2006-03-23 11:56:21
1st revert: 2006-03-23 08:19:49
2nd revert: 2006-03-23 08:57:16
3rd revert: 2006-03-23 10:51:53
4th revert: 2006-03-23 14:25:25

Reported by: Ipstenu 20:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Nightwing99 is not reading the discussion page, nor does the poster seem to read their own discussion page, or the edit summaries OR the comments put in by D1Puck1T to not edit and please talk. I don't think Nightwing99 is a troll, but a very determined poster.

The previous version reverted do doesn't seem right. I see only three reverts. —Ruud 22:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is a (I grant) a questionable revert (from a day or two before), but as someone else pointed out on the talk page, he's got well over 100 edits for the page in March alone, all for this ONE section, and all have been reverted back. This may just need a ban req, but this is my first time trying to sort any of this out. -- Ipstenu 03:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pro-Lick

Previous version reverted to: 18:42, 22 March 2006
1st revert: 18:54, 22 March 2006
2nd revert: 01:14, 23 March 2006
3rd revert: 08:46, 23 March 2006
4th revert: 13:30, 23 March 2006

Reported by: Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I have warned Pro-Lick today that further reversions will result in a block. Pro-Lick was warned by me and GTBacchus (talk · contribs) about the WP:3RR. Musical Linguist has just reverted Pro-Lick's latest additions. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours. Please be careful that you report the correct diffs next time, the 2nd one wasn't right. —Ruud 22:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the 2nd was not right, why did I get blocked? As a note to any future 3rr complaints, keep in mind there are lots of different parts on that page. Also keep in mind that RoyBoy has a view contrary to mind and may not be the most reputable and reliable source of information regarding my edits.--Pro-Lick 23:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Williamo1

Previous version reverted to: 03:41, March 23, 2006
1st revert: 12:06, March 23, 2006
2nd revert: 18:07, March 23, 2006
3rd revert: 19:11, March 23, 2006
4th revert: 03:07, March 24, 2006

Reported by: Rob 03:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the reverts aren't always going back to the exact same version. He occasional throws in an arguement (directed at editors, not readers), as to why we should leave the information in (e.g. if you love children, you'll let him keep the info). See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Williamo1 and particularly this talk page section for background. --Rob 03:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. —Ruud 03:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Netscott

Previous version reverted to: 02:24, March 24, 2006
1st revert: 02:58, March 24, 2006
2nd revert: 12:12, March 24, 2006
3rd revert: 12:32, March 24, 2006
4th revert: 12:52, March 24, 2006

Reported by: Irishpunktom\^talk 13:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: User keeps removed a Wikilink that has been included longer than he has been editing, not that that matters, and has reverted four times within 24 hours without discussing his proposal at all on the talk page. Fairly straight forward--Irishpunktom\^talk 13:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User was warned in advice of his fourth revert. --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the admin who pursues this report, regarding the wikilink to The 100 please pay particularly close attention to the first "revert" cited by Irishpunktom... I don't dispute the last three. But the first citation is not a revert as the article's history page shows. Netscott 13:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this section of User:Joturner's talk page as well. Also, although not directly related to this report, for a perspective on the interaction between Irishpunktom and myself over the last 24 hours please see the history of User:Crad0010's User Page. And the ensuing debate with Crad0010's corresponding response. Netscott 14:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First revert was done by User:Joturner, so User:Netscott has only made three reverts so far. —Ruud 14:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ruud for properly researching this report. :-) Netscott 14:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no, the previous version reverted to was Joturner, all four reverts were by Netscott --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the history carefully, while Netscott did remove the link, this was only done after he reinserted it himself. Self-reverts don't count towards a 3RR. So you're both at three reverts. —Ruud 14:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend that the two instances of Netscott (please see another list above) reverting should be combined into one. It seems to be that he used to revert without discussions. It is a bad habit... Resid Gulerdem 18:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:68.71.99.45

Previous version reverted to: 06:06, 23 March 2006
1st revert: 17:41, 23 March 2006
2nd revert: 06:10, 24 March 2006
3rd revert: 12:05, 24 March 2006
4th revert: 15:38, 24 March 2006

Reported by: Khoikhoi 16:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User knows about the 3RR – I warned him/her twice here and [47]. Despite this, they continued to revert without explanation.
This user has also rv Ramona Amiri more then 3 times within 24hours.

12:07, 24 March 2006

06:38, 24 March 2006

06:08, 24 March 2006

17:40, 23 March 2006

Blocked 12h. Chaldean escapes by a whisker William M. Connolley 18:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:81.105.207.57

Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
1st revert: [48]
2nd revert: [49]
3rd revert: [50]
4th revert: [51]

There are far more than 4 reverts, view [52] for full list.

Reported by: ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 17:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: User continually is doubling up sections of the page: i.e. The page has all it's information, then he's reposted it all again at the bottom, and now he's attacking anyone who reverts it in edit sums. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 17:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is quite 3RR (well it may be, but not obviously). But its clearly NPA, and the repeated doubling amounts to vandalism, so I shall award a short block to gie the anon time to think William M. Connolley 18:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:85.0.89.21

Previous version reverted to: [53]
1st revert: [54]
2nd revert: [55]
3rd revert: [56]
4th revert: [57]
5th revert: [58]

Reported by: Aldux 22:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Even if talk is ongoing on the talk page and a first compromise solution had already been proposed, and accepted by many on poth sides of the dispute, the editor has continued to revert mindlessly, sending abusive comments to other editors in the edit summaries: for example he called an editor a "Turk hater", and when told he had violated the 3RR he awnsered reverting once again. He had been informed of the 3RR before breaking it through a notice left on his talk page --Aldux 22:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly warned, clearly no intention of stopping. Blocked for 24 hours. Jkelly 22:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Humus sapiens

Three revert rule violation on Arab Israeli conflict:

1st revert: [59]
2nd revert: [60]
3rd revert: [61]
4th revert: [62]

Reported by: Lokiloki 00:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I'd call this a clear violation, Lokiloki. You were both going back and forth trying to edit the cutline in a different way each time, then he commented out the map and cutline until you both resolve the issue on talk. Perhaps you could try to find a compromise text on the talk page before editing it again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note to that effect on the article talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. As some background: the issue has been debated extensively on the talk pages already -- he has rejected several compromises out of hand. He continually reverts any addition that includes the phrase "the viability of a Palestinian state" or, barring removing just that particular phrase, he deletes the entire map. I believe these reversions constitute a 3-revert rule violation. At the very least, I request that editing of this page be blocked to prevent further edit warring. Lokiloki 01:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see on the talk page whether your version has any support. I'll take another look, but there doesn't seem much point in protecting now you've both stopped. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: although this dispute has been temporarily put on hold, I'm concerned about Lokiloki's 3RR report. First of all, Humus does not appear to have violated the 3RR; at the most I count two actual reverts. The problem is that Lokiloki has violated the 3RR twice in the last 48 hours, the second time after being warned. Between 10:57, 23 March 2006 and 12:42, 23 March 2006, Lokiloki reverted Arab-Israeli conflict five times: [63], [64], [65], [66], [67] (For a description of Lokiloki's reverts on March 23, see the bottom of the section entitled Caption edit war). At 13:37, 23 March, I left a friendly and polite warning on Lokiloki's talk page explaining the consequences of the 3RR. At 20:17, 23 March, Lokiloki acknowledged the 3RR policy violation, but unfortunately, Lokiloki proceeded to violate the 3RR again, starting at 19:37, 24 March 2006 with four reverts: [68], [69], [70], [71]. I would like some kind of action to be taken. —Viriditas | Talk 10:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Viriditas' claim that my 2nd set of edits were reverts is inaccurate. In the first edit, [72], I added content after the 24 hour period from my first accidental 3RR (as I was unaware of the specifics of the policy). As such, this initial addition of content presumably doesn't qualify as a "revert". This new content was deleted by Humus.

In the second edit, I added the same content with a citation to validate its inclusion as per Viriditas' earlier request for cites (and assuming that Humus would stop reverting something that was cited) [73]. Humus deleted again. I then re-added the content after Humus deleted it twice more: after his final deletion, I did not re-add the content as I assumed that this would have been my 4th revert (but even on that point, I am unclear, as I was adding new content, namely citations, to buttress the presence of that content). At that time, and given Humus' bellicosity, I reported his 4 reverts here. (I do not quite see how Viriditas only counts 2 reverts for Humus, yet 4 for me, especially given that it was a back and forth edit war with only he and I.)

-/- Lokiloki 11:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You broke 3RR after your fourth revert in 24 hours. —Viriditas | Talk 11:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not revert 4 times in the last 24 hours, as per my explanation above. There is presumably little need for us to debate this further here, as the facts are laid out, the histories are there, and hopefully an Administrator can address your accusations, and mine. Despite what I believe is an inaccuracy in your accusation, I do appreciate your even-handedness generally in dealing with this article: you have been a helpful and neutral complement in an otherwise divisive article. -/-Lokiloki 11:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your "first edit" of your second round of reverts, starting with 19:37, 24 March 2006, was to revert to the 12:42, 23 March 2006 version, in part or in whole, even though your first and second series of reverts relied on multiple primary previous versions. In other words, a revert is still a revert... —Viriditas | Talk 12:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I still disagree with your characterization, not least because I provided additional content in the 2nd edit in the form of a citation (which you yourself had earlier requested), and not least because it is unclear to me how adding additional content is an actual "revert". Thanks, Lokiloki 12:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your "2nd edit" of your second round of reverts, at 20:08, 24 March 2006 was a partial/complex revert ("and the viability of a Palestinian state") to your "first edit" 19:37, 24 March 2006 plus the addition of a cite. In other words, you reverted. —Viriditas | Talk 12:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. But if you follow this vaguer approach, how was it that you only found 2 reverts for Humus? Lokiloki 20:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't comprehend your disagreement. Either a revert is not a revert or it is. From here, it appears you reverted nine times in 48 hours, four times after being warned and acknowledging the warning after your fourth revert. As for Humus, you need to demonstrate that he reverted four times, as I only see two. —Viriditas | Talk 21:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of content with a new citation does not appear to be a revert, as there is significant new material, in the form of a citation, added [74]... Thanks, Lokiloki 22:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat myself for your benefit: your "addition of content with a new citation" 20:08, 24 March 2006 was a partial/complex revert ("and the viability of a Palestinian state") to your "first edit" 19:37, 24 March 2006 plus the addition of a cite. You reverted to a previous version and added content. That's still a revert. —Viriditas | Talk 22:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The content in question was deleted presumably because the other editor questioned its veracity; the re-addition of that content with a citation is a significant difference, and should not therefore constitute a revert. If such additions of content, with new citations, are considered reverts, this would result in perpetual stalemate. Lokiloki 22:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I'm clear, are you saying that it's ok to revert and violate the 3RR as long as one adds new content? Is that correct? —Viriditas | Talk 06:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Three-revert rule for more information on the specifics of the rule. Lokiloki 06:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm familiar with the policy. Can you answer my question above, please? —Viriditas | Talk 07:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out I find loki's entire complaint quite ludicrous. Lokiloki has beligerantly edited every article he has come in contact with to match his personal POV, he has constantly attempted to get Humus banned even though there is literally no justification other than disagreeing with loki. I also would like to point out that Loki has committed at least one wiolation of the 3RR himself although instead of running to admins he was warned on the talk page. Additionally he has probably rejected every compromise that he hasn't personally proposed.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not "constantly" tried to get Humus banned: this was my first report of his 3RR. As I have stated in all of the talk pages on the articles that I edit (and to which both Moshe and Humus diligently follow and often re-edit), I fully cite all additions that I make. Both Humus and Moshe often dispute my citations, questioning the neutrality of the BBC and other sources generally considered to be neutral -- perhaps for these reasons my additions are considered "belligerent".

Further, I am not trying to edit articles to "my" POV, but provide neutrally-sourced, accurate, and verifiable counterpoints to articles which currently lack them. As for my so-called inability to compromise, that's an interesting accusation, not least because in this specific dispute, Moshe himself states "Yea I'm fine with your compromise" User_talk:Lokiloki#Arab-Israeli compromise. I have proposed multiple compromises in this instance quite simply because no one else has, as far as I can remember -- so to claim I don't accept any compromises that I haven't personally proposed... well, who else offered one? Indeed, it is Humus who has not accepted any other alternative nor even a budge on his steadfastness for his POV caption: it is such bellicosity which is counter-productive, which has presumably resulted in significant POV deeply engrained in the discussed article and related orbiting articles, and which makes Wikipedia a generally unwelcome place for new editors such as myself.

-/- Lokiloki 11:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fyodor Dos

Reported by: 84.61.5.97 04:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User was blocked before and has nothing learned. This is an internet troll. Should be blocked permanently. Special:Contributions/Fyodor_Dos shows that this account was created for edit war and rumor against freemasonry only. No other edits, no user page. 84.61.5.97 04:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Provide diffs, or I won't do anything. (3RR says three reverts to other editors, not three edits) Sceptr e ^(Talk) 11:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs: 1 2 3 4

MSJapan 05:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 1st example you gave is an edit, not a rv. The other 2 3rr rulings made against me were just plain wrong. The 1st time the Admin combined edits I made to different sections on the page, I never rv's the same editor, obviously that Admin doesn't know 3rr. The 2nd time was even more baffling, I had corrected an edit problem I had had twice caused by the page not loading fully which I corrected and noted the reason. It would seem that Admin didn't even bother to look at the history to see what I had edited either. Later after the block had ended I responded on my talk page. There really needs to be some type of training on this subject, it would seem all some admins do is see if you have made more than 3 edits on a page after a complaint and if you have they ban you. There should be a little more investigation done.Fyodor Dos 04:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fyodor_Dos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of Lightbringer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 3RR block is now no longer necessary. MSJapan 15:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

Three revert rule violation on AIPAC.

Previous version: (added after William's comment below) [75] 10:38, 25 March 2006 (this shows his first revert back to the earlier version)
1st revert: [76]10:43, 25 March 2006
2nd revert: [77] 10:46, 25 March 2006
3rd revert: [78] 12:43, 25 March 2006 (this comparison [79] more clearly shows his removal of all work by intermediary editor)
4th revert: [80] 13:03, 25 March 2006 (this comparison [81] more clearly shows his removal of all work by intermediary editor)

Reported by: Lokiloki 20:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not obvious the first is a revert William M. Connolley 21:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is the "previous version" [82] for his first revert that shows that he reverted back to this version. Lokiloki 21:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, #1 is a revert, #3 is labelled rv so is; and #4 is the same. Why is #2 a revert? William M. Connolley 21:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi William, here is the comparison of the preceeding version and the 2nd revert [83]. You will notice that the content is exactly the same... except for the addition of a paragraph break. In the edit that I made and which he reverted [84], I added a phrase and a paragraph break (unfortunately, Wikipedia seems to treat the entire content as new when using diff, rather than simply showing the break) -- when he reverted, he deleted all of the text content that I added, and kept only the paragraph break. I assume that this still constitutes an undoing, in whole or in part, of another editor's work, despite his having kept only the paragraph break. Lokiloki 21:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm a little concerned at the double standard here. Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg was given a 3RR warning at 13:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC), after which no further reverts were made, but he was blocked for 24 hours at 20:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC). Lokiloki was given a 3RR warning at 13:37, 23 March, acknowledged the warning, and continued to revert four more times. He has not been blocked. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Humus_sapiens for details. —Viriditas | Talk 21:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see a 3RR violation here. Moshe has made four edits in the last 24 hours. At 10:43, he deleted a section added (I believe) by Lokiloki (an edit, not a revert); at 10:46, he deleted a different unsourced passage (an edit, not a revert); at 12:43, he reverted a bunch of edits made by an anon IP; and at 13:03 reverted the same edits by the same anon. So I count two reverts there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? So simply "editing" a page and returning it to a prior version (as he did on the 1st and 2nd reverts) is not an actual revert, even if it returns to an exact prior version? That's interesting to know... that means people can simply "edit" other users' contributions and in the process delete them, and that won't be counted as a revert... even if it is returned to an exact same state? ..."he deleted a section added (I believe) by Lokiloki (an edit, not a revert)"... Wow. So deleting new added content is not considered a revert? That surely seems an inaccurate reading of the revert rule. Lokiloki 22:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that deleting something always involves by definition a revert to a version that didn't contain that material, but people do have to be allowed to delete, so whether it's a technically a revert within the terms of 3RR depends on context. I'll take another look. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so there is some subjectivity to the 3RR? Some deletions will be considered reverts, but some won't? I haven't seen that interpretation in reading through other 3RR disputes above. As for the "unsourced passage" that was deleted, you can see that I simply added the phrase "a pro-Israeli media watchdog", which, despite being the exact same wording on the Wiki page for that group, is pretty well accepted. Instead of deleting, he could have used ^{[citation needed]} or some other request for sources (notice the multiple citation requests already in this article), rather than outright deletion. Similarly, the "inflammatory" passage that he removed IS part of the discussed report. Lokiloki 22:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, what we are missing is 2006-03-25 21:53:50 Sceptre blocked "Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr). Hmmm. I'm still not convinced this is 4R William M. Connolley 22:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I also was not aware that had happened. In any case, I continue to maintain that there were 4 reverts: his initial entire deletion of the passage that I added reverted to an exact same prior version; his second deletion of the entire text content that I added reverted to an exact same prior version, save for a paragraph break; his third and fourth deletions of another editor's additions which he labeled as "reverts". I also note that in his talk section he was warned about such reverts. Lokiloki 22:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's a degree of subjectivity in complex, partial 3RR assessments. I've taken a closer look, and very strictly speaking, Moshe violated 3RR in that at 10:43 [85] he deleted an edit you had made at 10:41 [86] ("the report itself states ..."), thereby reverting to a previous version, and at 10:46 [87] deleted another of your 10:41 edits [88] ("a pro-Israeli media watchdog," which he could have deleted too at 10:43, but for some reason overlooked or chose not to); then at 12:38 and 13:02 he reverted unrelated substantial edits made by an anon IP that resolves to Rogers in Toronto (was that you, by the way?).

As I see it, his mistake was to delete your 10:41 edits in two stages: one at 10:43 and one at 10:46. My guess is that he didn't see these as two reverts, because nothing relevant happened in between them (you did make an edit in between, but it wasn't related, and he may not even have realized you were continuing to edit). So yes, technically he did make four reverts, which is a violation, but I don't think he intended to, and as he hasn't been blocked before for 3RR, and made no edits after being warned that he might have violated it, I personally would not have blocked him.

Also, Loki, you've made at least 45 edits in the last day or so to this page reporting people for 3RR. [89] I'm wondering whether you might be too focused on finding technical violations rather than trying to find compromises with people. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you can tell by looking at my edit history, I make many changes to my edits so as to correct spelling, etc. I have tried with great effort to compromise with this user, but, given his distrust of the BBC and other sources and given his frequent deletions of anything that I add that is not completely cited, I am growing increasingly dissillusioned. I will most assuredly try to compromise in the future. // No, the other IP editor is not me. Lokiloki 02:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:172.170.78.19 and User:172.153.29.96 (both addresses belong to the AOL pool)

Goce Delchev

Previous version reverted to: 23:55, 24 March 2006
1st revert: 19:52
2nd revert: 20:14
3rd revert: 20:56
4th revert: 20:59

Dame Gruev

Previous version reverted to: 24 March 2006 20:17
1st revert: 19:36
2nd revert: 21:14
3rd revert: 20:10
4th revert: 21:05

Reported by: FunkyFly 21:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

The anonymous user has been warned yesterday. FunkyFly 21:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the user has persistently pushed POV in the pages Todor Aleksandrov, Gjorche Petrov and Jane Sandanski.

I've blocked ...19, but I only seem to be allowed to do so for 15 mins since they are AOL :-( William M. Connolley 21:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least you can force him to disconnect his modem and redial. FunkyFly 22:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check recent contribs William M. Connolley 22:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lou franklin

Previous version reverted to: 13:26, 23 March 2006
1st revert: 01:14, 25 March 2006
2nd revert: 03:10, 25 March 2006
3rd revert: 16:19, 25 March 2006
4th revert: 21:47, 25 March 2006
5th revert: 23:47, 25 March 2006

Reported by: Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Lou has been blocked for 3RR on this same article 5 times now. Last block was for 48 hours. I'm too involved to block him myself. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

48h again William M. Connolley 10:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adkagansu

Previous version reverted to: [90]
1st revert: [91]
2nd revert: [92]
3rd revert: [93]
4th revert: [94]
5th revert: [95]

Reported by: --Aldux 01:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I have taken no part in this dispute. The editor was clearly aware of the 3RR, as he himself confessed on the talk page of a user, saying "I am aware of the 3RR, I could have asked one of the Turkish users to change it for me but I didn't. Why? Because I am tired, I am going to bed and I did what was right to do." [96]. The editor has often been abusive and agressive to other editors, as when he said: "The only difference between a chauvinist Greek and a race obsessed SS is nobody takes the first seriously; that's why people consider your Aryan obsession cute and let you get away with it. But I won't" [97]--Aldux 01:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defense (I guess)

I always spoke the truth on Wikipedia in the couple of months I was here; some users may not liked what I was saying and regard some of what I said as insults but my words were never vulgar or distasteful, I prefer sharp humor usually. Anyway, you are reporting me for the 3RR. Here is my victim:

“ Despite its extremely multi-ethnic character, the Ottoman state was commonly known in its days as the Turkish Empire”

Miskin’s addition in bold letters. This is one of the introduction sentences to the Ottoman Empire page therefore it is important. For hours I explained why it was redundant to add that into the sentence, as if all empires aren’t multi-ethnic (And yes legaly recognised Imperial Japan is multi-ethnic as well) and this makes it sound like Turkish Empire was an exception. This article will probably be featured in a couple of weeks, I don’t want it to look it was written by elementary school kids. I made these points, waited for the Greek users to revert it back and show their good faith, they didn’t. Then I did and then Miskin reverted it back, makes you wonder what his/her intentions are. And I could have very well asked another user to revert it back for me, like they always do here on Wikipedia but I didn’t. Why? Because I was doing what was right and I assumed good faith from others. I guess I was wrong.

What’s ironic is it is neither Miskin, Latinus or Nikos reporting, with whom I had the discussion, but you, with whom I had no exchange. Just know that silencing me won’t do Wikipedia any good. You are putting down a voice that was fighting POV pushers and contributing to articles to have NPOV, even when some Turkish –I am Turk as well- users didn’t like what I was adding and deleting to keep the article NPOV like in the Turkish Cypriots page.

So I am condemned for comparing chauvinist Greeks to Nazis and for reverting a repeated mistake 5 times. Waiting for the verdict.--Kagan the Barbarian 08:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The verdict is: you have broken 3RR and so will be blocked for it. I make no judgement of the content William M. Connolley 10:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I knew 3R was not allowed, saw people mentioning it but didn't know its penalty was blocking. I never read the article about it and nobody sent it to me; Latinus did after I broke the 3RR [98] . I guess I shouldn't have said "I know what it is" but then again if I knew what it is, that its penalty was blocking, I wouldn't say "I know what it is", would I? I can assure it won't happen again and it is the best excuse I can give really. Too much talk, your decision.--Kagan the Barbarian 11:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, I'd like to request Connolley to show some lenience. Please note that I am one of the parties opposed in the discussion with Adkagansu (but in the wrong place: Talk:Greeks). Just reduce his "sentence", he didn't know, and the subject is unimportant (redundant or not addition of the word "multiethnic"). As a Greek, I am proud that the Hellenic Empire was once "extremely multiethnic" too. NikoSilver ^(T)@(C) 20:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Perry8331

Previous version reverted to: [99]
1st revert: [100]
2nd revert: [101]
3rd revert: [102]
4th revert: [103]
5th revert: [104]
6th revert: [105]
7th revert: [106]
8th revert: [107]

Reported by: --Eenu (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I am not involved with this, and I don't know if both of the involved parties are to blame, or just one. 3bulletproof16 keeps adding an additional piece of trivia to WrestleMania 22 and Perry8331 keeps on reverting it back. However, in 3bulletproof16's edit summaries, he keeps encouraging Perry8331 to discuss it on the talk page, but there has been no effort by either parties to do so. --Eenu (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:217.76.144.121

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 00:13, 25 March 2006
1st revert: Revision as of 03:44, 25 March 2006
2nd revert: Revision as of 14:07, 25 March 2006
3rd revert: Revision as of 14:20, 25 March 2006
4th revert: Revision as of 14:34, 25 March 2006
5th revert: Revision as of 14:48, 25 March 2006
6th revert: Revision as of 00:03, 26 March 2006
7th revert: Revision as of 17:03, 26 March 2006

Reported by: Duffer 02:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Vandal who's been harrassing Jehovah's Witness related articles this past week. Duffer 02:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-What's the hold up? Duffer 05:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:SikimTurki/User:Haramov

Previous version reverted to: 02:13, 26 March 2006
1st revert: 02:45, 26 March 2006 (as SikimTurki)
2nd revert: 03:01, 26 March 2006 (as SikimTurki)
3rd revert: 03:19, 26 March 2006 (as SikimTurki)
4th revert: 03:30, 26 March 2006 (as Haramov, obvious sock)

Reported by: Khoikhoi 03:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User knows about 3RR because I warned him/her about it here. --Khoikhoi 03:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:MSJapan and Blueboar

1st revert: Revision as of 05:47, 26 March 2006
2nd revert: Revision as of 05:36, 26 March 2006
3rd revert: Revision as of 05:23, 26 March 2006
4th revert: Revision as of 05:10, 26 March 2006

Combining their deletions to circumvent Three revert rule, refuse to discuss their deletions, provide no summaries or references. I have provided a total of 7 total references for my edits. Both editors are members of the same organization according to their user pages.Fyodor Dos 06:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional indication the two editors are working together to combine their edits and circumvent Three revert rule:

"He just got 3RR blocked, so feel free to rv completely back to the proper version. MSJapan 15:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blueboar#Fyodor_Dos[reply]

Fyodor Dos 06:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally User:MSJapan has made four complaints against me in as many days. He made a check user request against me accusing me of being a sock that was denied, he made a vandalism complaint against me [108], and he has just made an abusively worded arbitration complaint against me here, and he has now made another check user request against me here!Fyodor Dos 07:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a revenge because this user was blocked two times because of 3RR. It readds its speculative POV again and again without being able to proof something at all. These "references" are just part of some diversion tactics, e.g. [109] the cabala has nothing to do with Freemasonry, so the user tries to claim that Freemasonry has Rosicrucianism origin concurrently (which is wrong), to "proof" its discreditation. Special:Contributions/Fyodor_Dos shows that this account has no other function and that this is an internet troll. 84.61.7.55 06:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd 3rr was was caused by two of the edits being corrections of page loading problems, which I noted, and were corrected. They were not reverts. The first wasn't 3rr either, the admin didn't investigate my edits enough, if he had he would have seen that they were for different sections on the same page. But once you are hit with this you can't defend yourself and then you get tagged with a 3rr label. I am trying to be very careful about 3rr, but it is extremely difficult when there is a group of editors working together to rv all my edits, and making multiple allegations on every Wiki complaint page, such as is occuring. This group doesn't like my edits to the pages they feel they 'own', as they have done to others previously. It really is a cabal of sorts at work here.Fyodor Dos 05:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, User:Fyodor_Dos was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Lightbringer. MSJapan 15:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:24.54.90.231

This IP address is at like, 10RR on this page just today and this is recurring vandalism. Just take a look at the contribs. Please block 4-evah, you'll be loved.

Reported by: SchmuckyTheCat 06:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:I didn't bother showing 4 diffs, the IP contribs are only on that and one other article and clearly show a fixation with vandalizing (removing sourced information) from the page.

Blocked 8h William M. Connolley 10:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:128.120.179.41

Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
1st revert: [110]
2nd revert: [111]
3rd revert: [112]
4th revert: [113]

Reported by: Loren 09:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation by myself and anon who continuously violates agreed upon guidelines on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV. Anon claims including "(Taiwan)" in ROC related articles is "not approved". Regretebbly I got caught up in the heat of the moment and went over 3 reverts on [114] [115] and [116]. See User's talak page for more details. I am blocking myself for 3RR violation and hope someone else can address the issue. -Loren 09:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours.--MONGO 10:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Swatjester

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

Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
1st revert: 12:10, 26 March 2006
2nd revert: 12:11, 26 March 2006
3rd revert: 12:16, 26 March 2006
4th revert: 12:24, 26 March 2006

Reported by: Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 12:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Even there wasn't an attempt of a discussion. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 12:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, except for the fact that I HAVEN'T violated 3RR: the 2nd revert was a reversion of myself because the first one went back farther than I wanted. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 12:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC) I especially like this diff where you call me unmotivated, lazy, and POV in the edit summary. [117] ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 12:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

revert is revert.--Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 12:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except for, you know, the part of 3RR that says you're allowed to revert yourself. Try reading policy before making claims.

See, from WP:3RR "This rule does not apply to:

self-reverts"⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 12:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, now motivate why you are reverting other users. I added well-sourced information and made several sections more NPOV, which substantially improve the quality of the article. Besides that, reversions are not the recommended course of action when you think a page needs improvement. As an administrator you are expected to be well aware of this. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 12:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except uh....I'm not an administrator. And your claims were highly pov, unsourced, and unreferenced. That's why I reverted, as claimed in WP:V where un-sourced claims may be deleted. If you'll note, my second revert reinserted all your claims: I was just removing the one that says "Christians believe Christ is their personal lord and savior" as it's a blanket statement that is unsourced and unreferenced. ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 12:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I got the source of the misunderstanding. My apologies. To be a little less concise while explaining your reverts would help next time, though. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 12:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I count 3 reverts; the two together count as one, obviously William M. Connolley 12:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint withdrawn. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 12:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

</nowiki>

User:-Inanna-

Previous version reverted to: 22:08, 25 March 2006
1st revert: 22:23, 25 March 2006
2nd revert: 22:52, 25 March 2006
3rd revert: 21:27, 26 March 2006
4th revert: 22:06, 26 March 2006

Reported by: Khoikhoi 22:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dates are diffrent as you can see...Inanna 22:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still in 24 hours. --Khoikhoi 22:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you cannot reckon.26 comes after than 25...Inanna 22:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without actually looking at the diffs, if they are correct then technically Khoikoi is right, -Inanna- shouldn't have made a fourth revert until 22:24 (a difference of a few minutes), 26 March 2006. If I were an admin however I would look at this in a balanced way and not split hairs like that. Netscott 00:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User has been blocked several times for breaking the 3RR. --Khoikhoi 22:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48 hours. —Ruud 01:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tbeatty

WP:3RR violation on Union of Concerned Scientists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Tbeatty (talk · contribs) whose entire history from date of registration to current, seems to exclusively revolve around creating, and defending "liberal bias" sections in any article he doesn't like very much, nothing to make me think he'll back off in any way--205.188.116.70 01:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origional version: 20:16, 25 March 2006
~~1st revert~~: 00:47, 27 March 2006
~~2nd revert~~1st: 01:09, 27 March 2006
~~3rd revert~~2nd: 01:15, 27 March 2006
~~4th revert~~3rd: 01:21, 27 March 2006

added today (actual)4th revert: 02:56, 28 March 2006

Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 02:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm looking at this incorrectly, the first "revert" appears to be adding new information that isn't in what is listed as the "original version". I'm going to unblock. Gamaliel 23:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, it seems that you're right about that first edit--152.163.101.12 03:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That means this edit today is revert # 4--152.163.101.12 03:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:205.188.117.10

See above but look at the page. I've added sourced content, not labels. The anon user just deletes the new, sourced information.—This unsigned comment was added by Tbeatty (talk • contribs) .

And the anon user is apparently a sock puppet as well.—This unsigned comment was added by Tbeatty (talk • contribs) .

Yes, real maturity, I'm not going over 3 reverts anyway, thanks for the sockpuppet comments, who exaclty am I pretending to be? I guess I'm a sock of an unregistered user, how sneaky of me--205.188.116.70 02:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing sneakier than that would be, oh, I don't know, making unsigned personal attacks against your accuser?--205.188.116.70 02:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 15 minutes as it an AOL IP. But you're not allowed to edit for 24 hours anyway. —Ruud 02:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Khashayar Karimi

Previous version reverted to: 18:20, 26 March 2006
1st revert: 19:12, 26 March 2006
2nd revert: 20:02, 26 March 2006
3rd revert: 20:05, 26 March 2006
4th revert: 20:15, 26 March 2006

Reported by: Aucam an^Talk 05:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Has done 4 reverts in less than 2 hrs. Has been here long enough to know about 3RR and revert warring. Aucam an^Talk 05:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those are clearly not all reverts, I was trying to protect the article while calling admins (because two users were trying to vandalise the page by removing sources and not participating in the talk) --Kash 05:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it looks like things have settled down and I also agree with the current version of the article. --Kash 05:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That doesn't look like 4 reverts to me, they are different edits. User:Khashayar Karimi is adding an authoritative source that was removed without any explanation on talk, in two of those edits. --ManiF 05:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts are reverts. I don't agree with his additions to the first line of the article. I asked him for an explanation in the talk, but instead he's been reverting repeatedly. The fact that he's even denying revert-warring doesn't make him look any better. Aucam an^Talk 05:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't change the story. I was always present on the talk page. --Kash 05:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting means undoing the actions of another editor, it is in no way limited to reverting to the same version. Khashayar Karimi undid Aucaman's edit's four times. Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 12:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:ManiF

Previous version reverted to: 17:07, 26 March 2006
1st revert: 18:01, 26 March 2006
2nd revert: 21:11, 26 March 2006
3rd revert: 22:30, 26 March 2006
4th revert: 22:35, 26 March 2006

Reported by: Aucam an^Talk 07:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Yet another revert-warrrrrrior. Just violated 3RRRRR. (Sorry I seem to be stutterrrring.) This one actually labels his reverts as reverts, so it should be more straight-forwarrrrd. Aucam an^Talk 07:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth one is not a revert. SouthernComfort 07:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Aucaman, I'd appricite it if you didn't label me a "revert-warrrrrrior" or any such names, please check WP:CIVIL. My fourth edit is not a revert. Furthermore, if you look at my fourth edit, you'd see that User:Xebat was disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, by adding an absurd amount of tags to the article (borderline vandalism) contrary to the consensus on talk. --ManiF 07:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fourth was removing vandalism, in my opinion - wayyyy too many tags. They were completely unnecessary. --Khoikhoi 07:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of the dispute. The page has been protected because people don't agree on the dispute tags. Aucam an^Talk 07:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding four different tags (two of them unnecessary) to an article just for the sake of doing it is vandalism. --Khoikhoi 07:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not if the person was already participating in the talks. His name appears more than any other name. I'm told the word vandalism should only be used for clear cases of vandalism. The article is clearly disputed (in fact it's even protected now), but users such as User:ManiF have been constantly taking off the disputed tags. Aucam an^Talk 08:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, perhaps his first three reverts wern't justified enough, but his fourth edit was removing vandalism, and in this case I see the adding of a ridiculous number of inappropriate tags to the article to be a pretty obvious violation of WP:POINT, and was definately justified. --Khoikhoi 08:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not for you to decide. If it was vandalism it should have been reported. This was part of a larger revert war. The user was clearly frustrated because people have been taking off the dispute tag without any agreement. This is a clear case of revert-waring. User:Khoikhoi, you are also a big player in this dispute, so I'd appreciate if you stop leaving unnecessary comments here. Let the admins deal with this and stop (subjectively) calling people's edits vandalism. Aucam an^Talk 08:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that "he was frustrated" is not an excuse for adding an excessive amount of tags to an article. The reason why I requested to protect the article is because of such disruptive behavior. I have a right to my opinion and I personally feel that his edits were vandalism. --Khoikhoi 08:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth revert was not reverting simple vandalism, further more you could have decided to leave at least one tag in place. Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 13:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:SouthernComfort

Previous version reverted to: 16:45, 26 March 2006
1st revert: 16:52, 26 March 2006
2nd revert: 18:52, 26 March 2006
3rd revert: 21:08, 26 March 2006
4th revert: 22:46, 26 March 2006

Reported by: Aucam an^Talk 07:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Yet anotherr one. This one has done it at least 6 times (see the history page for more), but these are the obvious reverts. Can someone please attend to these before they get trolled? Aucam an^Talk 07:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but again the 4th one is not a revert. Also please see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. SouthernComfort 07:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the fourth is removing vandalism, just as in ManiF's case. --Khoikhoi 08:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update

It's not vandalism if the person was already participating in the talks and finds the content of the article disputable. His name appears more than any other name in talks and he's obviously concerned about the accuracy of the article. The word vandalism should only be used for clear cases of vandalism. The article is clearly disputed (in fact it's even protected now), but users such as User:SouthernComfort have been constantly taking off the disputed tags. I also didn't include some of the other reverts (this and this). Are these vandalisms too? It would be unfair if he gets away with all this. Aucam an^Talk 08:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not reverts (and sources had been provided). Your accusatory tone is also not acceptable - please see WP:CIVIL. SouthernComfort 08:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth revert was not reverting simple vandalism, further more you could have decided to leave at least one tag in place. Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 13:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xebat (formerly User:Diyako)

Previous version reverted to: 18:02, 26 March 2006
1st revert: 00:57, 27 March 2006
2nd revert: 04:11, 27 March 2006
3rd revert: 05:09, 27 March 2006
4th revert: 05:13, 27 March 2006

Reported by: Khoikhoi 08:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User knows about 3RR because he told me here that he is "afraid of it". --Khoikhoi 08:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 12:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Leotardo

Previous version reverted to: not the identical version consistently, but still covered under 3RR per Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Detail
1st revert: 09:28, 26 March 2006
2nd revert: 12:09, 26 March 2006
3rd revert: 21:21, 26 March 2006
4th revert: 07:52, 27 March 2006
5th revert: 08:30, 27 March 2006

Reported by: Samaritan 08:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: User:Pm shef has posted three 3RR warning templates on User talk:Leotardo and in edit summaries, as Leotardo continued to repeatedly and tenditiously revert edits by Pm shef, User:Bearcat and myself. Leotardo's relevant interest here is substituting the real title of a newspaper article in external links, Kadis seeks re-election in largest Jewish riding, first for a problematically generic name of hir own, then for that article's photo caption, which sie claims is the title. Leotardo disputes violating 3RR, perhaps not having read Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Detail, wherein "Reverting, in this context, applies to undoing the actions of another editor in whole or part, not necessarily taking a previous version from history and editing that." Samaritan 08:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that user also refuses to listen to consensus (s/he's also begun reverting two unelected city council candidates who were previously merged by AFD consensus into a single article on the election as a whole), and has repeatedly accused the three of us most involved in repairing this dispute of committing vandalism (as if reverting a bad edit were any such thing) or entirely non-existent POV violations despite the fact that no political opinions have been involved whatsoever. This editor seems to pay just enough attention to the rules to twist them in service of his own agenda, while entirely missing what they actually mean. Bearcat 08:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky one, but there were at least 5 reverts. Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 12:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Goodandevil

Previous version reverted to: 02:28, 25 March 2006
1st revert: 04:19, 26 March 2006
2nd revert: 12:02, 26 March 2006
3rd revert: 15:08, 26 March 2006
4th revert: 03:05, 27 March 2006
5th revert: 03:46, 27 March 2006

Reported by: Alienus 09:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: They refused to go to Talk, initially. After multiple reversions from multiple editors, they went to Talk, then ignored a clear consensus. They were informed about the 3RR violation and chose to continue. I consider this very much an open-and-shut case. Alienus 09:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comments by Musical Linguist: First three reverts seem to be clear reverts. The fourth may or may not be a revert. Certainly, it's not a revert to the previous Goodandevil version. I'm not saying that it isn't a revert, but without extensive examination, I can't see whether it's just an edit or an edit which incorporates a partial revert. The fifth is an edit which reinserts "common" and "descriptive term", which Alienus had removed in his own fifth revert, though Alienus spaced his reverts outside of 24 hours. (Hey, if I had done four reverts, I wouldn't be showing myself at this page to report another person's violations; I'd be keeping very quiet and hoping that no admin would examine the history of that article. Nobody would have seen your violation if you hadn't made your report here, Alienus.) The "common" and "descriptive" can be seen by examining side by side Alienus's revert of Goodandevil [118] and Goodandevil's edit-incorporating-a-revert of Alienus's version.[119] Anyway, I'm not going to block, as I have experience with both editors, ~~but I would point out that if one is blocked, the other must be also. I'll report Alienus in a new section.~~ AnnH ♫ 11:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And just a quick comment on Alienus's comments. I don't know if Goodandevil refused to go to talk, or if he ignored a clear consensus. I do know, having looked, that "After multiple reversions from multiple editors" is false. He has recently been reverted five times by Alienus ~~(to be reported below)~~ and once by Severa.[120] His edit was edited, but not reverted by Lyrl.[121] One of Alienus's reverts was done with popups (although two administrators have asked Alienus not to use popup reverting for non vandalism edits) outside of that period.[122] AnnH ♫ 11:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck out some of my comments, with apologies. While looking for the diffs, I found that Alienus did indeed manage to space his edits outside of the twenty-four period. I was misled because I knew that Alienus was reporting Goodandevil for violating 3RR in a 24-hour period, and I knew that Alienus was the main person reverting him. I didn't look closely enough at the times. Sorry. Anyway, these are not 3RR violations, but are evidence that an edit war is going on:

First revert at 2:17, 25 March

Second revert at 16:41, 25 March

Third revert at 15:48, 26 March

Fourth revert at 17:28, 26 March

Fifth revert at 08:10, 27 March.

Also, Goodandevil has posted fifteen times to the discussion page in the last twenty-four hours. I haven't looked at his posts, and since some come in close succession, some may be just correction of typos rather than engaging in dialogue. But he is certainly discussing. However, it does seem that the his final "revert" was a partial revert, whether or not the "fourth" one was. AnnH ♫ 12:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours. Fourth revert was not a revert, but the fifth was. —Ruud 12:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aucaman

1st revert: 04:17, 27 March 2006
2nd revert: 04:31, 27 March 2006
3rd revert: 05:02, 27 March 2006
4th revert: 05:27, 27 March 2006

Reported by: Khoikhoi 09:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User reverted 11 times within 5 hours, about 8 of them are tag-adding. --Khoikhoi 09:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I have to say is that it's a good thing you're not a admin or we would have a very interesting interpretation of the word "revert". Let's start with the first one. Which version am I reverting to? Aucam an^Talk 09:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: On Iranian peoples, there are eleven reversions of others' edits by User:Aucaman within 5 hours. ([123], [124], [125], [126] [127], [128], [129], [130], [131]. [132], and [133]) --ManiF 09:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, 1st (2nd) 2nd 3rd followed by adding disputed or related tags several times. Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 13:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:61.58.53.139

Previous version reverted to: 17:39, 26 March 2006
1st revert: 18:14, 26 March 2006
2nd revert: 00:38, 27 March 2006
3rd revert: 04:11, 27 March 2006
4th revert: 04:18, 27 March 2006

Reported by: JJay 14:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Anon POV Pusher is edit warring with three other editors. Keeps trying to add Adolf Hitler and Nazism etc to intro on Christian Terrorism -- JJay 14:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours. —Ruud 14:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Matcreg

Previous version reverted to: 19:24, 25 March 2006
1st revert: 13:30, 27 March 2006
2nd revert: 14:02, 27 March 2006
3rd revert: 14:57, 27 March 2006
4th revert: 15:03, 27 March 2006

Reported by: Sciurinæ 15:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked... 8h. Unless you can provide more on the socks stuff William M. Connolley 15:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5th revert after the block ended: 09:40, 28 March 2006

New revert within the 24h span under the guise of deleting only vandalism and being a minor edit. Sciurinæ 12:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. 24h William M. Connolley 12:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Purger

Previous version reverted to: [22:20, 26 March 2006]
1st revert: 00:31, 27 March 2006
2nd revert: 14:56, 27 March 2006
3rd revert: 14:58, 27 March 2006
4th revert: 16:17, 27 March 2006

Reported by: EurowikiJ 16:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Both you and Purger (I assume Purqer = Purger; I've indef-blocked Purqer) have broken 3RR, so I shall block you both. You both know about the rule... have 12h each William M. Connolley 16:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me!?! What do you mean by "both you have broken 3RR"? Kindly re-check the history page!!! (EurowikiJ)

William, I am so sorry for the previous comment. I completely missed your point thinking that you were intent on blocking me. It took me awhile to realize that the reported user was using two ALMOST identical user-names. Once again, my apologies. EurowikiJ 17:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have most certainly broken 3RR. Unfortunately due to my incompetence I seem to have failed to have blocked you, sorry about that. Also you get some credit for marking all your reverts as such. Treat this as a warning I guess :-)

Note to other admins: there is Purger and Purqer. Purger denies being Purqer. They made the same reverts. I've indef blocked Purqer.

William M. Connolley 22:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking at the history page and for some reason I cannot find more than 3 reverts of mine. I may be, of course, missing something.

1st revert: 08:29, 27 March 2006
2nd revert: 14:57, 27 March 2006
3rd revert: 14:59, 27 March 2006

EurowikiJ 22:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:TuzsuzDeliBekir 2

Previous version reverted to: 18:24, 26 March 2006
1st revert: 04:52, 27 March 2006
2nd revert: 16:10, 27 March 2006
3rd revert: 16:48, 27 March 2006
4th revert: 17:20, 27 March 2006

Reported by: Khoikhoi 18:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User has been blocked several times for breaking the 3RR. --Khoikhoi 18:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for 48 hours, fourth 3RR block. Stifle 21:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

85.1.89.101

Previous version reverted to: [16:52, 27 March 2006]
1st revert: 17:15, 27 March 2006
2nd revert: 17:22, 27 March 2006
3rd revert: 17:43, 27 March 2006
4th revert: 18:02, 27 March 2006

Reported by: --Hectorian 18:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

The user is aware of the 3RR cause i informed him/her here [134].This user has been removing info from the article and personally attacking other users, such as here [135], and also vandalising the article as seen in his/her edits.--Hectorian 18:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 12 hours for 3RR first violation. Stifle 21:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more revert that he/she has made, the 5th so far 18:09, 27 March 2006 --Hectorian 18:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

86.140.253.251

Previous version reverted to: [136]
1st revert: [137]
2nd revert:[138]
3rd revert: [139]

Reported by: Bmpower 20:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Clear 3rr violation. User should have added to discussion page as asked. Bmpower 20:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three reverts only, no violation here. Stifle 21:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please provide differences, not oldid versions, when reporting 3RR problems. Thanks. Stifle 21:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nrcprm2026

Nrcprm 2026 introduced NPOV dispute tag at the top of the article. 19:56, 26 March 2006
1st revert by Darkildor 03:23, 27 March 2006
2nd revert by 208.54.15.1 08:32, 27 March 2006
3rd revert by myself 08:46, 27 March 2006
4th revert by Nrcprm2026 10:52, 27 March 2006

Reported by FWBOarticle 20:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments A typical true believer. I also advice him in tak page to self revert to avoid sanction. Not sure if he saw my advice or not. Given the state of his profile page, I'm quite sure he is aware of the rule. Nothing happened so I'm reporting. FWBOarticle 20:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Nrcprm2026 upped his rever to 6th even after his violation has been pointed out. FWBOarticle

No violation detected. If I'm missing something, please post again here, but include differences, not old versions. Stifle 21:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am not Darkildor, 208.54.15.1, or FWBOarticle for that matter, so I'm not sure why I was accused of their reverts. --James S. 21:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the bias dispute tag until the dispute is resolved. --James S. 21:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?

I do not understand what it meant by "but include differences, not old versions". It either I misunderstand 3rr or I misunderstand how to present violation of 3rr.

The stable/original tagging was 10:58, 26 March 2006.
This tag was removed by Crzyfrd in 10:59, 26 March 2006.
In which Nrcprm2026 (James from now on) responded by inserting new tag 19:56, 26 March 2006
Darkildor reverted James tag in 03:23, 27 March 2006
208.54.15.1 (James?) revert back 08:32, 27 March 2006
Myself revert by deleting tag 08:46, 27 March 2006
James restore the tag 10:52, 27 March 2006
James split the tag text content into two 11:02, 27 March 2006
ER MD revert again 20:51, 27 March 2006
James revert last time in 20:52, 27 March 2006

James taging is essentially the same. Near identical text content. While people who revert his tag either simply delete his tag or replace it with NPOV dispute tag, he always revert it back to the same thing. Is it enough to evade 3rr simply by making slight alteration in revet? In such case, 3rr would be so easy to evade that it would be meaningless. FWBOarticle

User:Samaritan

Previous version reverted to: not the identical version consistently, but still covered under 3RR per Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Detail
1st revert: 02:32, 25 March 2006
2nd revert: 04:06, 25 March 2006
3rd revert: 07:58, 25 March 2006
4th revert: 08:53, 25 March 2006
5th revert: 21:35, 25 March 2006
6th revert: 00:12, 26 March 2006

And more recently:

1st revert: 18:48, 26 March 2006
2nd revert: 06:45, 27 March 2006
3rd revert: 07:28, 27 March 2006
4th revert: 08:13, 27 March 2006

Reported by: Poche1 20:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:: Samaritan continues to violate the 3RR rule with these 2 sets of reverts, the first being 6 reverts in 22 hours, the second being 4 reverts in 14 hours. Samaritan disputes violating 3RR, perhaps not having read Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Detail, wherein "Reverting, in this context, applies to undoing the actions of another editor in whole or part, not necessarily taking a previous version from history and editing that." As well, he continues to add content which violates the NPOV.

Well, you've both violated the 3RR, so you can both have 18 hour blocks. We're nothing if not equal here at WP:AN3. Stifle 21:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR quite explicitly does not apply to reverting vandalism, and the complainant is a sockpuppet of a user with a longstanding habit of twisting the rules to get around the fact that he actually doesn't have a leg to stand on regarding the merit of his edits. I can't agree that this was appropriate. And furthermore, regarding the block notice that was placed on Samaritan's user talk page, he has in no way failed to discuss the changes in a civil manner — he, I, User:pm_shef and User:Ohnoitsjamie have all attempted repeatedly to engage a fair and rational discussion of the issue, but User:Leotardo has failed to respond to that. Bearcat 22:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment in the next section for why this does not qualify as reverting vandalism. However, given the circumstances 18 hours was excessive and I have now lifted the block on Samaritan. Stifle 00:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The only person who was failing to follow any consensus in the matter was User:Leotardo/User:Poche1, but since Samaritan and Jamie are both unblocked now anyway, I guess I'll have to leave it at that. Bearcat 01:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I own up to violating 3RR over one twenty-four hour period in the past, because my understanding of the rule wasn't complete, but this allegation was wrongful. I've tried to set out why User talk:Samaritan#My side of the story, if anybody is interested. My block is over now, so don't worry about any practical import. I just want the record to be complete, and to defend any good name I might happen to have. Samaritan 04:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ohnoitsjamie

Previous version reverted to: 21:03, 7 March 2006
1st revert: 08:07, 27 March 2006
2nd revert: 08:22, 27 March 2006
3rd revert: 15:36, 27 March 2006
4th revert: 19:50, 27 March 2006

Reported by: Poche1 20:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:: Ohnoitsjamie continues to revert the article changes and redirect the page because in his opinion, "consensus has been reached."

Note Poche1 is almost for sure a sockpuppet, Ohnoitsjamie is in the right here, consensus HAS been reached. pm_shef 21:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't realize that I had violated 3RR, as there were three articles that were being reverted to a pre-consensus version, first by User:Leotardo, then by User:Poche1, whom I suspect is a sockpuppet of blocked-user User:Leotardo. After the last reversion, I stated that I'd be happy to take the articles back to afd (which we'd been trying to avoid before) if the original consensus was disputed. Poche1 placed a warning on my talk page after my last reversion of any of the articles. I have not touched any of them since.OhNoitsJamie^Talk 21:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohnoitsjamie has been blocked for three hours for a first offense of 3RR. Poche1 has been blocked for 18 hours, and Ruud has already got to Leotardo before me. Anything else? Stifle 21:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR quite explicitly does not apply to reverting vandalism, and the complainant is a sockpuppet of a user with a longstanding habit of twisting the rules to get around the fact that he actually doesn't have a leg to stand on regarding the merit of his edits. I can't agree that this was appropriate. And furthermore, regarding the block notice that was placed on Jamie's user talk page, he has in no way failed to discuss the changes in a civil manner — he, I, User:pm_shef and User:Samaritan have all attempted repeatedly to engage a fair and rational discussion of the issue, but User:Leotardo has failed to respond to that. Bearcat 22:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 3RR does not apply to simple vandalism, i.e. reverting page blanking, nonsense, etc. It applies normally to people who don't follow consensus, see the heading "Stubbornness" under "What vandalism is not" on WP:-(. Stifle 00:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The only person who was failing to follow any consensus in the matter was User:Leotardo/User:Poche1, but since Samaritan and Jamie are both unblocked now anyway, I guess I'll have to leave it at that. Bearcat 01:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:24.136.10.10

Previous version reverted to: 17:34 March 27 2006
1st revert: 17:41 March 27 2006
2nd revert: 17:52 March 27 2006
3rd revert: 18:02 March 27 2006
4th revert: 18:03 March 27 2006

Reported by: Golbez 23:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The IP first reverted his changes to the table twice. Then he made another edit, changing the number in the intro. Then he made two edits in a row, changing the table and the intro, thus registering four reverts in toto. I have reverted him four times as well, so I submit myself for judgment as well, though my final revert was to revert his 3RR-violation. --Golbez 23:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP for 12 hours for 3RR. I only see three reverts from Golbez. Stifle 00:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pmanderson

Previous version reverted to: 15:41 27 March 2006
1st revert: 18:35 27 March 2006
2nd revert: 19:15 27 March 2006
3rd revert: 20:19 27 March 2006
4th revert: 22:37 27 March 2006
5th revert: 23:07 27 March 2006

Reported by: Ultramarine 23:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The arbcom has warned him previously for sterile revert warring.[140] Attempts of hide the reverts by some minor differences in words in some of them, but each time reverting the edits of three other editors. Shown differently:

Response: The underlying issue here is the inclusion of a map representing one reasonable, but disputable, set of opinions on "Which are the present liberal democracies?". See Talk:liberal democracy#Map and the section above it.

Three of these are different attempts to word a disclaimer on the caption, in the hope that some phrasing will reach consensus. The first one is the bolding of a preexisting disclaimer.
One of these, the one of 19:15, removes the map altogether.
One (at 23:07) adjusts the accompanying text, but not the caption, and does nothing to the map.

What 3RR violation? Septentrionalis 00:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Ultramarine has quoted an arbcom ruling that applies equally to both of us. Since Ultramarine has made three efforts at sterile defense of his preferred text, this would appear disingenuous. Septentrionalis 00:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not broken the 3RR rule by continually reverting the edits of three different editors during a few hours. Ultramarine 00:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The arbcom ruling prohibits sterile reversions. This is Ultramarine's record today:

Previous version reverted to: 17:44, 27 March 2006
1st revert: 18;40
2nd partial revert: 18:45
3rd revert, full revert to number 2: 19:00
deletion of sourced material 19:29
Insertion of unacknowledged cut and paste from article 20:33
- article from which taken [146]

Septentrionalis 00:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simply false and incorrect. Also, this is not the place to discuss a content dispute, but your repeated reverts of several other editors. Ultramarine 01:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the above diffs do you deny? Septentrionalis

Again, this is not the place to discuss your attempts to hide the benefits of democracy and supporting studies and measurements. Regarding reverts, I reverted only once, 18:40. I and the other editors have not broken 3RR like you have. Ultramarine 01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No 3RR violation, but definitely an ArbCom violation, so you're both blocked for an hour and a half , a suitably lame block for a suitably lame revert war imo. Use WP:AE for future problems of this kind. Stifle 13:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Caiqian, User:Sumple and/or User:FWBOarticle

Three revert rule violation on Nanking Massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Caiqian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Sumple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and/or FWBOarticle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Depends on where one start counting the revert

Original state: 13:20, 26 March 2006
Wholesale revert by Caiqian: 18:26, 27 March 2006 which is based on 21:14, 26 February 2006 version
1st or 2nd revert by Myself: 18:56, 27 March 2006
2nd or 3rd revert by Caiqian: 19:36, 27 March 2006
3rd or 4th revert by Myself: 20:39, 27 March 2006
4th or 5th revert by Sumple: 21:54, 27 March 2006
5th or 6th revert by Myself: 22:19, 27 March 2006
6th or 7th revert by Caiqian: 22:26, 27 March 2006

Reported by: FWBOarticle 23:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:My understanding is that 3rr favour status quo because 3rd revert suppose to end up in the original state. On this understanding, I did not count the initial revert to a month old version to be the first revert. However, I have stated both version of count as a part of good faith edit. And warned anyone who revert that they may violate 3rr. Sumple nor Caiqian do not seems to care. I have reported myself to be fair. Because the revert is wholesale, it is difficult to respond except by another wholesale revert. I'm not sure whether adding small modification every time one revert is enough to avoid 3rrv. If so, I would have done the same but essentially the whole sale revert could continue indefintely. FWBOarticle 23:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided old versions, not diffs. It is very hard to find the exact violation without diffs, and I have not been able to find any 3RR violation here. Another admin please review this. Stifle 13:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:200.118.111.122

Previous version reverted to: [147] 21:52, 27 March 2006
1st revert: [148] 00:18, 28 March 2006
2nd revert: [149] 00:18, 28 March 2006
3rd revert: [150] 200.118.111.122
4th revert: [151] 200.118.111.122

reported by- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 72 hours. Third such block at this unique IP, and appears to be related to similar behavior elsewhere. It appears this individual has violated the rule several times. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:217.76.144.121

Previous version reverted to: 18:23, 26 March, 2006
1st revert: 10:01, 27 March, 2006
2nd revert: 16:55, 27 March, 2006
3rd revert: 17:02, 27 March, 2006
4th revert: 17:08, 27 March, 2006
5th revert: 17:13, 27 March, 2006

Reported by: Lucy 23:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The editor continues to make the same addition to the opening paragraph whilst refusing to participate in any discussion regarding the issue on the talk page.

User was already blocked 24 hours by Dustimagic. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dr. Imbeau

Previous version reverted to: 4:02 26 March, 2006
1st revert: 05:44, March 27, 2006
2nd revert: 14:17, March 27, 2006
3rd revert: 20:20, March 27, 2006
4th revert: 20:36, March 27, 2006
5th revert: 20:41, March 27, 2006

Reported by: Jersyko·talk 02:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: User has been notified on his/her talk page as well as in an edit summary on the article itself to be careful to adhere to 3RR. Made his/her fifth reversion in defiance of warning. The user's only edits are to this article.

Vary's final warning on this user's talk page appears to have deterred the behavior from continuing. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Perspicacious

Three revert rule violation on Seventh-day Adventist Church. Perspicacious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Previous version reverted to: [152]
1st revert: [153]
2nd revert: [154]
3rd revert: [155]
4th revert: [156]

Reported by: Fermion 03:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This is not the first time this user has violated 3RR on this page. If you count suspected sock puppets, such as User talk:216.119.158.207 then User:Perspicacious has violated by more than just four edits.

Second infringement, he should know better. Blocked for 24 hours. Stifle 13:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Err... scratch that, Lbmixpro got there already. Stifle 13:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Moveapage

Previous version reverted to: 11:29, 27 March 2006
1st revert: 12:26, 27 March 2006
2nd revert: 12:55, 27 March 2006
3rd revert: 13:03, 27 March 2006
4th revert: 13:13, 27 March 2006
5th revert: 13:54, 27 March 2006
6th revert: 17:00, 27 March 2006

Reported by: Jiang 06:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

repeatedly inserting disputed phrase "island nation", among other mass reverts. not first violation by this user.--Jiang 06:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 24 hours. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:EurowikiJ

Previous version reverted to: 22:20, 26 March 2006
1st revert: 08:29, 27 March 2006
2nd revert: 14:57, 27 March 2006
3rd revert: 14:59, 27 March 2006
4th revert: 06:04, 28 March 2006

Previous version reverted to: 2:19, 26 March 2006
1st revert: 08:27, 27 March 2006
2nd revert: 18:44, 27 March 2006
3rd revert: 20:25, 27 March 2006
4th revert: 06:45, 28 March 2006

and again:

5th revert: 08:58, 28 March 2006

Also made 4 reverts in a bit more than 24 hours in [157]

Comments: He is well aware of the rule, makes complaints himself. In fact, he seems to game the 3RR. He was supposed to be banned, apparently has avoided ban for 3RR by a mistake of an administrator [158] shortly after this, he breaks 3RR again on two articles, and games it on third [159]. Has engaged in revert wars for weeks. Maayaa 09:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned, and were supposed to be banned, and you still game the system on several articles and clearly make more than 4 edits in the same 24 h period on at least two articles, and makes even more edits and breaches in just a bit more than 24 h. You also seem to resort to personal attacks. I didn't check, but there are maybe more violations by the same user. Maayaa 10:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously misunderstood the rule thinking that it applies to a particular day as a 24 hour period as opposed to any 24 hour period. However, I received no warning. EurowikiJ 10:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned, you knew about the rule. And gaming the system is considered worse vandalism. If you are honest about not being informed, revert the articles back, and you might avoid the ban, as self reverts are not counted. But it is up to the administrators - you are reverting heavily and in fact people are complaining about you and some other editors. Maayaa 10:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, dont you consider it a bit strange to brag that you have not been warned while you in fact reported people here several times, and were warned explicitly on this very page and still, you couldnt refrain for editing that same article one more time, even when admin told you he was going to ban you. Maayaa 10:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. If it is OK with the administrator I will self-revert and refrain from editing in 24 hours. After all, I play by the rules without resorting to creating sock-puppets. I am sure you know what I am talking about. EurowikiJ 10:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Had I known about the rule applying to any 24 hour period, I would have made many more reports on this page. But this is a useful lesson too. EurowikiJ 10:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted to previous versions on both articles. EurowikiJ 10:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, glad you choose to be civil. In fact, you might consider discussing the issue with your opponents, as revert wars lead to nowhere. work with them towards some compromise, as is suggested by wikipedia policies - there are talk pages for resolving disputes. Maayaa 10:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also think you should use this opportunity to gloat because I assure you that this is the last time I made this mistake. EurowikiJ 10:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake is to engage in revert wars, but you seem not to understand it. Perhaps you can read a bit more about rules and advices carefully, because 3RR is just a guideline to limit edit wars, not an invitation to game the system. Maayaa 11:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 technique. 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 Maayaa

I feel I should warn that an anonymous IP has reverted both articles back to my version. For all I know this may be foul play. In any case it has nothing to do with me. EurowikiJ 12:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a somewhat tiresome revert war. EurowikiJ violated the 3RR on Ante Starčević, but not on Tourism in Croatia, where the fourth revert was outside 24 hours. I've warned him for that, as he doesn't appear to have been previously warned and looks like he'll behave. Incidentally, Purqer also violated 3RR in the middle of this, but he's been blocked already by William M. Connolley. Now, go to WP:RFC and use it to get a WP:3O on your articles, because if anyone else breaks 3RR on anything with a Croatian name, they're liable to get the book thrown at them. Stifle 13:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:200.27.187.52 & Related IPs

Previous version reverted to: 13:11, 27 March 2006
1st revert: 20:12, 27 March 2006
2nd revert: 23:23, 27 March 2006
3rd revert: 00:13, 28 March 2006
4th revert: 03:57, 28 March 2006

Reported by: Jhamez84 13:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This user has been most stubborn and persistent in altering known facts. I as well as other members have been most displeased and incresingly frustrated in his behaviour. The problem stems from a location. It is not a disputed territory, but he wishes to remove the mention of the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham from the Crompton House page (which was his school) and also the Shaw and Crompton page, most probably due to the so-called stigma attached to it's large south asian popultaion and past racial rioting. The user has been blocked before, (see {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:213.122.143.43_.26_related_IP.27s] ). He places an outdated/discontinued (legally and otherwise) version of geography on the article which directly contradicts the Wikipedia policy of the offical naming conventions (see [160] for the evidence that the member is indeed vandalising).

There are also further problems, I have asked for semi-protection for these pages but it wasn't granted and he refuses to accept consensus, constantly altering pages with no knownledge of how to properly format an article, and against the wishes of the members involved. To circumvent his previous blocking he is using non-static IP address (dynamic IP rolling) and admits as such here [161]. He has no static home page with which to formally warn him, his IP addresses are seemingly limitless and really need some support from and authoritative member to step in on the articles forsaid! His other known IP addresses are 213.122.74.210, 213.122.128.186, 81.131.22.118, 213.122.33.211, 213.122.72.151, 213.122.87.239, 81.131.68.146, 213.122.125.60, 81.131.64.166, 201.31.253.132 etc etc etc! I would appreciate a blanket block on him (if indeed possible) and be eternally grateful for some support on the articles. Thank you Jhamez84 13:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's been warned by you, and I'm inclined to leave it at that for now. In future when making 3RR reports please provide diffs and not old versions, as the latter are much harder to verify. Stifle 13:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to that, having explained the wider problems I have been faced, and subsequent lack of support, I am most disapointed with that decision. The vandal is question has clearly broken wikpedia rules but is now not being challenged or disciplined in the slightest. I have warned him 'numerous times but he won't listen to me as I am involved and states that I am a known vandal (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crompton_House&oldid=45748636]. I think that to consider my own warning a deterant to him is a very weak decision. I urge you to reconsider. Jhamez84 14:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:80.90.38.96

Previous version reverted to: 11:15, 28 March 2006
1st revert: 13:07, 28 March 2006
2nd revert: 15:31, 28 March 2006
3rd revert: 16:17, 28 March 2006
4th revert: 16:24, 28 March 2006

Reported by: Latinus 16:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

This anon has been here for quite some time. The article in question was semi-protected earler (see #User:80.90.39.149) because this user has a dynamic IP and kept evading the 3RR blocks. User:Splash unprotected the article last night and the anon retuned this morning, made a few personal attacks against me and User:LukasPietsch and continued reverting. Someone please do something. Semi-protection again would be nice - it may even force him to ceate an account and be accountable like the rest of us. --Latinus 16:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48 hours for second offense. Also blocked otehr IP for same time and will semiprotect.Gator (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:RonCram

Previous version reverted to: 11:36, 27 March 2006
1st revert: 16:10, 27 March 2006
2nd revert: 17:04, 27 March 2006
3rd revert: 19:43, 27 March 2006
4th revert: 12:06, 28 March 2006

Reported by: User:RyanFreisling @ 17:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: RonCram, who has made numerous edits around the 'Iraqi Freedom Documents' representing claims as fact without citations of factual sources (he insteads cites allegations), has violated 3RR in his multi-front edit war. Instead of responding to the content at issue, he has continually reverted, claiming his edits are substantiated in talk - while no updated sources or substantiation is provided. Separate from the content dispute, the combative revert warring needs to stop.

User:Pro-Lick

Previous version reverted to: 10:10, 28 March 2006
1st revert: 10:37, 28 March 2006
2nd revert: 11:09, 28 March 2006
3rd revert: 11:40, 28 March 2006
4th revert: 13:47, 28 March 2006

Reported by: Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I'd like the block to be extended to 48 hours this time; as the user has continually engaged in WikiLawyering and edit warring. I should also note I've had extensive reverts and encounters with the user recently. But I think it would be fair to say, the user on balance has been disruptive and combative. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "reverts" if looked into will reveal that RoyBoy is gaming. I've been editing different sections on that page, and the last revert restored an edit made by another edtior which I didn't even entirely agree with.--Pro-Lick 19:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure that matters; and I am hardly "gaming" as I've listed the diffs for an admin to check for themselves. The diffs are required to ensure fair application of the rule; your interpretation of policy notwithstanding; also reverting to "an edit by another editor" is gaming as the purpose was to revert back to your edits. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Report new violation

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


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

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

* Previous version reverted to: [Link Time] <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
* 1st revert: [DiffLink Time]
* 2nd revert: [DiffLink Time]
* 3rd revert: [DiffLink Time]
* 4th revert: [DiffLink Time]

Reported by: ~~~~

'''Comments:'''


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

@@ Line 2,087: / Line 2,087: @@
 :The "reverts" if looked into will reveal that RoyBoy is gaming.  I've been editing different sections on that page, and the last revert restored an edit made by another edtior which I didn't even entirely agree with.--[[User:Pro-Lick|Pro-Lick]] 19:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
+::I'm unsure that matters; and I am hardly "gaming" as I've listed the diffs for an admin to check for themselves. The diffs are required to ensure fair application of the rule; your interpretation of policy notwithstanding; also reverting to "an edit by another editor" is gaming as the purpose was to revert back to your edits. - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>[[User:RoyBoy/The 800 Club|800]]</sup> 19:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 == Report new violation ==

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