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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:18, 24 May 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:RichardMalter

Previous version reverted to: [1], but keeps making additions to it in between as well.
1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bi-Digital_O-Ring_Test&diff=53824587&oldid=53823322
2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bi-Digital_O-Ring_Test&diff=53825360&oldid=53824794
3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bi-Digital_O-Ring_Test&diff=53825739&oldid=53825436
4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bi-Digital_O-Ring_Test&diff=53826893&oldid=53826352

Reported by: Philosophus ^T 08:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an update to this we now have:

5th revert: [2]

For the category reversion, I also did not notice this one:

0th revert: [3]

--Philosophus ^T 16:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Comments:[reply]

I unfortunately was not able to warn this user in time, but as he kept telling me to read Wikipedia's policies, I thought he had read them. The user keeps removing any pseudoscience/quackery category, and also the assertion that the "diagnostic" has not been published in any reputable peer-reviewed journal. All other editors on the talk page seem to be in agreement with the rationale behind these additions. --Philosophus ^T 08:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Philosophus, we need to see the diffs showing his four reverts. If you put them up, I'll take a look. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I copied the wrong links! I've fixed that now. --Philosophus ^T 09:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Philosophus. I'm going to warn him because I see he didn't revert again after your warning, and there's no indication he was made aware of the 3RR rule. We tend to give new users one warning before blocking. I see this is the only article he's edited, so I'll keep an eye on him in case he starts again, and he'll be blocked next time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has now reverted again, and has responded to the warnings on his talk page. I also notice that I forgot one of the earlier reversions from the last 24 hours. --Philosophus ^T 16:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, 24 hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ptmccain 3

Reported by SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Ptmccain has been revert warring over the intro for a couple of weeks, trying to delete, move, rewrite, or bury two sentences about the Nazi's use of Luther's writings about Jews. He has violated 3RR several times at this article, and has been blocked for it twice. [4] The six reverts above are not to the same version of the intro, but he is reverting any changes that other editors make (even when correcting his errors, like repeating sentences twice), and will only allow his own version(s) to stand. The reverting is accompanied by personal attacks, calling other editors "duplicitous," [5] "shameful and dishonest," [6] "obnoxious," [7] accusing someone of vandalism, [8] and demanding that editors "state [their] qualifications." [9] [10] [11] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has been blocked twice before in the last eight days. With six reverts, there's no possibility of an accident. 48 hours. AnnH ♫ 12:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ann. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Saladin1970 also editing as User:62.129.121.63

Version reverted to: 06:41 May 18

1st revert 10:06 May 18
2nd revert 10:41 May 18
3rd revert 11:14 May 18
4th revert 11:35 May 18
5th revert 11:57 May 18

Reported by SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Four straightforward reverts within 90 minutes to the same version. I have no evidence that Saladin1970 is 62.129.121.63 but it seems highly likely, and that IP has turned up before on this page to revert to Saladin1970's versions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's just reverted for a fifth time, so I've added that diff above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked both for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tom. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was hesitating, but I think Tom is right. I've seen this happen before at Christianity where IPs would suddenly turn up to help out a registered user who had run out of reverts. AnnH ♫ 13:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saladin1970 emailed me saying he didn't do it. I invite anyone to review and act as they think best. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about unblocking Saladin, and leaving the IP blocked? If Saladin is not that IP, he'll be able to edit again, and if he is, he won't. AnnH ♫ 13:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, Ann. In the meantime, I'll request a check user, because the same IP has turned up there before, so we may as well get it sorted out for the future. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good idea. I've unblocked Saladin pending checkuser. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser confirms that this is the same editor. He's been playing a fair bit of pretending to be different people by logging in and then not logging in, and I see no useful edits whatsoever; it's all unsourced POV, copyright violations, and only partly comprehensible attacks on the Talk: pages. I'm blocking permanently. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking it out, Jay. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just for the record. this is my first ban ever and here are the response to the allegations 1) unsourced pov. There has only been one possible unsourced POV (non reliable source), everything else has been sourced. Granted with two references, i used another wiki page, and a home page as a source. I was never warned that these are inadmissible. Is this justification for a permenant ban

2) copyright violations. This turns out to be a false charge. There has only be one citation by jaygy for copyright violations and this turns out to fufil every criteria listed on wikipedia for fair use.

3)attacks on the talk pages. There has only been only one possible example of personal attacks. This was when i stated that jayg was following me around and this is what you expect from a zionist. Hardly ranks in the hall of fame of personal attacks, and one has to question if this remotely comes near justification for an indefinate ban, or ban at all.

4) sock puppet. As i explained earlier, shared computer , same ip, same session on the internet explorer. But that aside there was only one single instance of this alledgedly being used to violate wikipedia rules. Where on one occasion . Note one occasion only in the entire history of my wikipedia usage a page was reverted more than 3 times.

given any fair, and clear policy by wikipedia, an inpartial adminstrator would question a ban at all, let alone an indefinate ban.

Also I would like to question the predjudice of many of the administrators who have commented on this case (see the wiki email section). I post under the name of saladin. My email is abuhamza1970@hotmail.com. During the last 5 days I have been accused of being an al qaida sympathiser, of not sharing the views of civilised society, sympathise with 911, and am a general threat to wikipedia, all because my email is abu hamza, and i have made contributions to the 'zionist' page and reverted changes to the harold shipman page, amongst many other contributions. All of which fall within the remit of wikipedia rules and NPOV (see major, minor view, proportinality etc).

My experience over the last 3 days has been a real eye opener, and i have been exposed to the most horrendous predjudice, accusations ranging from al qaida operative to 911 sympathiser to anti semetic, etc, etc. And these are from the administrators (slim virgin jaygy, philip welch). This hardly gives me or my community a fuzzy warm feeling that Wikipedia is an open community based project that seeks to include others outside of the anglo american community. If my experience is anything to go by, then it does not bode well for my community or other non anglo american, judaic communities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.129.121.62 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wangoed and User:Zagozagozago Result: 4h each

Previous version reverted to: 07:00, May 18, 2006
1st revert: 07:04, May 18, 2006
2nd revert: 09:33, May 18, 2006
3rd revert: 09:55, May 18, 2006
4th revert: 10:10, May 18, 2006

Reported by: Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 16:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Reverts were made to the first paragraph under Chart Performance. Both authors made other, minor changes throughout the article, but the cause of conflict is this first paragraph. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 16:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left messages for this other fellow telling him to keep it to the discussion page (where I started a sub-heading for the point in question) and on his user page, linked all sources, etc. This worked & the editing from both sides stopped, but thanks for your vigilance where the rules are concerned. Wangoed 16:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both blocked for 4 hours, first offense. Stifle (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:24.145.184.199

Previous version reverted to: 02:46, 18 May 2006
1st revert: 01:39, 18 May 2006
2nd revert: 12:17, 18 May 2006
3rd revert: 12:24, 18 May 2006
4th revert: 12:29, 18 May 2006
5th revert: 13:35, 18 May 2006

Reported by: Stbalbach 17:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User was previously blocked from editing for 24hrs yesterday for edit warring at Inquisition. -- Stbalbach 17:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked Just zis Guy you know? 18:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Reddi

First revert: [13]
Second revert [14]
Third revert [15]

Note: all 3 are labelled, correctly, as reverts. Reddi is limited to 1R per week, and is aware of this - see his talk page William M. Connolley 19:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange, normally WMC is enforcing this page, not reporting, and he didn't even format it correctly! (24h) Stifle (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, & thanks :-) William M. Connolley 21:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avraham, TheActuary

Comments:Might as well delete the article. The owners of the site are trying to use wikipedia as free advertising rather than an accurate historical account of what has happened there. Rather than allow balance and different points of views on events they delete any point of view different than their own. No team work. No balance. No tolerance for differences of opinion.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blisterino (talk • contribs)

Um... any chance of a few diffs so we can check it? Stifle (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I looked. B wins the prize for the worst formatted 3RR report I've ever seen. Avraham is in the clear. TA has 3 definite reverts but the first identical edit isn't a rv as far as I can see. But I'll warn him William M. Connolley 20:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. User:Blisterino is also most probably User:Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA, User:Kentucky Janitor, and User:Just the facts maam as well as the two IP edits. Further I suspect him of registering the User:Tom Troceen ID, and he is by no means Tom Troceen, rather, he has a personal vendetta against Mr. Troceen, Mr. Penland, and Mr. Cooke for their, belated I may say, responses to his gross insenstivity, flame-baiting, race-baiting, and other POV issues on the board under discussion. The last I checked Wiki policy, vandalism reversion is not considered a violation of the 3RR. I would request that any admin please look at the history, the talk page of the article, and the talk pages of Smythe, Blisterino, and the IPs. Further, I think that registering Tom Troceen, someone elses real name, is a clear vioaltion of wiki principles and should be sanctioned. He is engaging in sock puppetry to smear his POV over a heretofore respectible article, and measures should be taken to prevent that. -- Avi 20:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no user Tom Troceen [16]. Stifle (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a typo. Check the edit history: he meant User:Tom troceen William M. Connolley 22:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the sock puppetry issue here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA -- Avi 21:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:MetaStar

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: 10:53, 18 May 2006
2nd revert: 23:26, 17 May 2006
3rd revert: 23:25, 17 May 2006
4th revert: 23:24, 17 May 2006

Reported by: Exvicious 21:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Can't verify this because firstly the original version was not filled in, and secondly, you have provided oldids and not diffs. Please read carefully the correct format and try again. Stifle (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Commodore Sloat (result:24h)

Previous version reverted to: 14:05, 18 May 2006
1st revert: 18:01, 17 May 2006
2nd revert: 20:04, 17 May 2006
3rd revert: 09:07, 18 May 2006
4th revert: 14:33, 18 May 2006

Reported by: ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The editing is going on in Juan Cole/sandbox because Juan Cole is protected. The corresponding talk is Talk:Juan Cole. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's been blocked before for 3RR earlier this month, so 24h. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hganesan and suspected socks User:169.229.65.29 User:169.229.65.30 User:169.229.65.35 (resolved elsewhere)

I'm not sure how to fill this out correctly but there has been a lot of reverting going on from this user on that article and others, and after he was banned, from some IPs that are defending his edits. All three IPs so far have been banned for varying periods...

See

Reported by: ++Lar: t/c 23:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I may have been too hasty in handing out some of these blocks, I dunno (I see User:Sam Blanning gave some out too. I wasn't intending to get involved, I was just marvelling at how well written this was and wanted to see what the fuss was about and next thing you know I'd reverted one article 3 times myself trying to get it to hold still. Oops. Sorry if this is the wrong place or format. ++Lar: t/c 23:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a dup.. see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Hganesan_.28result:_8h.29 above. Sorry. Feel free to delete if you want. I was told on IRC that a range block has been put in place to slow things down a bit. ++Lar: t/c 00:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May as well leave it here for reference. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zer0faults

Previous version reverted to: 19:52, 17 May 2006
1st revert: 01:03, 18 May 2006
2nd revert: 20:01, 18 May 2006
3rd revert: 20:17, 18 May 2006
4th revert: 22:32, 18 May 2006

Reported by: Mr. Tibbs 02:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Also a mediation request related to this here: [17]. Went through this entire arguement a long time ago too: [18]. -- Mr. Tibbs 02:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a first offense and he hadn't prevously been warned, but it seems that he knows edit warring is bad, even if the exact 3RR isn't known to him. 8h. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, Mr. Tibbs broke the 3RR too by a whisker, and gets 8h as well. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:67.159.26.65

Three revert rule violation on Roger Needham. 67.159.26.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Previous version reverted to: 13:06, 17 May 2006
1st revert: 17:19, 17 May 2006
2nd revert: 23:59, 18 May 2006
3rd revert: 00:58, 19 May 2006

Reported by: Rosicrucian 04:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Repeated and intentional vandalism of article, stated intention to continue vandalism on talkpage.

Thats only 3, but I've blocked the IP for incivility/vandalism anyway William M. Connolley 12:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:72.57.230.179

Previous version reverted to: 21:40, 17 May 2006
1st revert: 02:26, 19 May 2006
2nd revert: 11:47, 19 May 2006
3rd revert: 12:02, 19 May 2006
4th revert: 12:18, 19 May 2006

Reported by: Telex 12:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Anon keeps adding a trollish inflammatory userbox to the project page. People have tried to reason with him on his talk page, but he won't listen; he calls it censorship. He has been blocked for violating the 3RR before, and has also been blocked for trolling. --Telex 12:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just warned him. I will look through the diffs now... - FrancisTyers 12:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours. - FrancisTyers 12:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deucalionite (result: 8h)

Previous version: 5 May, 17:10

1st revert: 18 May, 18:05
2nd revert: 18 May, 21:31
3rd revert: 18 May, 22:19
4th revert: 19 May, 13:35
5th revert: 19 May, 13:55

Reported by: Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: User insists on inserting a longish section, half based on some fringy racialist study by Carleton S. Coon, half OR, trying to push the POV of a racial connection between ancient Illyrians and Greeks. Was warned about 3RR on his talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8h for a first offence William M. Connolley 15:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:192.197.82.153

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: 17:26, 19 May 2006
2nd revert: 17:29, 19 May 2006
3rd revert: 17:34, 19 May 2006
4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Marsden&diff=54061550&oldid=54061067
5th, 6th, 7th, etc., see article history

Reported by: Bucketsofg✐ 17:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This is this users second time violating 3RR for this page; he's been blocked three times before for vandalizing this page.

2006-05-19 17:50:38 Kungfuadam blocked "192.197.82.153 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (vandalism) William M. Connolley 19:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:203.144.143.9 (result: 8h)

Previous version reverted to: 23:23, 18 May 2006
1st revert: 23:58, 18 May 2006
2nd revert: 00:36, 19 May 2006
3rd revert: 06:29, 19 May 2006
4th revert: 22:43, 19 May 2006

Reported by: Paul C 17:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Unregistered user editing under similar IPs (User:203.144.143.9 and User:203.144.143.8 - changing biographical image to image with irrelevant subject Paul C 17:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8h as a first offence William M. Connolley 19:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xed (result: 48h)

Previous version reverted to: 18:27, 14 May 2006 [19]
1st revert:10:01, 19 May 2006 [20]
2nd revert: 13:07, 19 May 2006 [21]
3rd revert: 13:27, 19 May 2006 [22]
4th revert: 13:40, 19 May 2006 [23]

Reported by: Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: User had been warned both on his personal talk page as well as the article's talk page. As you can see on his last edit summary he indicated that he was aware of the 3RR and that he was in violation of it, but chose to disregard it. He has been blocked several times before.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

48h: repeat offender, deliberate breaking of 3RR William M. Connolley 11:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:12.134.204.214

Previously reported and blocked as User:Hganesan (see entry on this page from a day or two ago) and numerous IPs. Almost certainly a sockpuppet, judging by writing style, pages edited and actual content of edits. Requesting a substantial block here (more than just a few hours).

Reported by: Simishag 03:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Madchester blocked "12.134.204.214 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (npov violation, despite warnings) William M. Connolley 10:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:72.130.21.164 (result: 3h)

Previous version reverted to:23:11, May 19, 2006 [24]
1st revert: [18:04, May 19, 2006 72.130.21.164]
2nd revert: [22:38, May 19, 2006 72.130.21.164]
3rd revert: [0:06, May 20, 2006 72.130.21.164]
4th revert: [00:14, May 20, 2006 72.130.21.164]

Reported by: DivineShadow218 05:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:User keeps rverting to delet an external link is a site with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in the article. discluding these reverts, this user has less then 10 edits, I have also warned him/her/it about it.

Poorly formatted but I'll let you off. 3h. No comment on appropriateness of content William M. Connolley 10:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checking, I realise that DivineShadow218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has of course broken 3RR too: 3h by symmetry William M. Connolley 10:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)... oh dear, make that 24h by virtue of having previous blocks William M. Connolley 10:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:AutumnLeaves

Previous version reverted to:09:50, 20 May 2006 [25]
1st revert: 06:30, 20 May 2006
2nd revert: 08:32, 20 May 2006
3rd revert: 09:32, 20 May 2006
4th revert: 09:50, 20 May 2006

Reported by: --24.196.175.110 10:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: User continues to delete a useful and relevant link. It appears that the account has been created solely to address this page. Warning given.

It would seem that you too have broken 3RR. I shall let you both off with a warning William M. Connolley 10:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention. While I understand the spirit of the rule, I have conformed to "the 3RR applies to reverts after the third within a 24 hour period". --24.196.175.110 11:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Netscott

Netscott (talk · contribs):

Previous version reverted to: [26] 07:12, 20 May 2006
1st revert: [27] 07:21, 20 May 2006
2nd revert: [28] 07:52, 20 May 2006
3rd revert: [29] 08:19, 20 May 2006
4th revert: [30] 08:54, 20 May 2006

Reported by: Deizio talk 13:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Following up revert scuffle reported on AIV at Fethullah Gülen, users warned on that talk page, page now protected. Deizio talk 13:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unmerited report as both myself and Azate were essentially combatting new user vandalism. My primary editing in this regard was to replace a repeatedly removed {{NPOV}} tag. The admin who blocked User:Mokotok and initially User:Azate agreed in as much as he/she said, unblocking. was essentially reverting what amounted to vandalism by a new user at the time he/she unblocked him. A pity that Deizio talk appears to not have researched this prior to making these reports. Netscott 16:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I should have noticed that Woohookitty (talk · contribs) blocked, as well as protected the page. Due to "real life" commitments there was a lag between my investigating the report on AIV and making these reports. Rest assured I don't enjoy making more work for myself and will be careful to double check this kind of thing in future. However, the edit summaries and reversions the three parties indulged in hinted at a little more than "combatting new user vandalism", rather differences over POV in a quickfire 17-revert content dispute, and there is no harm in bringing such potential flare-ups to the attention of the community, or in confirming that action was taken. Of course, Kitty has taken the necessary steps and I trust the matter is closed. Deizio talk 17:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Netscott is a true reverter. He is not only reverting Fethullah Gulen article, he is doing that in many others (e.g. Hirsi Ali). I am surprised that nobody is taking an action against him. The reverts are documented and are clear above. User:Netscott is insisting on an irrelevant tag while the work on the aricle is in progress.

I am trying to put the article into a neutral form. User:Azate is hiding some facts and blanking necessary infromation from the article and categorizing the article under irrelevant categories with POV, doing original research. All these are documented on Fethullah Gulen talk page. Mokotok 21:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mokotok

Previous version reverted to: 04:53, 20 May 2006
1st revert: 05:55, 20 May 2006
2nd revert: 06:02, 20 May 2006
3rd revert: 07:16, 20 May 2006
4th revert: 07:29, 20 May 2006

Shortly followed by [31], [32], [33] and [34]

Reported by: Deizio talk 13:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Following up revert scuffle at Fethullah Gülen, users notified and warned on that talk page. Deizio talk 13:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're posting this report as a review, I would recommend doing full proper research to help others and yourself save time prior to actually making a report as this user is already blocked for the 3RR violation. Netscott 16:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to put the article into a neutral form. User:Azate is hiding some facts and blanking necessary infromation from the article and categorizing the article under irrelevant categories with POV, doing original research. All these are documented on Fethullah Gulen talk page. User:Netscott is a professional reverter, is insisting on an irrelevant tag while the work on the aricle is in progress. Mokotok 21:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Azate

Previous version reverted to: 05:51, 20 May 2006
1st revert: 05:59, 20 May 2006
2nd revert: 06:22, 20 May 2006
3rd revert: 07:33, 20 May 2006
4th revert: 07:47, 20 May 2006
5th revert: 08:39, 20 May 2006

Reported by: Deizio talk 13:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Following up revert scuffle at Fethullah Gülen, users notified and warned on that talk page. Page protected.Deizio talk 13:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of saving others some time on this report User:Azate was blocked but subsequently unblocked with the reasoning: unblocking. was essentially reverting what amounted to vandalism by a new user (as I've just added in Deiz's report of my own supposed violation). Netscott 16:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to put the article into a neutral form. User:Azate is hiding some facts and blanking necessary infromation from the article and categorizing the article under irrelevant categories with POV, doing original research. All these are documented on Fethullah Gulen talk page. Mokotok 21:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user:Jeff3000

Reported by mav 14:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I have not done a fourth revert, so I have not passed a 3RR. Secondly Mav never warned me. -- Jeff3000 14:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this a warning. I guess I have one more revert. --mav 15:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mel Etitis (result: 24h each)

1st revert: [35]
2nd revert: [36]
3rd revert: [37]

I had told him that it was a tidied up job, but he seems not to believe or understand this and I don't sees any problems with my version, unless he could point it out, unfortunately he refused. Some of the edits are really just a minor changes, which is why it doesn't required any reasons on edit summaries.

Reported by: Eiorgiomugini 18:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the above indicates, this user's English isn't terribly good, and it may be that the problem lies there. However, he has been insisting on removing much-needed {{copyedit}} templates from articles, adding material without citaion or source, and making a general mess. He refuses to accept that he might be mistaken, refuses to discuss the issue (aside from the repetition of the obscure "it's a tidied up job"). I'm currently asking for advice on dealing with him at WP:AN. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, I said it was a tidied up job, but he seem not to believe or understand this, I don't sees any problems with my version, unless he could point it out, unfortunately he had refused to do so. Again he has been adding material of his claims, and making a general mess into Chinese classic texts. Eiorgiomugini 18:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the second cases onwards. Its perfectly clear that you've both broken 3RR. Sigh. 24h each William M. Connolley 19:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Petrejo (result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: [38]
1st revert: [39]
2nd revert: [40]
3rd revert: [41]
4th revert: [42]
5th revert: [43]

Reported by: Non-vandal 04:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Comments:[reply]

There's plenty more of those from this guy. There's a lot of talk in the articles talk page under "Petrejo's changese" and "Please do not..." but this bloke doesn't discuss his changes, and is simply a vandal as dull as they come. Petrejo is also 66.143.165.1: [44]. Looking at both user titles' contributions reveals the extent of their dirty work. I'd recommend a block of both users from the article entirely, but we'll see how it's handled. Thanks.
He's still at it. Non-vandal 05:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats 5R, but not in 24h or close. An awful lot of new users there... socks? On both sides? William M. Connolley 09:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there are socks on both sides - there's a number, at least 4, of editors reverting Petrejo's edits, but I'm pretty sure he is using sockpuppets - I noticed a new user earlier today who'd edited Petrejo's talk page and no other pages, and that account may have subsequently been used on Friedrich Nietzsche. I'm sure the faction, including myself, who've been reverting Petrejo aren't without blame, but could we get this guy blocked already, seriously? mge kelly 10:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I count 5R in the last 8 hours from Petrejo's own account. mge kelly 10:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bloke's at it again. We may need a permanent block of this blockhead.Non-vandal 04:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User was not warned. Warning issued. Just zis Guy you know? 11:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Petrejo has reverted this article four times in the last four hours. mge kelly 17:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've resurrected this from the archive since the violator is still very active. We need some serious action undertaken. Thanks.Non-vandal 20:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 2006-05-17 23:49:20 Shanel blocked "Petrejo (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (using IP to evade 3RR on Friedrich Nietzsche) William M. Connolley 20:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked now for 24h William M. Connolley 20:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ilir pz (result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: 22:02, 19 May 2006
1st revert: 22:37, 19 May 2006
2nd revert: 23:03, 19 May 2006
3rd revert: 00:53, 20 May 2006
4th revert: 10:30, 20 May 2006

Reported by: Krytan 21:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Ilir keeps pushing his Albanian propaganda by removing a map of Kosovo as a part of Serbia and Montenegro. As you know, the current status of the province is being discussed at Vienna, but for now, according to the UN resolution 1244, Kosovo remains a part of FRY, which has changed its name to Serbia and Montenegro in February 2003. This is clearly stated in the article (or was, maybe he removed it again). Something must be done about this. --Krytan 21:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The time difference is over 24h. Asterion ^{talk to me} 21:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not on the clock style I'm using. 24h William M. Connolley 21:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I must be totally stupid (I read 18th). I need some rest. Asterion ^{talk to me} 21:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pansophia

Previous version reverted to: 03:49, May 19, 2006
1st revert: User:66.219.146.142 19:20, May 19, 2006
2nd revert: User:71.132.239.209 23:49, May 19, 2006
3rd revert: User:58.239.206.239 09:33, May 20, 2006
4th revert: User:63.205.91.226 17:01, May 20, 2006
5th revert: User:63.205.91.226 17:26, May 20, 2006
6th revert: User:63.205.91.226 17:30, May 20, 2006
7th revert: User:63.205.91.226 17:59, May 20, 2006
8th revert: (as Pansophia now) 22:07, May 20, 2006
9th revert: (as Pansophia now) 22:41, May 20, 2006

Reported by: Rhobite 21:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:Pansophia stopped editing through his own account after he was blocked for a 3RR violation on May 15 (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive16#User:Pansophia). Now he is abusing open proxies and editing from public libraries and dialups in order to circumvent the 3 revert rule. He has edited from User:131.220.141.131 (tor proxy), User:66.219.146.142 (shared webhost, probably a proxy), User:71.132.239.209 (SBC DSL account in Northern California, probably his own IP), User:58.239.206.239 (verified open proxy in Korea), and User:63.205.91.226 (Berkeley, California public library). Rhobite 21:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page was semi-protected, and lo, Pansophia has suddenly reappeared, and has taken up reverting again. See here and here for the most recent. --Calton | Talk 02:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006-05-21 03:57:06 JoshuaZ blocked "Pansophia (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (48 hour block for 3RR and abuse of anons) William M. Connolley 10:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:DrBat

Previous version reverted to: 02:35, 20 May 2006
1st revert: 16:00, 20 May 2006
2nd revert: 02:03, 21 May 2006
3rd revert: 02:09, 21 May 2006
4th revert: 02:21, 21 May 2006

Reported by: SoM 01:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User previously blocked for 3RR. - SoM 01:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006-05-21 03:47:36 JoshuaZ blocked "DrBat (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RRV on Rachel Summers) William M. Connolley 09:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:MetaStar

Previous version reverted to: :*18:39, 19 May 2006 (R1)

03:55, 20 May 2006 (R2-4)

1st revert: 02:56, 20 May 2006
2nd revert: 01:59, 21 May 2006
3rd revert: 02:05, 21 May 2006
4th revert: 02:18, 21 May 2006

Reported by: SoM 01:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User reminded DrBat of the 3RR while also breaking it himself. Also throwing around insults in edit summaries. - SoM 01:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've given both the Dr and Meta 24 hour blocks in which time they will hopefully cool off. JoshuaZ 03:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Irgendwer (result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: 06:58, 18 May 2006
1st revert: 13:02, 20 May 2006
2nd revert: 01:08, 21 May 2006
3rd revert: 02:19, 21 May 2006
4th revert: 02:38, 21 May 2006

Reported by: --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 07:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: User has already been blocked once for 3RR/vandalism on this article. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 07:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24h William M. Connolley 09:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong conviction!

The "1st revert" was the original and "4th revert" was because of vandalism of rehpotsirhc who want to kill User:Irgendwer. --Krtzskpsjf 14:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nelodkan (result: 12h)

Previous version reverted to: 22:22, 20 May 2006
1st revert: 08:19, 21 May 2006
2nd revert: 10:14, 21 May 2006
3rd revert: 11:04, 21 May 2006
4th revert: 11:13, 21 May 2006

Reported by: Elephantus 09:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: A note was left about WP:3RR on this user's talk page before his 4th revert here. All times are CEST (subtract 02:00 to get UTC, shouldn't be too important as it's about intervals, not absolute times). --Elephantus 09:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment: User:Mir_Harven has made 3rr violations at Neo-nazism and Elephantus is his sock/meatpuppet. The clique of Croatian users revert and push their own POV. They should be treated as one user, and they also edited the zerjavic article under anonimous ip. Also, I made only 3 reverts to the article, I have attributed the claims that were supposedly OR, so I did not break the rule. Nelodkan

Please, don't accuse people of sock/meatpuppetry without some justification and evidence. I've been a contributor here since 23 April 2005 and Mir Harven since 9 August 2003. In the past several weeks we've had our hands full dealing with loads of blatantly POV/unsourced/plainly wrong material being added by a number of recently opened/activated accounts, one of which is User:Nelodkan. These users have several things in common - unwillingness to engage in any serious discussion on Talk pages, little or no understanding of WP:NPOV or WP:V and using Wikipedia as a soapbox to slander Croatia in general. --Elephantus 09:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not broken the rule. Have you been conspiring with other Croatian users, as it seems, or not I dont know. But fact is that Mir Harven as an experienced editor as you say he is should not break 3RR, and provoke other editors with insults! Nelodkan

You have broken 3RR and are now blocked for 12h for it William M. Connolley 10:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

86.137.213.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Adding vanity of to Giggleswick School and School of Oriental and African Studies self-important 24-year old founder of a "think tank", which consists of one webpage and has one google hit. Has violated 3RR on Giggleswick School. I've spent all my reverts. — Dunc|☺ 10:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can only see 3R (looks like first is a new addition). And its not always quite the same IP William M. Connolley 10:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, whatever, but you could at least rv it for me. — Dunc|☺ 12:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KC did it :-) William M. Connolley 13:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now aka Factual82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and created a vanity page. — Dunc|☺ 16:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Middle East Conflict Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The Middle East Conflict Man (talk · contribs):

Previous version reverted to: 10:44, 21 May 2006
1st revert: 11:49, 21 May 2006
2nd revert: 12:12, 21 May 2006
3rd revert: 12:24, 21 May 2006
4th revert: 12:26, 21 May 2006
5th revert: 12:41, 21 May 2006
6th revert: 13:05, 21 May 2006
7th revert: 13:07, 21 May 2006
8th revert: 13:14, 21 May 2006
9th revert: 13:18, 21 May 2006
10th revert: 13:24, 21 May 2006
11th revert: 13:26, 21 May 2006
12th revert: 13:57, 21 May 2006
13th revert: 14:01, 21 May 2006
14th revert: 14:08, 21 May 2006

Reported by: Liftarn 14:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

On the user page he/she/it states that "he is banned from editing on both Wikipedia in bokmål and nynorsk" and boldly states that his mission on Wikipedia is to spread his POV ("The matter which occupies him now, is to remove all "right-wing extremism" words from articles which concern national socialism, as that directly is an incorrect claim. The nazism is a version of socialism, just like the social democracy we have here in Norway.") // Liftarn

2006-05-21 15:23:22 Katefan0 blocked "The Middle East Conflict Man (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Three revert rule violation at Template:Socialism)William M. Connolley 15:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also blocked his opponent, Red Bastard (talk · contribs), for 3RR. (He should probably also have an indef name block, but I'll give him the courtesy of at least considering volunteering to take a new username first.) · Ka t efan0 ^(scribble) 15:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Greier yet again (Sheesh) (result: 72h)

Previous version reverted to: 15:40, 20 May 2006
1st revert: 17:08, 21 May 2006
2nd revert: 17:26, 21 May 2006
3rd revert: 17:37, 21 May 2006
4th revert: 17:44, 21 May 2006

Reported by: Telex 17:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

This is a 3RR violation, although it may not seem like on when looking at the diffs. See the following diffs: [45], [46], [47] and [48]; he kept reverting to his version, the one with the "History of Romania" template at the head of the page. He has been blocked numerous times for violating the 3RR before. --Telex 17:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try! It doesn`t look like a 3RR for the simple reason that it`s not a 3RR. Why didn`t you used the exact required rules when reporting a 3RR. What`s with those links? Where`s the 3RR in these [49], [50], [51], [52]. It`s an edit war, not a 3RR. greier 18:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd - I see 4 pure reverts. Let's see what the admins think...--Telex 18:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, 4 reverts there. 72h, given past history. Telex, you're sailing close to the wind, though, and I'd warn you to keep WP:POINT in mind. Stifle (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prince_06 (result: warning)

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

Reported by: Anwar 22:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This editor keeps reverting to his POV, which itself changes over time. He blanks links in the process.

He hasn't been warned, I've warned him now. Stifle (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:12.134.204.214

Continued use of sockpuppet, now making threats as well. User from this IP is almost certainly a sockpuppet of User:Hganesan who has already been blocked for at least a week (maybe more) for revert warring, personal attacks, ranting on WikiEN-L... the list goes on and on.

Now he has posted a threat to myself and/or User:Duhon on my talk page. [58]

Reported by: Simishag 23:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Update: at least 2 other users have attempted to sprotect Steve Nash but this guy is removing the protection tags to continue making his own edits. Simishag 23:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a week. Making 6 reverts within 15 mins... and just after being released from a 24 hr. block is not really the way for him to get his point across. --Madchester 00:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deiaemeth

Previous version reverted to: [59]
1st revert: DiffTime
2nd revert: DiffTime
3rd revert: DiffTime
4th revert: DiffTime

Reported by: OneVeryBadMan 00:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I'm sorry, I couldn't figure how how to get the information for DiffLink and DiffTime. But this guy and another have made about 20 reverts between them over the last hours.

It looks like User:RevolverOcelotX and User:Deiaemeth have both broken 3RR. Have given both 24 hours to cool down. JoshuaZ 01:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Philwelch

Previous version reverted to: 11:31, 15 May 2006
1st revert: 12:23, 15 May 2006
2nd revert: 12:24, 15 May 2006
3rd revert: 12:26, 15 May 2006
4th revert: 12:30, 15 May 2006 Philwelch

Reported by: Travb (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: User began to edit section when I put an {{inuse}} tag in the section, when I brought this to his attention on his talk page, he told me it was my fault, not his, and then began reverting my graph, despite {{inuse}} tag, stating: "no edits in past hour so apparently not in use"[60] which is clearly not true because of the edit 1 minute before.Travb 12:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At 13:16, 15 May 2006 User:Philwelch admitted he was guilty of a 3RR violation, stated he was going to voluntarily boot himself, (...I also apologize for repeatedly reverting you. As per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Philwelch, I shall block myself for 24 hours, which is the standard remedy. See you in 24.)
At 13:22, 15 May 2006 User:Philwelch six minutes later ~~unbooted himself stating he~~ "changed his mind", making me assume, mistakenly based on his own statments, that he had first booted himself, then unbooted himself, without checking the block log. [61]
13:55, 15 May 2006 User:Philwelch blocked himself.
14:00, 15 May 2006 Jareth then unblocked him.

I would like Phil Welch blocked for 3RR, as per policy. He started the revert war. 5 minutes later Jareth unblocked him.

Philwelch stated here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR And I've already blocked myself for 24 hours—I had no idea Jaroth would unblock me, and I don't even know him. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 22:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not true: [62][63] Phil does know Jareth, despite what he said. Phil has worked with Jareth before.

Jareth is not the impartial observer that he claims, and Philwelch stated he didn't know Jareth, when he does.

I would like someone who has never been involved in this incident, who does not know the three of us, to resolve this matter. I will be satisfied with the result. And this incident will die.

This whole incident reeks of favortism. Travb (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, this is a report of something that happened 'a week ago. Just let it go, already: the 3RR is explicitly NOT intended punishment. --Calton | Talk 07:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remind me: what's the statute of limitations of abuse of admin powers? Al 04:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, hi, if you recall, we debated on the Talk:Samuel Dickstein (congressman) page quite rigorously. Although we may share the same POV, and I appreciate your comments, you do not qualify as "someone...who does not know the three of us". All I asked is that a disinterested third party investigate this situation and render a verdict, which I will abide by. Travb (talk)

15:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Subwaynz (result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: 20:21, May 21, 2006
1st revert: 02:10, May 21, 2006
2nd revert: 09:05, May 21, 2006
3rd revert: 17:34, May 21, 2006
4th revert: 21:51, May 21, 2006

Reported by: Llort 02:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:This is the second time this user has violated the 3RR rule on this article - and has been blocked once already. [64] A number of editors have attempted to get Subwaynz to gather consensus, but have been ignored. Subwaynz has also stated that he will "re edit this every time" [65]

24h William M. Connolley 08:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mir_Harven

Previous version reverted to: 20:16, 20 May 2006
1st revert: 22:39, 20 May 2006
2nd revert: 08:21, 21 May 2006
3rd revert: 08:42, 21 May 2006
4th revert: 08:52, 21 May 2006
5th revert: 09:27, 21 May 2006

Reported by: Maayaa 04:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The user has been banned several times for 3RR, incivility and personal attacks, including a ban on 24h for 3RR previously [66]. Maayaa 04:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maayaa, are there other 3RR violations on this page? I'm seeing a lot of reverting, including by Nelodkan. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, user Nelodkan seems to have also broken the 3RR. Maayaa 08:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll block Mir Harven for 24 hours, and Nelodkan too depending on warnings and diffs. If s/he hasn't been warned or blocked previously, I'll warn instead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. User Nelodkan was first warned yesterday and blocked for 12 h; he broke the rule on two articles at that time. Maayaa 09:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006-05-21 12:57:39 William M. Connolley blocked "Mir Harven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (incivility; extending) - will that do? William M. Connolley 09:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Maayaa, I'm confused now. Was Nelodkan blocked for 12 hours for this particular 3RR violation? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is about Nelodkan block, it is on this page [67] Thats all I know. Maayaa 09:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see it now, Maayaa, thanks. It was a different violation, so I blocked for 24 hours for this one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Roberta_F.

Previous version reverted to: 22:39, 20 May 2006
1st revert: 01:47, 21 May 2006
2nd revert: 02:10, 21 May 2006
3rd revert: 02:16, 21 May 2006
4th revert: 01:01, 22 May 2006

Reported by: Maayaa 04:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

The user was warned against breaking the rule on user talkpage [68], but has made the 4th revert after that. Maayaa 04:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As s/he was warned, I'll block for 24 hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:SpinyNorman (result: 24h)

Version reverted to: 17:44 January 9
1st revert 06:39 May 22
2nd revert 06:52 May 22
3rd revert 07:15 May 22
4th revert 07:27 May 22

Reported by SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

These are straightforward reverts by SpinyNorman, four in under two hours, to previous versions, changing that "Robin Webb runs the Animal Liberation Press Office in the UK to "Robin Webb is press officer for the Animal Liberation Front in the UK." He has been warned before about 3RR. [69]

The first co-called "revert" was not a revert all, but a legitimate edit. Yet you characterize it as a "revert". Why? --SpinyNorman 23:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SpinyNorman turned up at several vivisection and animal-rights related articles in December 2005, and proceeded to add small errors to them, repeatedly reverting to his versions against all arguments, and being very disruptive. He stopped after a few weeks, but suddenly started again today, reverting to the same versions.

Just because you dislike my edits for apparently conflicting with your blatant POV, that doesn't make them "disruptive. You apparently inability to maintain civil conduct here is puzzling. --SpinyNorman 23:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His change at Robin Webb implies that Webb only answers media enquiries for the Animal Liberation Front, which is not correct, and that he is their only press officer, which is also not correct. In fact, Webb runs the Animal Liberation Press Office, which handles media enquiries for a number of activist groups (as their website makes clear [70]), and there are other press officers working under him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It implies nothing of the sort. Your inference is incorrect and not supported by the language of the edit. Webb is described by the reference in the article as the ALF Press Officer and also described himself as the ALF press officer. If you have a problem with this, I suggest you speak to Webb about it and stop damaging the article. --SpinyNorman 23:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:SpinyNorman 2

He has also violated 3RR on Center for Consumer Freedom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is run by the Washington lobbyist Richard Berman, removing that it's funded by the alcohol and tobacco industries. Even though 3RR is not dependent on content, here are some sources indicating that it is indeed so funded. [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] Berman himself is a well-known lobbyist on behalf of tobacco and alcohol.

Version reverted to: January 8, 2006
1st revert 05:49 May 22
2nd revert 06:54 May 22
3rd revert 07:18 May 22
4th revert 07:29 May 22

Reported by SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For repeated violations blocked for 24h. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you had checked the edits, you would have seen that Slim's characterization of this is as inaccurate as the last one. She should not be taken at her word on edits to articles related to her POV-pushing. --SpinyNorman 23:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Humus. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Irishpunktom

Previous version reverted to: 21:56, 21 May 2006
1st revert: 08:36, 22 May 2006
2nd revert: 08:46, 22 May 2006
3rd revert: 08:51, 22 May 2006
4th revert: 09:16, 22 May 2006

Reported by: Karl Meier 09:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Irishpunktom has just returned from his previous 3rr ban on the same article, and for some reason he immidiately started to revert the efforts that has been made to make the definition of the term that is mentioned in the intro section referenced and attributed to the mentioned source. Several editors including myself has opposed his actions, but despite this, he has continued to revert. -- Karl Meier 09:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the admins please be aware that through discussions myself (one of the editors involved here) and User:Irishpunktom have agreed to pursue the dispute resolution process. Netscott 10:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 3rr is still a 3rr and the "dispute resolution" that Netscott is talking about apparently include extreme personal attacks against me, as it is obvious from Irishpunktoms comments on Netscotts talkpage. -- Karl Meier 10:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot self revert, because Karls version is the one at the moment. I am not editing the page till the dispute resolution has taken place. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Irishpunktom har already been blocked 10 times for violations of 3rr and the most recent was only a couple of days ago, for a 3rr on the same article. -- Karl Meier 10:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with User:Karl Meier that User:Irishpunktom's usage of the word "racist" in his regard is very inflammatory and directly contravenes WP:NPA and should be addressed. I've discussed this as well on Irishpunktom's talk page. Netscott 10:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the parties are making a good faith effort at dispute resolution I'm inclined not to block anyone, at least for the time being. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do your definition of good faith efforts towards dispute resolution include calling people racists? Irishpunktom is obviously trolling, and is surely not making any good faith efforts as it is also obvious from the diffs provided in the 3rr report, and the following personal attacks against me. -- Karl Meier 11:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:83.22.217.63

Previous version reverted to: [76]
1st revert: [77]
2nd revert: [78]
3rd revert: [79]
4th revert: [80]

Reported by: Ukrained 11:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Repetitiously adding inflammatory unsourced statements/pictures, accompanied by trollish foreign language edit summaries.

12:28:21 Kungfuadam blocked "83.22.217.63 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation of Ukrainian Insurgent Army) William M. Connolley 19:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vlatkoto (User:194.141.39.2) (result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: 15:18 May 21
1st revert: 18:10 May 21
2nd revert: 03:48 May 22
3rd revert: 12:19 May 22
4th revert: 13:24 May 22
5th revert: 14:27 May 22

Reported by: /FunkyFly.talk_ 17:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

The user has been blocked before for 3RR. He self-admittedly edits from 194.141.39.2. /FunkyFly.talk_ 17:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24h William M. Connolley 19:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bbagot (result: 27h)

Previous version reverted to: 23:52, 17 May 2006
1st revert: 07:38, 19 May 2006
2nd revert: 19:34, 19 May 2006
3rd revert: 22:12, 19 May 2006
4th revert: 23:58, 19 May 2006

5th revert: 03:08, 22 May 2006
6th revert: 15:35, 22 May 2006
7th revert: 01:22, 23 May 2006

Reported by: Andrew c 03:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: On May 19th, Bbagot broke the 3RR rule. I informed the editor as a warning because the user is new. However, Bbagot never reversed the violation. Fast foward to tonight. The editor is back at it again with the edit warring. The editor is intent on adding a disclaimer warning at the top of the article, and removing a sentence explaining the Jewish POV (that was sourced after initial concern by Bbagot). I have also been involved in slow edit wars with this user at Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Luke, and Messianic prophecy. I have tried to voice my concerns on the talk pages, but this editor seems to be a little trigger happy about adding disputed content to the article right in the middle of content disputes. I personally feel the best corse of action at this time would be administrator intervetion informing the user of policy and pointing out the disruptive nature of their edit warring. (A ban may be prudent as well, but it may be premature for that. However, obviously that isn't my call).--Andrew c 03:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, you left out that jayjg broke the same rule in the same article in the same time period. And unlike jayjg, I try to add extra material with my edits instead of just a blatant "undo". As you are aware, any effort to put a Christian POV into the Jewish views of Jesus is quickly removed as "off topic". And that's fine. I happen to believe that Jewish views of Jesus and Christian views of Jesus should actually contain information consistent with their titles. All I ask is that the same standard be allowed to exist for Christian views of Jesus that exists for Jewish views of Jesus. So far this has not been allowed.

I'm sorry you wish to have me censored. Even if we don't see eye to eye, I've incorporated many of your edits into my writings as well as listening to your thoughts on the talk page and sharing mine. I believe both of us have made factual additions that have improved the quality of the articles we have worked on.

Bbagot 03:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot[reply]

Bbagot, that is a fine basis for reporting Jayjg, but not an excuse for your own actions. Oh, and good luck getting Jayjg blocked for the violation; he's an admin and on ArbCom. Al 04:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3h each William M. Connolley 07:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William, I can't see where Jayjg violated 3RR. He appears to have made only three edits to that page within that 24-hour period. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, the last few times Jay was blocked for 3RR or disruption, he got 24-hour blocks. Working from my own experience, I would think that a 48-hour block would be appropriate at this point.

Instead, he's getting a 3-hour block in the middle of the night, which is so minor that he'd probably miss it if it weren't pointed on his Talk page. Frankly, this is barely a slap on the wrist and makes me seriously wonder whether you admins treat each other more gently than you do the rest of us. It certainly leaves behind the appearance of impropriety, and that's bad enough. Al 07:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and in case you might want to suggest that the block duration is fair because both participants got 3 hours, please note that this is the first time Bbagot's gotten into trouble, while Jayjg is a repeat offender. Compare block logs for yourself. Jay clearly deserves a longer block, somewhere between 48 and 72 hours, I'd say. Al 08:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alienus, having a long block log that is mostly made up of blocks that were made in error (including this one) and unblocks when the error was realized does not make Jayjg into "a repeat offender" who "deserves a longer block, somewhere between 48 and 72 hours." AnnH ♫ 09:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with SlimVirgin. Jayjg made only 3 edits to the page in the 24 hour period. His 4th edit was 32 hours after the first.

(cur) (last) 10:54, 21 May 2006 Jayjg

(cur) (last) 19:47, 21 May 2006 Jayjg
(cur) (last) 11:27, 22 May 2006 Jayjg
(cur) (last) 18:34, 22 May 2006 Jayjg Doright 08:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay has left a note on William's talk page pointing out that Jayjg did not violate 3RR, and has said he'll undo the block if William doesn't get back to him shortly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per SlimVirgin, I have unblocked Jayjg. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sjakkalle. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record there was an 8th revert (7 minutes off from a 2nd 3RR violation)

8th revert: 03:15, 23 May 2006

-Andrew c 13:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why Bbagot was blocked for only three hours for eight reverts on an article he violated 3RR on just a few days ago, and was warned about. [81] And Jayjg, who didn't violate it all, was blocked for the same amount of time.

I'm minded to increase Bbagot's block to 24 hours if no one objects. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked him for 24 hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... I've been offline. Apologies to Jayjg: I was too hasty. Bbagot would have got longer only I wanted to be symmetrical for once; so the block increase, now, is fine by me William M. Connolley 15:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:A.J.A. (result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to: 21:09:48, 2006-05-20
1st revert: 17:44, 22 May 2006
2nd revert: 18:40, 22 May 2006
3rd revert: 21:50, 22 May 2006
4th revert: 22:16, 22 May 2006

Reported by: DavidBailey 03:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: On May 22nd A.J.A. broke the 3RR rule. I informed the editor as a warning. User continues to revert over multiple edits by multiple users claiming that the information is inaccurate when it is at least reasonably relevant and pertinent as to warrant discussion rather than wholesale reversions. (IE- definition of Theosis and other related information) User has been requested by moderator to adopt a less critical tone and to discuss rather than continue to revert. User has continued reversions, insults, and condescending tone. It is obvious from user's talk page that edit wars and reversions have been an issue and that he is used to getting his way regardless of other views or editing efforts.

The issue here is that User:DavidBailey believes WP:V doesn't apply to him. The content is question is not only unsourced, but is a statement as fact of a very controversial opinion. I'm perfectly willing to discuss a compromise provided it's within Wikipedia policy. A page lock might be in order. A.J.A. 04:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a content dispute, not vandalism. Al 04:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V isn't limited to vandals. A.J.A. 04:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is the one thing you're allowed to revert as often as you like. In contrast, content disputes do not give you a license to exceed the 3RR limit. Got it? Al 04:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V and WP:NPOV explicitly override all other policies. A.J.A. 05:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just me, but a half-dozen other users that are being run roughshod by A.J.A.'s POV. He thinks because he backs up a POV with two references, he can introduce several other POVs, revert edits that improve the article, and ignore other contributions without bothering to deal with consensus or multiple viewpoints. For example The article Theosis plainly illustrates that there are more views than his two sources, yet he ignores this. I will take this to other forum because A.J.A. has become so adept at avoiding 3RR that he monitors this page so he can dispute anyone who reports him. DavidBailey 04:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. He does have a history of pushing POV. However, this is about his 3RR violation, which is open and shut. Al 04:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There may be other references, but you didn't include them. It's not my job to go find your references. Even if you had references, it would only be acceptible to include that reported as someone's POV, not as fact. (It already was, BTW.) I know there are more views than mine: do you know there are more views than yours? A.J.A. 04:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've helped solve many POV/content disputes on several articles. The problem here is that anyone who says anything different from your perspective gets reverted. Makes it difficult to edit an article. DavidBailey 04:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what you've done in the past. You still don't get to state your opinions as fact in Wikipedia articles. I'm sorry you disagree with that perspective, but it happens to be non-negotiable policy. A.J.A. 05:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have found working with A.J.A. to be nearly impossible on the Jesus-Myth article where his obsession with this subject has spilled over. Since his involvement the article, whilst not perfect before, has been reduced it to "trash" [82] in the words of one editor as a quick look at the article will confirm. Attempts by me to add the references asked for by A.J.A. were reverted on the grounds that he didn't like one section I had replaced with those references [83]. A.J.A. has shown a canny awareness of the current ambiguity of 3RR and will page revert rather than section edit to "save" his revert allowance [84] - look at the diffs between these edits [85] and you will see there were several edits in between where I attempted to modify the text and ^^James^^ was working with me. At this point a community ban would seem an appropriate reaction to give A.J.A. time to think about his current choice of editing style. Just as background I should add I'm an athiest who regularly works on the Christianity and Jesus articles and the editors there, although disagreeing with me completely on some topics, work constructively and co-operatively on these topics. Sophia 07:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24h William M. Connolley 07:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to apologize to everyone for losing my temper last night. It was late and I was tired, however it is inexcusable. I was frustrated because repeated attempts to edit an article and then add references had been reverted and I over-reacted. I will try to remain more civil through disputes in the future. DavidBailey 11:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Col. Hauler

3RR violation on Template:WParticle by Col. Hauler (talk · contribs) Reported by SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments These are straightforward reverts, each time removing text about off-wiki attacks being policy violations. He has been blocked before for 3RR (actually 9RR). [86] This time, he was warned and was offered the opportunity to revert himself but did not do so. User_talk:Col._Hauler#3Rr_warning SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Col. Hauler 14:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC): I did not break the 3RR. SlimVirgin reverted 3 times, I reverted 3 times.[reply]

The crux of this is he is claiming my first edit was a revert to this version on 17:54 May 7 (oldid 52009009)

Look at my first edit compared to that and you can see this is patently untrue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks?diff=54696383&oldid=52009668

My reverts:

1
2
3

SlimVirgin's reverts:

1
2
3

He removed the same section about off-wiki attacks four times, and the first time he did it was a revert to a previous version. He has also vandalized this report. [87] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the first time he did it was a revert to a previous version." - FALSE. My first edit WAS NOT a a revert. This is a blatant lie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks?diff=54696383&oldid=52009668

I reverted 3 times, as did you. No more. My first edit was clearly NOT a revert.

As for "vandalizing this report", I did no such thing, I reformatted it and added in links that are actually accurate, without the deliberately POV descriptions. My first edit was clearly NOT a revert. --Col. Hauler 14:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24hrs. FeloniousMonk 14:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: maybe it's me, but this report seems malformed. SlimVirgin, shouldn't there be links in your report to diffs that demonstrate four reverts (or effective reverts)? My own search shows three, and I want to be sure I'm not missing something. Thanks. RadioKirk talk to me 16:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this block. It seems punitive. User:SlimVirgin did not present the proper evidence of violation of 3RR. This seems like an attempt to keep a version of a page against consensus in talk. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked, I think this is 4R by CH; the first edit is indeed a revert, e.g. to [88] William M. Connolley 17:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading the diffs right, some of those changes are the same but there are significant differences suggesting this is not a true "revert".

On the other hand, in an effort to get Col. Hauler in on the discussion regarding the issue that led to his 9RR block, I offered to request of the blocking admin that the block be lifted. Everyone agreed, and it was done. Five days later, there has been no effort to discuss the content dispute at Wii and, instead, Col. Hauler gets himself in trouble over another potential 3RR issue. Since the lifting of the 9RR block was contingent upon his involvement in the Wii dispute—to which he agreed—my recommendation is that the original block be restored, prorated to the remainder that was to be served. RadioKirk talk to me 18:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is suggested that the issue mentioned above was a breakdown in communications so, in good faith, I withdraw my recommendation. We now return you to our regularly scheduled 3RR discussion, already in progress... :) RadioKirk talk to me 19:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ed g2s

Previous version reverted to: [89] In the begining he made two revisions which disguised a revert.
1st revert: [90] Took out one set of images
2nd revert: [91] Took out another image
3rd revert: [92]
4th revert: [93]
5th revert: [94]

Reported by: Malamockq 16:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

First two revisions were of him removing images, disguising a revert.
Malamockq has failed to give fair use rationales for the images he has added, other than "they're for educational purposes". I therefore treated his action as copyright vandalism. ed g2s • talk 16:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We were discussing the matter, and I gave ample justification for their depiction as fair use as seen on his talk page. He continued to revert before the matter was settled. Malamockq 16:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your first few reverts were "this is fair use". There is still no fair use claim on the image pages as is required. Furthermore as I have already explained, free images are available. You could probably find some cc-by ones on Flickr if you spent less time trying to get me blocked. ed g2s • talk

This section isn't about fair use. It's about the 3RR. Malamockq 17:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a WP:3RR violation. Even if we ignore the fact that the user was cleaning up unfree-copyright images and being reverted (!), the user made two edits and then reverted three times, not four. Editors reverting image cleanup are cautioned to not do so in the future. Jkelly 22:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made it clear that those two edits were to disguise a revert. He removed some images in the first edit. Then removed the last image in the second edit. It was the same as a revert. Malamockq 03:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Denix

Previous version reverted to: 15:29, 23 May 2006
1st revert: 15:32, 23 May 2006
2nd revert: 15:53, 23 May 2006
3rd revert: 16:08, 23 May 2006
4th revert: 16:29, 23 May 2006

Reported by: User:Telex 16:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User has been blocked before for violating the 3RR on this article. --Telex 16:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Blocked for 24 hours. Prodego ^talk 19:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:72.144.60.85

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

1st revert: 2006-05-23 08:48:56 (72.144.150.233)
2nd revert: 2006-05-23 18:29:50 (72.144.60.85)
3rd revert: 2006-05-23 18:58:56 (72.144.60.85)
4th revert: 2006-05-23 21:25:23 (72.153.86.152)

Reported by: William M. Connolley 22:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Note that all 4 are (correctly) marked as reverts, so I didn't fill in prev version
Note comment on rv 2: '(rv) to Pokranjac (and will continue to do so until this article is treated sanely))

Not all of the above edits are from the same IP address. Jkelly 22:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but they are in the same block, and the second IP seems to be responding on the talk page as the first. --Philosophus ^T 22:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh b*ll*cks, this just isn't my day :-(. OK, add [95] (72.144.150.233) as the 0th revert. The 72.144's are almost without a doubt the same (they locate to florida). Hmm, but that would require a range block to be of any use. Semi-protect perhaps? William M. Connolley 22:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And another just now: [96] (72.153.86.152). --Philosophus ^T 23:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:C-c-c-c

Previous version reverted to: 00:23, 24 May 2006
1st revert: 00:27, 24 May 2006
2nd revert: 00:39, 24 May 2006
3rd revert: 00:45, 24 May 2006
4th revert: 00:52, 24 May 2006
5th revert: 00:59, 24 May 2006

Reported by: Telex 00:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

He is edit warring, on another user's userpage, and continues after the owner has told him not to. Also, admire the personal attacks in his edit summaries. --Telex 00:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just vandalism, warned with a blatent vandal template. Prodego ^talk 01:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 25 hours. JoshuaZ 01:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lexio

Previous version reverted to: 04:34, 24 May 2006
1st revert: 04:34, 24 May 2006
2nd revert: 05:38, 24 May 2006
3rd revert: 06:50, 24 May 2006

(and on a substantially similar page)

1st revert: 05:34, 24 May 2006
2nd revert: 06:52, 24 May 2006

Reported by: Kchase02 (T) 07:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I warned him on his talk page without response. Both of the articles are candidates for redirect and protection to prevent him from messing again, IMHO. Kchase02 (T)

I deleted the page, it was just spam William M. Connolley 08:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vlatkoto

Previous version reverted to: 00:47, 23 May 2006
1st revert: 20:02, 23 May 2006
2nd revert: 23:35, 23 May 2006
3rd revert: 08:14, 24 May 2006
4th revert: 10:36, 24 May 2006

Reported by: Telex 11:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

The first three reverts are by Vlatkoto, the fourth revert was by User:194.141.39.2, who has admitted to being Vlatkoto. He keeps inserting a bogus flag, and has been blocked for violating the 3RR on this article before. --Telex 11:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Karatekid7

Previous version reverted to: 14:45, 23 May 2006
1st revert: 15:53, 23 May 2006
2nd revert: 23:11, 23 May 2006
3rd revert: 23:23, 23 May 2006
4th revert: 23:44, 23 May 2006
5th revert: 10:12, 24 May 2006

Reported by: LloydEstralondo 12:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:Demiurge010

Previous version reverted to: 17:10, 24 May 2006
1st revert: 12:53, 24 May 2006
2nd revert: 16:20, 24 May 2006
3rd revert: 16:29, 24 May 2006
4th revert: 16:48, 24 May 2006
5th revert: 16:54, 24 May 2006
and many more

Reported by: Weregerbil 14:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Inserts link from article space to user space. The user page is an article that has been AfD'd and deleted twice as WP:OR and speedily deleted as repost 10-20 times. I'm also breaking 3RR there, I hope it falls under "correcting simple vandalism". Weregerbil 14:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:TodorBozhinov

Previous version reverted to: [97]
1st revert: 09:29
2nd revert: 16:34
3rd revert: 17:12
4th revert: 17:43

Reported by: Todor Bozhinov → 15:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Report myself — involved in a dispute with a troll, I felt obliged not to leave the article in the state he'd like to see and forgot about the 3RR. I'm sorry. Todor Bozhinov → 15:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Report a new violation


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

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

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

Reported by: ~~~~

'''Comments:'''

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

@@ Line 1,209: / Line 1,209: @@
 '''Comments:'''
 * Inserts link from article space to user space. The user page is an article that has been AfD'd and deleted twice as [[WP:OR]] and speedily deleted as repost 10-20 times. I'm also breaking 3RR there, I hope it falls under "correcting simple vandalism". [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 14:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
+===[[User:TodorBozhinov]]===
+[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|List of cities in Bulgaria}}. {{3RRV|TodorBozhinov}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
+* Previous version reverted to:  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_cities_in_Bulgaria&oldid=54895058] <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
+* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_cities_in_Bulgaria&oldid=54849717 09:29]
+* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_cities_in_Bulgaria&oldid=54886165 16:34]
+* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_cities_in_Bulgaria&oldid=54890793 17:12]
+* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_cities_in_Bulgaria&oldid=54895058 17:43]
+Reported by: [[User:TodorBozhinov|<span style="border:1px solid black;color:black; padding:1px;background:#fff">Todor<span style="color:white;background:#584">&nbsp;Bozh<span style="background:#e00">inov&nbsp;</span></span></span>]] [[User talk:TodorBozhinov|→]] 15:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
+'''Comments:'''
+* Report myself — involved in a dispute with a troll, I felt obliged not to leave the article in the state he'd like to see and forgot about the 3RR. I'm sorry. [[User:TodorBozhinov|<span style="border:1px solid black;color:black; padding:1px;background:#fff">Todor<span style="color:white;background:#584">&nbsp;Bozh<span style="background:#e00">inov&nbsp;</span></span></span>]] [[User talk:TodorBozhinov|→]] 15:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 ==Report a 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