Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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)
346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355
356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365
Incidents (archives, search)
1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157
1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
468	469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477
478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330
331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Violations

User:TPIRFanSteve reported by User:Buckner 1986

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime
1st revert: 21:48, 22:04, 20 June 2006
2nd revert: 22:04, 21 June 2006
3rd revert: 03:42, 24 June 2006
4th revert: 21:48, 25 June 2006

Time report made: 23:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Acts like he "owns" the article, removed information that mentions the source. He also left me some angry messages on my user talk page. This user's action has already driven one user off of Wikipedia - Cheesehead 1980 and seems to be a problem user. Buckner 1986 23:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I do not understand how this is even still an issue. I provided links to summaries of five differrent episodes where Pathfinder was played perfectly on said article's talk page, and Mr. Buckner's response was basically, "I'm right and you're wrong." I honestly have no idea how to deal with this. -TPIRFanSteve 23:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is very abusive and seems to have made veiled threats. Please deal with him accordingly. Buckner 1986 00:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to tell me where I've done this? 'Cause to be perfectly honest, you've completely lost me at this point. (And if your Talk page is any indication, you've also pretty much flat-out said that you're never going to admit that you're wrong no matter how much evidence I give you short of actually showing you clips of the episodes in question -- which I obviously can't do.) -TPIRFanSteve 00:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:TPIRFanSteve reported by User:CobaltBlueTony

1st revert: 11:06, June 20, 2006
2nd revert: 17:16, June 20, 2006
3rd revert: 20:40, June 20, 2006

Time report made: 02:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:Cheesehead 1980 seems to be refraining, based on his comments to me here. Should also look at [[1]]. - CobaltBlueTony 02:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you count to 4? William M. Connolley 08:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tramsvik reported by User:Attilios

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

Comments: in his different incarnations, user:Tramsvik, user:81.62.140.67 and User:137.138.30.181, this guy edits only Cannalonga. He insists to revert to a version which is clearly bad styled and adopting a non-standard infobox (see almost ALL other articles on Italian communes for comparison) written by him.

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

Continuing pattern of reverts primarily in a war with User:Ibrahimfaisal.
1st revert: 15:05, 20 June 2006
2nd revert: 18:27, 20 June 2006
3rd revert: 11:13, 21 June 2006
4th revert: 11:43, 21 June 2006
5th revert: 12:22, 21 June 2006 this revert even after making a conditional promise (12:14, 21 June 2006) not to edit the article in question for the next 24 hours.

Time report made: 12:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: While it's true the original four reverts weren't all across the same content, this report is being filed due to an ongoing edit war primarily between User:Pecher and User:Ibrahimfaisal. Additionally, although revert #3 seems to be primarily done in good faith to remove SAW honorifics from the article, User:Pecher also blanket reverted out content changes surrounding ages. Of late I've noticed User:Pecher in revert wars across a number of articles with Muhammad being the primary example. Also please note I am an uninvolved editor in this edit war on Muhammad and while I don't believe User:Ibrahimfaisal is himself in violation of 3RR a warning for him is probably merited particularly in light of some of his editorial commentary. Netscott 12:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pecher has been notified of this report. Netscott 12:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As admitted above, revert #3 was actually a revert of simple vandalism because insertion of SAW honorifics obviously qualifies as such, and I have restored the good faith (and correct) change of 10 to 8 years. Please also note that the other reverts were also restorations of sourced material. However, if an admin finds that I have violated the 3RR, I will promise not to edit the article in question for the next 24 hours. The glaring inaccuracy in the above report is the claim that the edit war on Muhammad is primarily between myself and User:Ibrahimfaisal. In fact, these are users Ibrahimfaisal and Mystic who are attempting to remove sourced material that they dislike, their edits being reverted by User:Tom harrison, User:Aiden, User:Tickle me, and myself. Singling me out here as an edit warrior "to strengthen the case" is plainly inappropriate. Pecher ^Talk 12:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "fifth revert" reported by Netscott was actually a self-revert linked above. Pecher ^Talk 12:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the 3rd edit was a reversion of vandalism and the 5th edit was a self revert of any other changes made in the 3rd there is no block. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The recent editing history there is complicated by some possibly well-intended honorifics that were added by an anonymous editor. As I understand it, these are inconsistent with the style guide, and were removed by Luna Santin and Irishpunktom, as well as by Pecher. Other than the removal of these added honorifics, and possibly a correction changing "10" to "8", there has been no change to the article since Irishpunktom's version of 05:24, 21 June 2006. There was a brief disagreement on content yesterday, that did not quite become an edit war, and is (I hope) mostly resolved. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The accuracy in your commentary is appreciated User:Tom harrison. User:Pecher's 3rd revert doesn't count as a revert against vandalism... but style guide does apply. If the 3rd revert hadn't been a blanket one there'd be no report here. Netscott 13:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Had you taken a closer look at the diffs before posting them, there'd be no report here.Timothy Usher 08:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jefffire reported by User:Aquirata (Result: No block)

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 01:45, 21 June 2006
1st revert: 10:57, 21 June 2006
2nd revert: 11:08, 21 June 2006
3rd revert: 11:47, 21 June 2006
4th revert: 12:02, 21 June 2006

Time report made: 12:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:Jefffire has been regularly violating various WP policies, including WP:3RR, WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:EP, WP:HAR, WP:NPA, WP:OWN, WP:VAND, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOT, just to mention a few. This doesn't just concern the Astrology page, but that's where I make most of my edits and so that's where I notice them. He is constantly harrassing other editors by uncivil edits, typically without discussing them first on the Talk page. He has absolutely no knowledge of the subject topic (by his own admission) yet is one of the most frequent editors of the page. He doesn't listen to reason, cannot cooperate, and overrules every other editor by his militaristic attitudes.

It is my view that User:Jefffire needs to be blocked from editing the Astrology page (among others). Aquirata 12:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must protest. I've made 3 reverts, plus a number of other changes which I don't believe classify as reverts. The first "revert" listed is a helpful deletion which has been uncontested and not a "reversion". By way of honesty, lasy month I did unintentionally violate the 3rr on Objective Validity of Astrology due to an error on my part because I had not read the policy properly. I believe my interpratation is correct, but I have reverted myself none the less as a peace making move. However, I must also point out that User:Aquirata has been engaging in a persistant campainge of personal attacks against me, and has been the subject of an RfC for their behaviour, and has made past false accusations of 3rr violations against me. Jefffire 13:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must also point out that many of the other accussations made against me are compeltely false. I discuss points thourally on talk pages, I try to be civil at all times, despite Aquirata making numerous personally attacks against me about my "ignorance", "lack of knowledge" and repeatedly pointing out spelling mistakes in my talk page edits. I have never vandalised EVER, and adhere very strongly to WP:V. I find these false accussation to be very distressing. Jefffire 13:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first revert cited is not identical to the other 3, and they are part of different edit conflicts. Hence no block. Sam Vimes 13:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, I don't understand your reasoning. WP:3RR explicitly states that "an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period."; and "there is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count." Please explain. Aquirata 15:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:KraMuc reported by User:Philosophus ^T

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [7]

1st revert: [8]

2nd revert: [9]

3rd revert: [10]

4th revert: [11]

5th revert: [12]
Time report made: 14:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Comments:

There is considerable evidence supporting the claim that KraMuc is also 82.52.19.192. The IP is in the same block as an IP KraMuc used a few days ago to edit, as seen with whois, editing times are the same, and at least one edit comment is the same. KraMuc has been warned and blocked about 3RR before, if I recall, regarding a previous incarnation of the article at Anti-relativity. After being admonished this time, he has started to randomly blank portions of the article and its talk page.--Philosophus ^T 14:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:SCZenz seems to be handling this already. --Philosophus ^T 14:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yungmike513 reported by User:Zerida

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 22:50, 20 June 2006
1st revert: 23:29, 20 June 2006
2nd revert: 23:35, 20 June 2006
3rd revert: 23:41, 20 June 2006
4th revert: 23:45, 20 June 2006
5th revert: 23:53, 20 June 2006

Time report made: 19:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Yungmike513 keeps deleting a picture from Egypt and replacing it with an older picture. I asked him not to keep removing the image and warned him of 3RR [13] after he also vandaized my talk page [14] and my user page [15]. He's back today for what seems to be like another round [16] — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 19:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say that edit warring has been an ongoing problem with this article, with User:Zerida also being a prominent offender. There has been a concerted effort by certain parties to obliterate any reference to a black, African presence (which is considerable) in Egypt. Indeed, it was a struggle to get Zerida to acknowledge that the Egyptian people are not homogeneous. Zerida and, most notably, a contributor Egyegy repeatedly have removed an image of a Fellah girl, substituting one of a less black-looking male, engaging in what looks like tag-team edit warring. I have reinserted the image, hoping to achieve some balance. Anyone interested can read the talk page. I've appealed to the parties involved (including Yungmike) to accommodate this one image of a dark-skinned Fellah, along with other images of lighter-skinned Egyptians. We'll see how it goes. The page bears watching. deeceevoice 21:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Isarig reported by User:Will314159

1st revert: [17]
2nd revert: [18]
3rd revert: [19]
4th revert: [20]

Time report made: 19:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: .Isarig is a very incosniderate and aggresive reverter. He's stated in the talk pages that he's going to keep on reverting certain stuff regardless. He has been blocked before. I have warned him "Isarig. the 3R rule reflects a policy to avoid endless edit wars. It is not a license to revert three in one day, then punishment on the fourth. (It is the fourth edit supposedly that gets you in trouble). Even one edit a day if done w/ your intent is sufficient from my reading." (I have removed this (and will keep removing it) ...." Take Care! --Will 07:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Take Care! --Will^(talk) 19:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a summary of the reverts by Isarig in case I goofed up the report form " 4th. (cur) (last) 18:23, 21 June 2006 Isarig (→Expertise and professionalism - this is ther "criticism" section, so critics come first) In the fourth, Isarig reversed the order of the opponent and propnent of juan cole's qualifications.(cur) (last) 18:21, 21 June 2006 Isarig (→Expertise and professionalism - Joyner is not currently a professor.) In the third, Isarig unprofessored, Professor Joyner. (cur) (last) 21:33, 20 June 2006 Isarig (your source is not WP:RS thiswas explained in th edit summary and on Talk. Please do not re-add it before reaching consensus on Talk) In the second, Isarig removed Professor Joyner's opinion (cur) (last) 20:19, 20 June 2006 Isarig (blogs are not WP:ES In the first Isarig removed Professor James Joyner's opinion. Will314159 19:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not a 3RR violation, as the logs show. The 4th "revert" is not a revert at all, but addition of material. The 3rd "revert" is again not a revert, but a re-ordering of exiting material. The first two "reverts" are instances where I removed a quote from a non WP:RS source (a blog) which Will added despite this being pointed out to him Isarig 20:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a violation here. Everyone would do well to just let it cool off for a day or two. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I pulled the wrong refs. It's kind hard to do this stuff. I"ll pull them better next time b/c he reverts every day. Take Care! Will314159 00:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat reported by User:Ned Scott

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime
1st revert: [21]
2nd revert: [22]
3rd revert: [23]
4th revert: [24]

Time report made: 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ned Scott 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he is edit warring, so are you. I've locked the article. Please work out your differences on the talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Negiative time stamp is not within 24 hours. --Cat out 22:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mywayyy reported by User:Khoikhoi

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 23:36, 21 June 2006
1st revert: 23:48, 21 June 2006
2nd revert: 23:52, 21 June 2006
3rd revert: 23:54, 21 June 2006
4th revert: 00:04, 22 June 2006

Comments:

User warned here. —Khoikhoi 00:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Blocked for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Back as anon 88.218.46.114 (talk · contribs), continuing to revert the whole group of articles multiple times. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:McKhan reported by User:BhaiSaab

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [25]
1st revert: 17:34, June 21, 2006
2nd revert: 18:51, June 21, 2006
3rd revert: 20:15, June 21, 2006
4th revert: 20:33, June 21, 2006

Time report made: 00:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

The 1st revert was a partial revert which, I believe, still counts as a revert. BhaiSaab ^talk 00:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When BhaiSaab does that, it constitues to editing and when McKhan or someone else does that, it tantmounts to 3RR violation. I was simply providing the Contexual Archiving to the Talk:Page. However, BhaiSaab wants ONLY his Archving version to be posted. He is pushing his Shia agenda on most of Wikipedia Islam-related pages. He has record of going after most of the edits of the Wikipedia editors / contributors once challenged. He is in the violation of 3RR and continue to use Wikipedia "Original Search" and "Wikipedia: Verifiable" to pursue his agenda. McKhan

*Oh come on - 3RR on a talk page? Over what? whether to archive or not? Someone be gracious about it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked McKhan for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Violation

User:Doright Has reverted three times in less than 24 hours at Martin Luther. He continues to insist on adding a category to the Martin Luther category list that has been discussed and removed many times. This is a regular pattern of behavior. Invitations to discuss, and other such remedies have not proven successful. Many of the editors on the Martin Luther page are tired of the fact that Doright apparently is allowed, with impunity, to launch personal attacks and revert like this with impunity. Efforts to have admins deal with this have not produced positive change. A ban is in order.Ptmccain 02:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:FunkyFly reported by User:cigor

- Three revert rule violation on Macedonism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). FunkyFly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Event though he has been asked repeatedly about the format [26], [27], [28], for which he answer he doesn't care, or "lets not get ridiculous", no explanation has been provided --Cigor 02:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

First of all, Cigor, read the 3RR policy. Its about 4 reverts for 24 hours that are in violaion, not just 3. Second, you have not provided any diffs. /FunkyFly.talk_ 02:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I previosly stated FF, did not bother to explain his edits, even after several explicit questions--Cigor 02:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. I have attempted to establish dialog several times with FF about this issue, but he consistently refused, or don't care. --Cigor 03:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cigor reported by User:FunkyFly

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 21:38, 21 June 2006
1st revert: 22:12, 21 June 2006
2nd revert: 22:17, 21 June 2006
3rd revert: 22:34, 21 June 2006
4th revert: 22:42, 21 June 2006

Time report made: 02:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

The user was warned. It is his second violation in two days, for the same article. /FunkyFly.talk_ 02:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Cigor for 48h as it is his second violation abakharev 05:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rastishka (working as a registered user and as an IP User:82.33.32.160) reported by User:abakharev

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime
1st revert: 20:08, 21 June 2006
2nd revert: 00:22, 22 June 2006
3rd revert: 03:56, 22 June 2006
4th revert: 05:29, 22 June 2006

Time report made: 05:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User was warned on the talk page abakharev 05:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Liftarn reported by User:Pecher ^Talk

1st revert: 15:11, June 21, 2006
2nd revert: 17:55, June 21, 2006
3rd revert: 18:25, June 21, 2006
4th revert: 10:35, June 22, 2006

Time report made: 12:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Complex, partial reverts, all relating to the sentence: "In October 2005 Ahmadinejad gave a speech that contained antagonistic statements about the State of Israel." The first revert was marked as such. The last three reverts were all removals of the word "state" (revert #2) or the words "State of Israel" (reverts #3 and 4) inserted by other editors. Liftarn has already reported several editors for 3RR violation, so he apparently knows about the 3RR. Pecher ^Talk 12:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Re knowledge of rules: he has previously been blocked for 3RR. User is continuing his disruptive POV edits on that article, most recently making a sentence unintelligible.--Mantanmoreland 21:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:DaffyDuck619 reported by User:Lid

1st revert: 08:41, 22 June 2006 Difference
2nd revert: 15:26, 22 June 2006 Difference
3rd revert: 16:18, 22 June 2006 Difference
4th revert: 19:18, 22 June 2006 Difference
5th revert: 19:21, 22 June 2006 Difference
6th revert: 20:29, 22 June 2006 Difference
7th revert: 09:06, 23 June 2006 Difference

Time report made: 13:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Continous adding of a single detail that has been ruled inconsequential elsewhere results in him reverting several parts of the article to add in his single detail. The first revert reverted from this, although there was a significant ammount of edits inbetwee, while the second reverted from this. The third reverted from this. Reverts four through six all reverted this Edit: forgot to sign Edit 2: the reason the revert dates don't match my signed date is because I live in Australia so all the times are +10 hours Lid 14:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added urls to compare to show that he keeps adding back in the same two paragraphs about cartoons. --- Lid 19:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now he's upto seven

7th revert: 09:06, 23 June 2006 Difference

with the comment I'M NOT GOING TO STOP ADDING THIS! YOU BETTER STOP DELETING THIS! --- Lid 23:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I have blocked him for 24 h abakharev 01:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Perpetual motion machine reported by User:Philosophus ^T

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [29]
1st revert: [30]
2nd revert: [31]
3rd revert: [32]
4th revert: [33]

Time report made: 14:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

PPM comes on every few days and makes the same reversions. He has become more persistent about the template however, and reverted it for a fourth time in the last 20 minutes after I warned him about 3RR. Whenever I try to discuss the changes with him, he changes the section title to "Philosophus POV" and says something about his changes being non-negotiable due to WP:NPOV, so it may be that he believes the edits are exempt from 3RR. He probably just needs a warning, but that warning is going to have to come from someone other than me to be taken seriously. --Philosophus ^T 14:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the edits. This is a lie. WP:NPOV is non-negotiable. I'm @ 3RR. Perpetual motion machine 14:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... after discussing this on IRC, this might not be a 3RR violation technically, since the first reversion apparently doesn't count, though PPM seems to be gaming the system here to make the same reversions over and over again every few days, more recently on this template, but also on Cox's timepiece --Philosophus ^T 14:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRC? Great, there are hidden forces at work; What about keeping the discussion @ wikipedia?. Perpetual motion machine

Blocked for 24h abakharev 01:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Imacomp reported by User:Seraphim

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 12:59, June 21, 2006
1st revert: 03:52, June 22, 2006
2nd revert: 09:18, June 22, 2006
3rd revert: 09:23, June 22, 2006
4th revert: 09:33, June 22, 2006
5th revert: 09:52, June 22, 2006
6th revert: 09:57, June 22, 2006

Time report made: 14:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The reverts are the Line 317 change from "perished at the hands of" to "were murdered under". User is using misleading edit summaries, and marking major changes as minor edits to attempt to hide his reverts. The fact is that in all 4 of the above edits, he reverted "perished at the hands of" to "were murdered under". It's a clear 3rr violation. Seraphim 14:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

+2 more reverts, he knows he's going to be banned for 24 hrs, so he keeps reverting attempting to bait someone into reverting him for a 4th time in 24 hrs. Can someone please deal with this quickly before there's a casualty? Seraphim 15:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he's already had 3 24h blocks so I suspect a longer block is in order. -999 (Talk) 15:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine with me :P, he's breaking down worse then Skulls 'n' Femurs did. Seraphim 15:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad I'm not an admin. I'd give him 72h. ;-) -999 (Talk) 15:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 72 hours for this and for repeatedly blanking Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Imacomp. A longer block for edit warring (if not a ban) will likely ensue for his behaviour elsewhere. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wiki-star reported by User:3bulletproof16 (result: 72h)

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 07:26, June 22, 2006

1st revert: 19:54, June 21, 2006
2nd revert: 20:08, June 21, 2006
3rh revert: 20:11, June 21, 2006
4th revert: 20:21, June 21, 2006
5th revert: 07:26, June 22, 2006

Comments: Wiki-star has once again claimed ownership of the article as he reverts to his previous versions, ignoring the comments left by other users and the consensus already formed. Voice of Treason, Isopropyl, Daishokaioshin, Onikage725, Zarbon, Darkwarriorblake, Papacha, Orion Minor, and I have all once again made attempts to discuss this issue with him but to no avail.-3bulletproof16 16:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's not much to say that hasn't been said already. He refuses to talk things over with others and lords over the articles he chooses like a would-be admin. Onikage725 17:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon!?! William M. Connolley 19:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant no disrespect to admins. I said "would-be," to illustrate that he has delusions of authority. I don't mean to imply that admins behave in this manner. Onikage725 22:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While Wiki-star is reverting again this probably falls more into WP:ANI, due to willful baiting, calling to be banned, and taking pride in causing conflicts. It's nothing new, but it's getting worse now. Voice of Treason 18:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

72h this time might slow him down a bit William M. Connolley 19:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

I have had enough history with Wiki-Star to know that he's trouble. He takes command of the articles and adds an enormous amount of images (approximately 50) to each page. I previously cleaned up the Buu, Piccolo, Gotenks, Vegito, and Vegeta pages on a continuous basis, only to see him come back and revert, and promise to continue doing it with no other basis or consensus in mind except for the fact that he likes the characters. Considering the fact that even more important characters aren't even getting 7 or 8 pictures, it's only obvious that neither of the mentioned deserve 40 odd images on the page to illustrate their history. I am going to agree with everyone else who is on the lookout to find a way of stopping this Wiki-Star fellow. As for the ban amount, I don't think it's going to make a difference. He has promised to continue what he's doing and he has sworn not to care about anyone else's consensus reached. How many times has he already been banned? Approximately 4...or more? It's obvious he won't stop. I also know that he acts as a major sockpuppeteer, but that's besides the point. It's just more reasons to prove that he doesn't really have a tendency of learning from his mistakes. - Zarbon
Wiki-star: Oh so now you're gonna act all nice and mushy mushy. Ha, the hypocracy is what drives me! Listen to yourself, you're even resenting to a lie to remove a good contributor like myself. I only turn my attention on the Buu article, because that Dragon Ball character is who i am most familiar, and knowledgeable on. The other Articles you have mention, i haven't touch in over 1 month now! Hahahahahaaaaaa.... man! This is funny. Oh well, i'll be in a better place when and if i'm banned! Take care folks Wiki-star 02:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wladimir reported by User:Joy [shallot] (result: 3h)

Left this comment telling me doesn't "have time arguing with you" on 19:39, 20 June 2006. Then he proceeded to revert:

1st revert: 21:07, 21 June 2006
2nd revert: 22:37, 21 June 2006
3rd revert: 17:04, 22 June 2006
4th revert: 18:11, 22 June 2006

Time report made: 17:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

I'm not banning him myself because I've undone most of his damage. He also made further damage prior to that comment, see the article history and talk page. --Joy [shallot] 17:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3h first offence no warning William M. Connolley 19:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Homeontherange reported by User:Zeq

1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boycott_of_Israel&diff=59995552&oldid=59995060 13:48, 22 June 2006 (removing info was a revert while he also added new info in the same edit. Edit summary only say: added info)

2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boycott_of_Israel&diff=59991291&oldid=59943879 13:14, 22 June 2006 (revert is by commenting-out a section, some words were added as part of the same edit)

3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boycott_of_Israel&diff=60004644&oldid=60001827 14:57, 22 June 2006 (revert is by commenting-out a section)

4th revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boycott_of_Israel&diff=60028583&oldid=60025540 17:39, 22 June 2006 (revert is by commenting-out a section)

comments: Complex reverts since some of them include an addition and not just the revert but a look at the history page will show a very simple pattern: Homeontherange (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started the article. Every (different) edit I made to the article he reverted (with a small exception of a quote by A Palestinian that he kept and qualified) User is well aware of 3RR on all the little details of the rule so he should 'know better' this is not his 1st or 2nd violation of the rule in similar circumstances let's see how he explain it this time. ~~I am sure he has an explanation~~. Zeq 19:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to note that previous articles that started this way ended up being protected for weeks (still are) . Zeq 20:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- This is a bad faith complaint by Zeq. My edits were an attempt to make Zeq's contributions intelligible as they were submitted replete with spelling, grammatical and logical errors. In some cases I made an effort to bring his contributions up to standard, in others I commented them out with a request that he fix them and properly source them. If editing Zeq for his poor spelling and grammar or for not providing proper citations is now to be counted as a 3RR violation then no one who edits any of the articles he contributes to is safe as he seems unable or unwilling to spell and grammar check. The complaint is frivolous. Homey 21:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a matter of a revert war - it's a matter of trying to bring substandard edits up to standard. I submit the text of various of Zeq's edits and my responses:

This was Zeq's first contribution:

[34]

The ban was resinded few days later, after arguments where made that the vote was by a small group which was able to get a majority when the number of voters was not high. Similar events led to the ban being reinstated in June 2006 and resinded again only four days later

The above was unsourced so I commented it out and asked for a source[35] - I also corrected the spelling of "resinded" (sic).

Zeq's second attempt was little better:

[36]

despite Palestinian university president who argued against it[http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/727899.html], [http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3264160,00.html]. The ban was rescinded few days later, after arguments where made that the vote was by a small group which was able to get a majority when the number of voters was not high. Similar events led to the ban being reinstated in June 2006 and rescinded again only four days later [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/725533.html],[http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1148482061684&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull],[http://www.divestmentwatch.com/NewsStories/abi-20060521.htm],[http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000112.html]

I attempted to develop the first part by rewriting it as[37]: A prominent Palestinian academic, Sari Nusseibeh, president of Al Quds University has argued against the boycott telling Associated Press "If we are to look at Israeli society, it is within the academic community that we've had the most progressive pro-peace views and views that have come out in favor of seeing us as equals... If you want to punish any sector, this is the last one to approach."[38], [39].

As for the second, I commented out the following:  ie The sentence made no sense - I asked Zeq to rewrite it.

Zeq tried to rewrite it as such:

a similar ban was overturned a year later after claimes were made that initial vote was at a very narrow margin (96:92) [40],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45] </nmowiki>[46]

The problem is he added something that had to do with a compeltely different item and it didn't really make any sense.

I commented this out and added the following suggestion (emphasis added to my comments)[47]: <!-- you're talking about something completely different here - please don't confuse things by putting it in the same paragraph and please actually explain what this refers to (ie the name of the union, what the resolution actually was, when it was passed etc) - you are being too vague, I don't want to have to keep rewriting your additions for clarity, please do it yourself -- a similar ban was overturned a year later after claims were made that initial vote was at a very narrow margin (96:92)[48],[49],[50],[51],[52],[53]

He has yet to fix the above.

He then added something completely new:

[54]

On June 21, 2006 the International Red Cross (IRC) decided at it's conference is being held in Geneva Switzerland to end a ban that lasted 55 years and decided to include the Magen David Adom organization (MDA) as an official member of the IRC. The inclusion of the MDA had been blocked for years because its red Star of David emblem is not recognized by the IRC. Mostly Arab and Muslim states voted reject the decision which was approved with a large majority of 80% of the member states of the IRC. [55]

However, the source he gives says nothing about the IRC issue being related to the Israeli boycott and so I commented it out with the edit comment "source does not assert IRC was part of boycott"[56] In the commented out part I also referred to Zeq's poor writing.

Again, this isn't a "revert war" and has nothing to do with 3RR, it's a matter of trying to improve the largely unintelligible, grammatically incorrect contributions of an editor who can't be bothered to spell or grammar check. Homey 22:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... What part of ""Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word. Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting." don't you understand? Blocked for 3RR and once again trying to game the 3RR system and being a chronic 3RR offender. FeloniousMonk 23:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elfguy reported by User:Mmx1

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 10:18, 19 June 2006
1st revert: 12:00, 21 June 2006
2nd revert: 12:09, 21 June 2006
3rd revert: 12:17, 21 June 2006
4th revert: 11:51, 22 June 2006

In addition, the user continued to revert, making it 6 times of this particular revert in 25 hours:

5th revert: 13:07, 22 June 2006
6th revert: 13:21, 22 June 2006

Also, the user made the following reversion in the initial 24 hour span: To version 12:58, 21 June 2006. Reversion #1:11:46, 22 June 2006

User was warned after the third revert: 12:58, 21 June 2006, and responded that he was well familiar with the 3rr policy [57]. This revert is not as clear, but it's a reinsertion of the words presumed, removed by editor User:Morton devonshire at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11%2C_2001_attacks&oldid=59868101

The timing of the reverts appears to be a failed attempt to game the 3rr rule - 6 reverts in 2 days, separated by just under 24 hours.

Time report made: 19:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours.--MONGO 03:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Winknnudge reported by User:William M. Connolley

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [58]
1st revert: 2006-06-21 23:15:09
2nd revert: 2006-06-21 23:26:35
3rd revert: 2006-06-21 23:37:17
4th revert: 2006-06-22 19:16:37

Time report made: 19:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User keeps re-inserting inappropriate link with implausible claims of vandalism against page consensus. Previously warned William M. Connolley 19:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second Vienna Award

User:Zsakos reported by User:Tēlex

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 11:13, 22 June 2006
1st revert: 16:45, 17:35, 22 June 2006
2nd revert: 18:46, 22 June 2006
3th revert: 19:22, 22 June 2006
4th revert: 19:38, 22 June 2006

Time report made: 19:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Probably the is the same person as the anon below - he keeps deleting a quote. Was warned. --Tēlex 19:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:84.2.138.222 reported by User:Tēlex (result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 11:13, 22 June 2006
1st revert: 16:42, 22 June 2006
2nd revert: 18:06, 22 June 2006
3rd revert: 18:34, 22 June 2006
4th revert: 19:02, 22 June 2006

Time report made: 19:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Probably the is the same person as the user above - he keeps deleting a quote. Was warned. --Tēlex 19:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24h William M. Connolley 21:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:204.56.7.1 reported by User:William M. Connolley

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [59]
1st revert: [60]
2nd revert: [61]
3rd revert: [62]
4th revert: [63]

Time report made: 20:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

In a clear abuse of process I've blocked 204. (who is probably Reddi) since I've also edited that template. Sorry. However the 3RR is clear enough that I hope I can be forgiven. Please review William M. Connolley 20:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reddi, or Perpetual motion machine? Or are they all the same? It also appears that 204 and 134.193.168.107 are the same person - they both resolve to a Kansas City university, and the claims made in the edits are so unique that I doubt more than one person holds them. This is also going on at Cox's timepiece. --Philosophus ^T 20:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:134.193.168.237 reported by User:Femto

~~Aw too late. See report above. Femto 20:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC) (duplicates removed)~~[reply]

Or maybe not: 134.193.168.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues the same edit.

Time report made: 20:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

134.193.* IPs registered to University of Missouri - Kansas City and used by a known Free Energy POV pusher. Same IPs and User:Perpetual motion machine also involved in edit war at Cox's timepiece. Femto 20:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not him. But User:MichaelCPrice needs a block. And the pseudoskeptics are pushing around a POV. 134.193.168.237 20:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Appleby reported by User:Chris 73

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 6:48, June 22, 2006
1st revert: 07:02, June 22, 2006
2nd revert: 20:22, June 22, 2006
3rd revert: 20:25, June 22, 2006
4th revert: 20:27, June 22, 2006 (

Time report made: 20:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The user is aware of the 3RR and has engaged in previous edit warring, resulting in numerous blocks up to 72 hours -- Chris 73 | Talk 20:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version reverted to is wrong: is 1st a revert or not? William M. Connolley 21:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is removal/change of information and text added by others a revert? -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:DjSamwise reported by User:FT2

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 16:50, June 15, 2006

1st revert: 08:21, June 22, 2006
2nd revert: 16:56, June 22, 2006
3rd revert: 18:17, June 22, 2006
4th revert: 19:07, June 22, 2006 (rvt to diff version due to intervening edit in another section)
5th revert: 21:08, June 22, 2006

Time report made: 21:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Warned by :

Myself (WP:NPOV): 17:04, June 22, 2006

Responded 18:32, June 22, 2006

user:Philip Baird Shearer (WP:3RR) 19:11, June 22, 2006

User:Deucalionite reported by User:Fut.Perf. ☼

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 30 May, 21:18
1st revert: 22 June, 00:47
2nd revert: 22 June, 14:46
3rd revert: 22 June, 15:03
4th revert: 22 June, 20:36

Time report made: 21:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User was previously blocked for 3RR. This revert war is accompanied with personal attacks on talk page: "anal-retentive", "narrow-minded and dishonest" ([64]). Continuing a pattern of similar earlier attacks here: "dishonorable" (in edit summary): [65], "short-sighted imbeciles" ([66]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for twenty-four hours by me. I'll note, however, that I'm not thrilled by what looks like tag-teaming between the reporter and another user who "reverted on principle" once. On the other hand, one edit summary mentioned plagiarism. Both parties should avoid edit warring in the future. Plagiarism problems can be brought to admin attention on the first occurance. Jkelly 21:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the other "tag-teaming" user (User:FrancisTyers) is an admin, and admin attention was just what I had sought from him there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:70.48.250.17 and User:70.49.110.207 reported by User:—chair lunch dinner™ ^talk

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 15:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
1st revert: 15:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
2nd revert: 16:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
3rd revert: 18:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
4th revert: 19:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Time report made: 01:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Apparent sockpuppets of User:70.48.250.87, who was previously banned for 3RR on this article.

I have semiprotected the article. I do not see the point in blocking the IPs abakharev 04:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alienus reported by User:RJII

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 2006-06-21 19:34:20
1st revert: 21:31, 21 June 2006
2nd revert: 18:44, 22 June 2006
3rd revert: 21:08, 22 June 2006
4th revert: 21:34, 22 June 2006

Time report made: 03:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: So, he made it by 3 minutes, but he engages in a lot of edit warring. RJII 03:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the reverts #3 and #4 are revertions of simple vandalism (unrelated to 1 and 2). I do not see 3RR here abakharev 03:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. I should have looked closer. Sorry. RJII 04:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Tony Sidaway has decided to block him anyway. Having failed to taunt Al into incivility on his talk page he's haunting his contribution list and clutching at straws. I guess he feels if he can fill up Al's block list it makes it easier each time to justify. Maybe it is time for the RFC of Tony that has been on the cards for a while. Sophia 15:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My recent block of Alienus is not based on the above report, but on two separate instances of egregious edit warring. I would ask SOPHIA to be more civil--it is simply wrong to suggest that my recent interactions with Alienus have been for any other reason than to try to dissuade him from persistent edit warring. --Tony Sidaway 13:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Precis reported by Will314159:Will314159

Three revert rule violation on Template:Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole. Precis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime
1st revert: [67]
2nd revert: [68]

Time report made: 14:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: The 3RR is just not about punishing people who make 4 reverts in 24 hours. It is also about sensless reverts even though it is only One. In this case TWO sensless deletions qualify for blockage. Precis has engaged in two sensless acts of vandalism just like a teenager would. In fact, I suspect he is a teenager on a lark! Briefly the background is, I introduced a quote from James Joyner explaining that Juan Cole had not abandoned his academic research and that indeed his public blog performs a more valuable public educational function than dry academic papers read by other academics published in obscure journals read and then commented on by other academics in other obscure journals. User Isarig objected it was a violation of WP:RS. I pointed out that the guideline was oriented toward unverified fact and not opinion. Isarig retaliated by including numerous other blog posting in the article which I did not delet nor object to even though he had himself deleted the Joyner quote several time. I had done a 3RR report on him but had copied the current instead of the last field on the history. Administrator CSTAR provisionaly agreed on the distinction b/n fact and opinion in WP:RS and is the author of this post " I've requested a clarification on the talk page of WP:RS. That's about all I can do. As I said before I would argue: if an opinion can be supported by a blog then it's reasonable to include it. It's best to do it by paraphrasing the opinion and puting the direct quote in footnotes. Several opinions which say the same thing should be collected into the same paraphrase. I'm not sure how to avoid frivilous opinion (e.g. Blog BLAH writer thinks Juan Cole eats live cockroaches.) --CSTAR 23:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)" In the meantime Precis who has been on vacation shows up and makes the following two deletes accompanied by the following comments in the edit histories

(cur) (last) 10:14, 23 June 2006 Precis (→Expertise and professionalism - because he has more education, therefore "polemnical" is a word? and no, I'm reverting for a npov, alloting equal numbers of blogs on both sides)
(cur) (last) 09:56, 23 June 2006 Will314159 (→Expertise and professionalism - Precis Write a letter to Joyner tellilng him polemnical is not a word, I think he has more education than you do. Or put a sic to it. u r reverting per Lobby POV)
(cur) (last) 07:39, 23 June 2006 Precis (→Expertise and professionalism - "polemnical" is not a word)

Therefore, I am asking that he be blocked for a considerable amount of time not for making for 4 reverts in 24 hours but for making two egregious acts of outstanding bad faith vandalism. The WP Juan Cole Article is of some controversy having been blocked for a period of two weeks and having had attracted the attention of Jimbo Wales and mentioned in national blogs. Take Care! --Will^(talk) 14:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

User:Adam Carr reported by User:Stemonitis

1st change: 12:50
2nd revert: 13:31-13:32 (in two edits)
3rd revert: 14:04

Time report made: 14:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: In an attempt to stop a petty squabble over whether a letter should be upper-case or lower-case after a hyphen, I moved Voss-strasse to Voßstraße. Unfortunately, I made a mistake and the move took two attempts. Adam Carr then proceeded to move the article by cut and paste to his preferred location. I have tried to discuss the issue with him, and have pointed out why cut and paste moves are disapproved of[69], but he will not change his behaviour: "I know this is contrary to policy" he writes[70]. I have reported this before the fourth revert, because it would be to waste both our time; Adam Carr has stated that edit wars are "always fun"[71] and is clearly not about to stop. I would like to be able to restore the article to the version before the cut and paste move, but am currently prevented from doing so by his constant reversions. --Stemonitis 14:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:205.188.116.201 reported by User:אמר `Steve Caruso` _(poll)

1st revert: Jun 22nd @ 18:50
2nd revert: Jun 23rd @ 5:12
3rd revert: Jun 23rd @ 8:04
4th revert: Jun 23rd @ 8:20

Time report made: 15:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Having persistent problems with an anon IP (205.188.116.201) that comes from a cafeteria in Iowa. Refuses to let any edits but their own persist in the article, refuses to sign in, and refuses to discuss changes on the talk page.

User:Matthead reported by User:Molobo

1st revert: 02:01, 23 June 2006
2nd revert: 11:33, 23 June 2006
3rd revert: 14:53, 23 June 2006
4th revert: 15:43, 23 June 2006)

Time report made: 16:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Removes Polish diacritics from original Polish names. The user had violated 3RR before but no punishment was made as it was his first violation[72]. He was warned about the consequences of violating 3RR[73] --Molobo 16:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of my edits and that Molobo will try to take advantage of 3RR policy, as he had often called other Polish Editors for help. He himself was blocked many times [74]. I have edited that article intentionally 4 times within 24h (and 9 times within a month), see also my talk entry were [75] I have stated my point. Recently, Biruitorul (talk · contribs) has started to replace names in articles with current Polish spelling, even when these are disputed and considered POV. The predominance of Polish spelling in English Wikipedia is often discussed, and an ongoing cause for trouble. For example, Nicolaus Copernicus was called "Mikołaj Kopernik" [76] until January before I started to correct that. Recently, there were polls about moving the articles on Polish monarch to English spelling, and some Polish voters were caught and blocked as sock puppets, see Talk:Casimir III of Poland. It is totally unacceptable that, while for major streets in modern day Berlin, the German spelling is not used, while modern day Polish spelling is ubiquitous, even in 15th century context and in disputable connections. See also Talk:Gdansk/Vote. --Matthead 17:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I was blocked or not is irrelevant to the issue of your violation of 3RR rule, which I may add was done during your revert war with Szopen and Biruitorul, not me. If you believe I am their sockpuppet, feel free to ask for sockpuppet check.--Molobo 17:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To beat the (by now) dead horse and just for the record, the list above itself contradicts this claim (4th revert).--Matthead 15:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours. Dmcdevit·t 03:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:69.232.73.33 reported by User:Neil916

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 09:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC-7)
1st revert: 16:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC-7)
2nd revert: 07:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC-7)
3rd revert: 08:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC-7)
4th revert: 09:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC-7)

Time report made: 16:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Might also be actionable as a simple vandalism issue. I and another user have treated it as a content dispute, but the user has not attempted to justify his/her actions despite attempts at communication on the user's talk page.

Blocked for 24 hours. Wikibofh_(talk) 16:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Will314159 reported by User:Isarig

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 18:47, 22 June 2006
1st revert: 22:48, 22 June 2006
2nd revert: 23:16, 22 June 2006
3rd revert: 09:56, 23 June 2006
4th revert: 16:48, 23 June 2006

Time report made: 17:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:Will314159 has been repeatedly adding a non-WP:RS source (comment made on a blog) to this article. The relevant part of WP:3RR policy on this reads "A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word". His actions have been undone by several editors, who have explained to him WP guidelines on blog sources, but he persists in adding the same quote, while describing the other editors' actions as "vandalism", and making bad faith 3RR reports against them, which have been rejected. The issue has been discussed on the Talk page, and the consensus was that blog sources should not be included in the article, per WP guidleines. Will has been warned on his Talk page and the article's Talk page that continuing this disruptive behaviour will lead to his blocking. Isarig 17:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hd8888 reported by User:John Smith's

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 01:25, 23 June 2006
1st revert: 16:23, 23 June 2006
2nd revert: 16:36, 23 June 2006
3rd revert: 16:48, 23 June 2006
4th revert: 17:13, 23 June 2006

Time report made: 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Hd8888 is obsessed with removing comments which are truthful just because he thinks they're NPOV. The issue has been discussed on the talk page, and I even pointed out that similar comments on related pages (e.g. Dokdo) have been agreed to be satisfactory by most users. Yet he has repeatedly reverted even when other users have restored his changes. He has made slight changes to the page, but each time kept removing the content he didn't like. He has shown a clear bias against Japan and won't listen to restrained debate - he labels people that disagree with him as "pro-Japanese vandals".

Warned, for both 3RR and personnal attack. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- And now blocked for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Der alte Hexenmeister reported by User:EMS | Talk

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 07:04, June 22, 2006
1st revert: 16:40, June 22, 2006
2nd revert: 21:35, June 22, 2006
3rd revert: 08:52, June 23, 2006
4th revert: 15:23, June 23, 2006

Time report made: 20:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I will admit that the third and fourth edits were not mere reverts, with the third one being to add an illustration intended to make the same point, and the fourth "revert" being a blanking vandalism. None the less the effect is to disrupt the page, and to require someone else to revert the edit. BTW - A look at this page's edit history will how that Der alte Hexenmeister has been bothering this page for some time now. Der alte Hexenmeister has also been repeatedly asked to stop, as shown at user talk:Der alte Hexenmeister.

Doesn't look like 3RR but does look like blockable vandalism, so I have William M. Connolley 22:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pflanzgarten reported by User:Brian G

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 07:23, 21 June 2006

1st revert: 10:12, 21 June 2006
2nd revert: 05:45, 23 June 2006
3rd revert: 14:01, 23 June 2006
4th revert: 19:11, 23 June 2006

Time report made: 00:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I have never posted on 3RR before, so I apologize if I did not follow the instructions correctly. I realize that the earliest edit is before the 24 hour window, but you should please note that this user has only ever made 10 edits and all have been to this article; in my opinion, most of these edits have been disruptive. Please also note that this user has been warned twice at User talk:Pflanzgarten.--Brian G 00:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:64.110.251.69 reported by User:CJCurrie

1st revert: 18:40 23 June 2006
2nd revert: 23:09 23 June 2006
3rd revert: 01:52 24 June 2006
4th revert: 02:12 24 June 2006
5th revert: 02:17 24 June 2006

Time report made: 02:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Anonymous user has written several extremely biased edits on the Saskatchewan Party page, and has described attempts to remove the same as "vandalism". User specifically and knowingly ignored a 3RR warning, and then left an abusive note on my talk page. I would usually recommend restraint against new users, but this seems to be a particularly egregious violation. Recommend 24 hour block. CJCurrie 02:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from 64.110.251.69: CJCurrie has been constantly reverting the article, "Saskatchewan Party", doing a blanket revert of significant new information added when he disagrees with one or two points, to an old version. This is vandalism by any measure possible. The note left on his talk page was not abusive, and asked CJCurrie to discuss his blanket reverts on Talk:Saskatchewan_Party's page. CJCurrie's allegations lack credibility, and no violation of the 3RR should be sustained for cleaning up his/her petty vandalism.

64.110.251.69 02:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were not petty vandalism, and I explained my actions on the article talk page. CJCurrie 02:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

64.*'s disputed edits were WP:NPOV violations, such as describing and the article subject as "sensible", "fresh" and "dynamic" in contrast to the opposing political party being described as "dishonest" and "misleading". Reverting an NPOV violation is not vandalism. Bearcat 09:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:KickahaOta reported by User:Kickaha Ota (no violation)

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 2006-06-23 14:03:25
1st revert: 2006-06-23 15:52:59
2nd revert: 2006-06-24 05:37:09
3rd revert: 2006-06-24 07:52:52
4th revert: 2006-06-24 08:27:37

Time report made: 16:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I am self-reporting a 3RR violation. I can't believe I did that; I thought it was only my third revert, but I was only looking at the version history from today and didn't see yesterday's. The fourth revert was to correct another violation of 3RR, but I don't believe that's an excuse. I would ask for a brief block, since I think all violations of 3RR are serious. 16:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea for you not to murder anyone. Astrotrain 16:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I'd promptly go down to the police station and self-report? :) Kickaha Ota 16:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may add my $0.02 here, I believe Kickaha Ota's reverts were to remove simple vandalism, in the form of spam (an inappropriate external link for a site the spammer seemed intent on promoting), and thus not subject to 3RR (full disclosure: I was the original editor involved in the dispute with the spammer when Kickaha Ota offered a WP:3O). --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 22:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If I had said to myself "Self, that's spam vandalism, and therefore 3RR does not apply", I might agree. But I didn't do the fourth revert on that basis; I did the fourth revert because I was a yogurthead. Kickaha Ota 22:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing spam is not a 3RR violation. and the link is clearly that. If another admin disagrees and blocks, I won't contest it, but this is my analysis of the situation. Blocks are preventative, not punitive and the user realises the issue. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dragon Emperor reported by User:SynergeticMaggot

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: this or this was the original.
1st revert: [77]
2nd revert: [78]
3rd revert: [79]
4th revert: [80]
5th revert: [81] Zos 17:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time report made: 17:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This is my first actual report. I may not have done this right, but the user has attempted this 4 times now, and if you look at his talk page, you can see this isnt the first time the user has ignored this rule. Zos 17:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice now that the user had just made another revert. I've reached my 3 limit, but I believe that I can revert it back once the user is blocked (is that right?). Zos 17:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that's correct. You can ignore 3RR while reverting edits made by blocked/banned editors, but that only applies to edits made while the editor is banned or blocked. A ban/block doesn't allow you to go 'back in time' and revert edits made before the user was banned or blocked. In order to avoid any 3RR problems yourself, you should find another editor to revert the 4th edit. (I won't do it because I'm already in the doghouse. :) ) Kickaha Ota 17:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Righto. I warned him and then blocked him. What's he up to, anyway? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 18:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:150.101.102.188 reported by User: Holy Ganga ^talk

1st revert: [82]
2nd revert: [83]
3rd revert: [84]
4th revert: [85]

Time report made: 17:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This anon User is continuously removing picture from India article and has begun a unnecessary revert war. I have already made him aware of the 3RR rule after his 3rd edit but i think he is not interested in 3RR. Thanks, - Holy Ganga ^talk 17:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The anon has removed a Fair use image from the India page. Fair use images on WP should be kept to a minimum, so I believe that the anon has done the right thing by removing the copyrighted magazine cover. I stand by his removal of the image. Also, the user must be warned about the 3RR violation before reporting him, which has not been done. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was warned before reporting .i.e after his 3rd edit. Also, Image is a Time magazine cover with proper licencing. - Holy Ganga ^talk 17:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warned, Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:HawkerTyphoon reported by User: (aeropagitica) (talk)

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime
1st revert: 1940 June 24 2006
2nd revert: 2049 June 24 2006
3rd revert: 2055 June 24 2006
4th revert: 2108 June 24 2006
5th revert: 2112 June 24 2006

Time report made: 22:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: HawkerTyphoon reported this instance to me on my Talk page as a genuine attempt to stop perceived vandalism to this article. (aeropagitica) (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, perhaps just a warning in this case. But tags are not immune from 3RR and this wasn't vandalism William M. Connolley 09:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Isarig reported by User:Will314159

1st revert: 2:34 22 June 2006 No Joyner not professor there

[86]

2nd revert: 18:26 22 June 2006 Joyner is most well knows as a blogger

[87]

3rd revert: 21:58 22 Jun 2006 Landis home page irrelevant

[88]

4th revert: 22:00 22 June 2006 no need for landis home page

[89]

5th revert 22:56 22 Jun2 2006 Joyner removed no blogs consensus

[90]

Time report made: 23:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: .Isarig is a very inconsiderate and aggresive reverter. He's stated in the talk pages that he's going to keep on reverting certain stuff regardless. He has been blocked before but not on my report. I have warned him "Isarig. the 3R rule reflects a policy to avoid endless edit wars. It is not a license to revert three in one day, then punishment on the fourth. (It is the fourth edit supposedly that gets you in trouble). Even one edit a day if done w/ your intent is sufficient from my reading." (I have removed this (and will keep removing it)” is his retort. He removed the [James Joyner] quote from the outset wthin minutes of my edit.

Briefly the background is, I introduced a quote from James Joyner explaining that Juan Cole had not abandoned his academic research and that indeed his public blog performs a more valuable public educational function than dry academic papers read by other academics published in obscure journals read and then commented on by other academics in other obscure journals. User Isarig objected it was a violation of WP:RS. I pointed out that the guideline was oriented toward unverified fact and not opinion. Isarig retaliated by including numerous other blog posting in the article which I did not delete nor object to even though he had himself deleted the Joyner quote several times. I had done a 3RR report on him but had copied the current instead of the last field on the history. Administrator CSTAR provisionaly agreed on the distinction b/n fact and opinion in WP:RS and is the author of this post " I've requested a clarification on the talk page of WP:RS. That's about all I can do. As I said before I would argue: if an opinion can be supported by a blog then it's reasonable to include it. It's best to do it by paraphrasing the opinion and putting the direct quote in footnotes. Several opinions which say the same thing should be collected into the same paraphrase. I'm not sure how to avoid frivilous opinion (e.g. Blog BLAH writer thinks Juan Cole eats live cockroaches.) --CSTAR 23:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)" In the meantime Precis who works with Isarig makes two more deletes. I undo the Precis vandalism, report him for two deletes which are nevertheless so egregious to be against the spirit of 3RR and get blocked for 24 hours (prior to any action on Precis’s report) compared to Isarig’s previous block for 8 hours.

Isarig misrepresents the history when he says blogs were removed by consensus. It was a consensus of two, yes two. The Landis site was double referenced because the quote appeared twice. Once in the Nation article and then again on Landis’s academic syriacomment.com site. I discussed that in the talk page.

This report is late b/c I have been in WP jail b/c of alleged 3RR violation restoring Isarig’s and Precis vandalism regarding the Joyner quote. It still sticks in my craw how you can get blocked for restoring a vandalized legitimate edit. I guess it's easy when you're double teamed, a prior report is overlooked, and Isarig beats you to the report.

Take Care! --Will^(talk) 23:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Hmm, a 3 day old report, following 3 days in which I have not been editing this article. This is Will's 3rd bad faith 3RR report in as many days, the first one against me reviewed and dismissed, the second one against Precis ignored, as it included only 2 documented reverts, and now this, in which one of the 5 "reverts" is not by me, and 2 additional ones are removal of a spam link to the home page of Landis which is not where the Landis quote was on. This is a "revenge" 3RR report, made in bad faith, yet agian, by a disruptive editor Isarig 01:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I note that you didn't say which revert was not yours. Thanks for the revert lesson. I've learned how to fill out the form now. As previously indicated, you escaped the first report b/c I referenced the report incorrectly. Come on, be a man Isarig, don't sugar coat it or gloss it over, just admit how many time you have deleted or messed around with the Joyner quote b/c it's devastating to your POV and cause. Take Care! --Will^(talk) 01:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is the pace of action on Isarig’s report on my alleged 3RR violation responding to his and Precis’s vandalism on my Joyner quote. I never had any time to respond.

“Time report made: 17:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Blocked for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison Talk 17:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC).” What gives? Take Care! Will314159 22:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User:71.124.114.26 reported by User:RevolverOcelotX

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 00:14, 25 June 2006
1st revert: 00:18, 25 June 2006
2nd revert: 00:20, 25 June 2006
3rd revert: 00:21, 25 June 2006
4th revert: 00:27, 25 June 2006

Time report made: 00:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:71.124.114.26 keeps removing his vandalism warnings on his talk page AFTER the final warning which resulted in User:71.124.114.26's talk page being protected and User:71.124.114.26 breaking the 3RR.

User:71.124.114.26 has also been disruptive and revert warring on the Bruce Lee article, blanking other editor's comments on Talk:Bruce Lee, and making many personal attacks towards me and other editors. In doing so, User:71.124.114.26 has clearly broken the 3RR and should be blocked for such. --RevolverOcelotX 07:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Daniel575 reported by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk

Previous version reverted to, if applicable:09:08, 23 June 2006 [91]
1st revert: 11:06, 23 June 2006 [92]
2nd revert: 18:07, 24 June 2006 [93]
3rd revert: 23:35, 24 June 2006 [94]
4th revert: 00:12, 25 June 2006 [95]
5th revert: 00:47, 25 June 2006 [96]

Time report made: 01:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User:Daniel575 is repeatedly removing valid sources from the external links section and replacing them with a website that clearly does not meet any criteria for WP:RS. Many users including myself have attempted to reason with him on the article's talk page but he is just as uncompromising and recalcitrant there as well. When I notified him that he had violated the 3RR and gave him the opportunity to revert himself [97], he basically notified me that he was going to keep reverting, and that I should "deal with it".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:King_Vegita reported by User:SynergeticMaggot

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: here
1st revert: [98]
2nd revert: [99]
3rd revert: [100]
4th revert: [101]

Time report made: 06:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I believe this falls under more than 3 revisions in a 24 hours period. I made a mistake in there of removing the source from which both mine and King Vegita's citations were coming from. Also, he wont discuss it on the talk page at all. He says we cant use citations like I was using them, but leaves some citation in his revisions the exact way he doesnt want me to use it. I believe he has two citations in there, from reviewing the history. The rest were mine. Zos 06:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So is this a violation or am I mistaken? Zos 16:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How could it be? Please fill out these entries correctly, and it will be easier to evaluate them. First of all, you've got the article name wrong in the heading; the edit war you are engaged in is in Mental Gender, not [[Kybalion]. Secondly, if you look at all the other 3RR reports, the properly formed ones list dates and times, not just blind links. Thirdly, there aren't more than three reversions, as far as I can tell. You're as much at fault as KV might be here. The point of 3RR is to stop edit wars; the proper way to stop this edit war would be to block both of you (since it's impossible for one person to edit war.) --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If blocking both of us it what it will take to get my citations back into the article, then please block me (for however long you think is warrented). Zos 16:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR isn't for the purpose of getting anyone's favored edit into place. Anyway, if you can provide a proper report, showing four reversions, then action may be taken. Not before then. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 17:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're clear on this: Its not a prefered edit. He removed citations. Zos 19:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:69.232.73.33 (plus sockpuppet?) reported by User:Neil916 (again) (result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 09:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC-7)
1st revert: 16:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC-7)
2nd revert: 07:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC-7)
3rd revert: 08:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC-7)
4th revert: 09:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC-7)

User was blocked for 24 hours by Wikibofh_(talk) at 16:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC) after report was made on this page at 16:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5th revert: 11:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC-7)
6th revert: 13:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC-7)
7th revert: 13:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC-7)
8th revert: 17:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC-7)
9th revert: 18:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC-7)
10th revert?: 19:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC-7) (created new account?)

Comments: User has been trying to add an inappropriate commentary about an external website listed in the "see also" section of this article. He was blocked for WP:3RR for 24 hours for this same issue, and picked up right where he left off once the block expired. I've continued to try to communicate with the user, and directed him to the talk page of the article where the changes have been discussed by other editors, but I think he might just be trying to act childish. The IP address is registered to SBC Internet Services in the USA, and the user has made many other constructive edits to the article, including grammatical corrections, so it seems unlikely that it's a language barrier. Most recent change is from a new registered user "Markfish", and if you check registration and IP address history, I would assume is a sockpuppet of the original person. Neil916 06:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does seem a bit obsessed. Another 24h I guess William M. Connolley 18:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Any suggestions on what to do when this next ban expires? I'm under no delusions that this is going to stop after tomorrow. Especially since it appears the user has created a new registered account, probably in an attempt to sidestep the 3rr blocks. I'm not sure why, since the user clearly has spent some constructive time on the article in his other edits. Perhaps asking for semi-protection of the article for a week or two should be my next step?

Also, were my links in the report wrong? Should I be showing the DIFF instead of the AS-IS version? Neil916 21:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:150.101.102.188 reported by User: Holy Ganga ^talk

1st revert: [102]
2nd revert: [103]
3rd revert: [104]
4th revert: [105]

User was made aware of 3RR after his 3rd revert and was also warned after 4th revert.[106]

5th revert: [107]
6th revert: [108]

Time report made: 13:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: He has totally ignored 3RR and warning and again started a revert war. - Holy Ganga ^talk 13:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a problem with this image as fair-use? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions ([109] and [110]) on talk page but this user have never took part in it. - Holy Ganga ^talk 14:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Francis Schonken reported by User:Jayjg ^(talk) (Result: 31 hours)

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: 13:27, 23 June 2006
1st revert: 00:02, 25 June 2006
2nd revert: 00:09, 25 June 2006
3rd revert: 00:25, 25 June 2006
4th revert: 06:47, 25 June 2006
5th revert: 07:57, 25 June 2006

Time report made: 14:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Editor keeps adding

{{details|Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources}}<ref name="decent">According to Jimbo Wales, "[[WP:LIVING]] is a decent start, although it needs some attention I think so that we can bring it up to the standard of a full policy." [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/045578.html ''WikiEN-l'' mailing list, May 7 19:44:05 UTC 2006]</ref>

to start of "Biographies of living persons" section. Is also playing 3RR games, constantly removing "Biography of living persons" material from the policy in slightly different ways. Francis a longtime editor who has been blocked for 3RR before, and who has warned another editor about potential 3RR violations in this very matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 31 hours. 2cd violation. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Burgas00 reported by User:XGustaX

Three revert rule violation on Spanish people. Burgas00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime
1st revert: [111]
2nd revert: [112]
3rd revert: [113]
4th revert: [114]

Time report made: 14:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Has violated the 3RR rule and refused to stop. He as also cleared my entire on the talk page.

</nowiki>

I've protected the page William M. Connolley 18:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:WickedWanda reported by User:Infinity0

Time report made: 22:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Repeated insertion of deleted information (3rd revert is slightly obfuscated but it is a revert). Possible sockpuppet of blocked User:Hogeye

User:Mknight1971 reported by User:Ardenn

1st revert: [115]
2nd revert: [116]
3rd revert: [117]
4th revert: [118]
5th revert: [119]

Time report made: 01:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Won't discuss edits. Ardenn 01:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acually very willing to discuss edits. Except legit edits on the topic are being delete by Ardenn. Who will not go to the talk page to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mknight1971 (talk • contribs)

I've protected the page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- He still violated 3RR. Ardenn 01:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's preventative, not punitive, and it looks like you may have violated it as well. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't violate it at all. My fourth edit was adding POV and fact tags. Ardenn 01:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Report Example

Here's an example of what a listing should look like:


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

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

* Previous version reverted to, if applicable:  [http://VersionLink VersionTime]
<!-- If this field cannot be filled in because reverts were to different sections of the article, please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert. -->
* 1st revert: [http://DiffLink DiffTime]
* 2nd revert: [http://DiffLink DiffTime]
* 3rd revert: [http://DiffLink DiffTime]
* 4th revert: [http://DiffLink DiffTime]

Time report made: ~~~~~

'''Comments:'''

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

Violations

User:TPIRFanSteve reported by User:Buckner 1986

User:TPIRFanSteve reported by User:CobaltBlueTony

User:Tramsvik reported by User:Attilios

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

User:Jefffire reported by User:Aquirata (Result: No block)

User:KraMuc reported by User:Philosophus T

User:Yungmike513 reported by User:Zerida

User:Isarig reported by User:Will314159

User:Cool Cat reported by User:Ned Scott

User:Mywayyy reported by User:Khoikhoi

User:McKhan reported by User:BhaiSaab

3RR Violation

User:FunkyFly reported by User:cigor

User:Cigor reported by User:FunkyFly

User:Rastishka (working as a registered user and as an IP User:82.33.32.160) reported by User:abakharev

User:Liftarn reported by User:Pecher Talk

User:DaffyDuck619 reported by User:Lid

User:Perpetual motion machine reported by User:Philosophus T

User:Imacomp reported by User:Seraphim

User:Wiki-star reported by User:3bulletproof16 (result: 72h)

User:Wladimir reported by User:Joy [shallot] (result: 3h)

User:Homeontherange reported by User:Zeq

User:Elfguy reported by User:Mmx1

User:Winknnudge reported by User:William M. Connolley

Second Vienna Award

User:Zsakos reported by User:Tēlex

User:84.2.138.222 reported by User:Tēlex (result: 24h)

User:204.56.7.1 reported by User:William M. Connolley

User:134.193.168.237 reported by User:Femto

User:Appleby reported by User:Chris 73

User:DjSamwise reported by User:FT2

User:Deucalionite reported by User:Fut.Perf. ☼

User:70.48.250.17 and User:70.49.110.207 reported by User:—chair lunch dinner™ talk

User:Alienus reported by User:RJII

User:Precis reported by Will314159:Will314159

User:Adam Carr reported by User:Stemonitis

User:205.188.116.201 reported by User:אמר Steve Caruso (poll)

User:Matthead reported by User:Molobo

User:69.232.73.33 reported by User:Neil916

User:Will314159 reported by User:Isarig

User:Hd8888 reported by User:John Smith's

User:Der alte Hexenmeister reported by User:EMS | Talk

User:Pflanzgarten reported by User:Brian G

User:64.110.251.69 reported by User:CJCurrie

User:KickahaOta reported by User:Kickaha Ota (no violation)

User:Dragon Emperor reported by User:SynergeticMaggot

User:150.101.102.188 reported by User: Holy Ganga talk

User:HawkerTyphoon reported by User: (aeropagitica) (talk)

User:Isarig reported by User:Will314159

User:71.124.114.26 reported by User:RevolverOcelotX

User:Daniel575 reported by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk

User:King_Vegita reported by User:SynergeticMaggot

User:69.232.73.33 (plus sockpuppet?) reported by User:Neil916 (again) (result: 24h)

User:150.101.102.188 reported by User: Holy Ganga talk

User:Francis Schonken reported by User:Jayjg (talk) (Result: 31 hours)

User:Burgas00 reported by User:XGustaX

User:WickedWanda reported by User:Infinity0

User:Mknight1971 reported by User:Ardenn

Report Example

User:KraMuc reported by User:Philosophus ^T

User:Liftarn reported by User:Pecher ^Talk

User:Perpetual motion machine reported by User:Philosophus ^T

User:70.48.250.17 and User:70.49.110.207 reported by User:—chair lunch dinner™ ^talk

User:205.188.116.201 reported by User:אמר `Steve Caruso` _(poll)

User:150.101.102.188 reported by User: Holy Ganga ^talk

User:150.101.102.188 reported by User: Holy Ganga ^talk

User:Francis Schonken reported by User:Jayjg ^(talk) (Result: 31 hours)