Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

    Click here to create a new report


    Violations

    User:138.246.7.119 reported by User:Ideogram (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on Russo-Turkish War, 1877–1878 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 138.246.7.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Ideogram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) :

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

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    Time report made: 00:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

    You both seem to have broken 3rr. 12h each. William M. Connolley 07:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC). My mistake - Ideogram far anough out of 24h to be unblocked William M. Connolley 08:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:68.19.231.39 reported by User:SDC 02:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC) (Result: 24h)

    Three revert rule violation on Sprint Nextel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.19.231.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to, if applicable: VersionTime
    • 1st revert: [6]
    • 2nd revert: [7]
    • 3rd revert: [8]
    • 4th revert: [9]

    Time report made: 02:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    I didn't write the material in question, but I saw that the anonymous user announced that he/she would delete it every day. I've been restoring what has been deleted, but this is going on forever. The information checks out to be valid. The anonymous user has never contributed to Wikipedia before today.

    The info is not vaild:

    The info is not vaild. It is a step by step list of how to steal a Sprint customers account info. There is no point to is being listed, other then out of spite. Because this web site can't be a place to list every single problem, every carrer makes. but no one is listing problems made by other carriers, just this one. Someone listed the issue was corrected, so what other point in there for this topic?

    If you are going to post this type of info, then do it for every single carrier, every single time the problem occurs. But listing a web site showing how to go about stealing personal info is crazy and mean.

    68.19.231.39 02:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Joliee[reply]

    Wikipedia is not censored. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley 07:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Also if you notice, this user is the same user as CDMACORE if you check the contrib's and IP addresses and harasses everyone.

    User:Stanley011 reported by User:Sysrpl (Result: 24h)

    Three revert rule violation on Bill O'Reilly controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Stanley011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 07:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    I didn't write the all of material being reverted, but you can reference the talk here from section the "Off-topic and Superfluous Injections" all the way down where examples of Stanley011 abuse is chronicled. Multiple users have pointed out he unsuccessfully nominated the article in question article for deletion, had his account briefly suspended before for the same kind of 3RR reverts violations on that page, and is now attempting to poison the well with his fast edits and reversions.

    This is an ongoing problem with user Stanley011. Five other users on that page had added to the discussion asking him to stop to no avail. In my opinion his comments have been disingenuous and sometimes evasive. When pressed he ends the conversations by chaning the subject thusly, "your refusal to respond to my arguments means you have conceded the points".

    The contributors on that page don't have time to play Sherlock Holmes with all his edits. If at all possible, could Stanley011's account be suspended from editing that article or locked out from it permanently?

    User:RolandR reported by User:Zeq (Result: 3h)

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

    Prior version reverted to : [17] (by the first two reverts only - after that partial reverts to edits in the same version).

    • 3rd revert 11:01, 11 July 2006 – removing of a sentence starting with "made more complex by ..." - that was recently added (and thus this is a revert): [20]
    • 4th revert: 11:32, 11 July 2006 – partial revert, restoring one sentence (the one starting with: "illegally annexed by Israel in 1980 ..."), which was part of the section that was re-added in the 1st and 2nd reverts.

    Time report made: 12:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

    Reported by: Zeq

    Come on, you've seen enough 3RR, you can put together a proper report William M. Connolley 15:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a propre report . It identify 4 reverts very clearly. Zeq 18:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    3RR are timely issues - is anyone going to review this ? Tnx.

    Have you spotted whats missing yet? William M. Connolley 20:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Connolley : No. I don't get your [[WP:Point|POINT] although you surly have an intersting way of trying to make it. Enlight me please. Zeq 03:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To any admin reading this: If something is missing in this report please let me know. This report requires a decision. Zeq 06:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You forgot to fill in the article name. Anyway, 3h for a first offence William M. Connolley 07:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JIP reported by User:BoojiBoy (Result: Rejected)

    Three revert rule violation on 2002 NHL Entry Draft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JIP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    18:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

    Sequential edits uninterrupted by other users should be counted as one revert, not several. Homey 19:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Brian@popflux.com reported by User:131.107.0.103 22:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

    Three revert rule violation on Thomas Kean Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Brian@popflux.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 131.107.0.103 22:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Repeatedly asked Brian@popflux.com to cite a source other than original research. User has threatened to report me if I revert his changes again.

    This is a case of Wiki Stalking. Anon does not like my edits at the Duke University lacrosse team scandal page, and is following my edits on to other articles to register their displeasure. The data Anon claims is WP:OR is Census data. Census data is not OR. This is a frivolous claim by an anonymous stalker. This is not the first time [29] Anon has targeted me. Abe Froman 22:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a case of Wiki Stalking. 131.107.0.103 is shared by 25,000 employees of Microsoft. I have tried to discuss this with Brian@popflux.com on his user talk page, as well as the talk page of Thomas Kean Jr. Brian@popflux.com does not wish to have a discussion, and wants to make paranoid claims of stalking.

    User:WikiRoo reported by User:AbsolutDan (Result:48 hours)

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

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 00:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User has violated 3RR several times already under both his previous username User:WikiDoo and IP User:216.154.134.91 and been warned for it on both. Admission by user that he is also WikiDoo: [31], and clear evidence that he did see the warning on his previous username (as he posted many times beneath it before switching his username): User talk:WikiDoo#3RR. See also previous (currently unresolved) 3RR report under WikiDoo: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:WikiDoo reported by User:AbsolutDan (Result:) --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 48 hours for the 3rr violation and personal attacks Jaranda wat's sup 01:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CAYA reported by User:ChrisB (Result:24 hours)

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

    Edit at 04:26 to add:

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    Time report made: 02:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Same behavior as a few days ago. User:CAYA continues to remove the same patch of text, which is sourced from a hard copy of a magazine. He believes that since he cannot see the source for himself, it cannot be used. He refuses to discuss any other option, and simply removes the text, despite a lengthy discussion and (apparent) consensus that the cite is appropriate. (He was given a 24-hour block for 3RR this past Sunday.) -- ChrisB 02:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 24 hours and if CAYA blanks any warnings, let me know and I will extend the block. Jaranda wat's sup 05:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The Ungovernable Force reported by User:Drowner (Result:22 hours and indef)

    Three revert rule violation on Anarchism in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The Ungovernable Force (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    Time report made: 03:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: There are more than this as can be seen: [33] He keeps calling me a "banned user" and "sock puppet" and harrassing me and deleting everything thing I write. Drowner 03:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I keep calling you a banned user because you are! You're not fooling anyone Hogeye. This is the second report you have filed against me, do you think this one will work? The Ungovernable Force 03:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Look I don't know who you are but you need to stop harrassing me and deleting everything I write. If this is your way of trying to get an article how you would like it is is dishonest.

    Blocked both for being disruptive so-and-sos, edit warring over trivia. --Tony Sidaway 03:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Truthwanted reported by User:Agathoclea (Result: 24h)

    Three revert rule violation on Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Truthwanted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    previous bans:


    Time report made: 13:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley 15:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Agathoclea 20:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:58.178.15.253 reported by User:Panairjdde (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on Italy national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 58.178.15.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    15:32, 12 July 2006]


    Time report made: 13:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: He is aware of what he is doing. Possibly same as 58.178.15.253, who appeared at the same time as 58.178.15.253, and wrote "Panairjidde, fuck off you Italian. It's time to invade Italy's page I think" ([36]). He also reverted 8 times Guus Hiddink, as well as personal attacks at Talk:Italy national football team and User_talk:Panairjdde (Panairjdde 14:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

    User:68.69.194.125 reported by User:Crossmr (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on Furry_fandom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.69.194.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 13:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: As I was blocked for 12 hours for this edit war, policy "In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally". User:ESkog has left him a warning, but that does not satisfy the policy.

    As I explained to you, it is not our practice to block users who were unaware they were breaking a rule. All parties were treated equally, as you had already neared a 3RR violation on another page and thus you were pointed to the fact that the rule existed. Equality of treatment does not necessarily mean equality of block duration. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't exactly call you a neutral party in anything involving me for the next little while. I had to make the point several times and ask several times to even get you to address it. In addition if you view the user page, in the incidents surrounding that, the user also engaged in numerous personal attacks, which btw has been sitting on the personal attack noticeboard since yesterday morning, and has certainly been engaging in disruptive behaviour.--Crossmr 14:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Handface reported by User:Allen3 (Result:Blocked for other activities)

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

    Time report made: 17:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User:Handface has since been blocked for activities unrelated to the reported 3RR violation.[37] --Allen3 talk 17:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mousescribe reported by User:Ardenn (Result:)

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

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 20:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Tazmaniacs reported by User:Intangible (Result:No block, page protected)

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

    Time report made: 20:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • There is already a talk page discussion going which tries to define the introduction of this article. Instead of engaging in the discussion, User:Tazmaniacs simply inserts what he/she thinks to be the correct introduction, instead of waiting for a consensus to be made at the talk page. Intangible 20:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not give him a warning. His last edit was his 4th revert, a 3RR rule violation. He was already familiar with the 3RR rule [46] Intangible 21:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Page is already protected, just talk this out in the article talk page, as you were very close to 3rr as well Jaranda wat's sup 22:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Sounds reasonable. Intangible 22:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Colonel Angus reported by User:—xyzzyn (Result:24 hours)

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


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 21:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


    Comments:

    24 hours for the 3rr and personal attacks Jaranda wat's sup 21:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Francespeabody reported by User:Isopropyl (Result:72 hours)

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

    Note: There are several more reverts in the past 24 hours.

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 03:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Maximus_Meridius reported by User:Schmoul Aschkenazi 12:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC) (Result: 24h)

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

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 12:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    "prev version" omitted (sigh... will they never learn?). However, with BS's edit that really is 4R, so MM can have 24h for using socks and I'll indef BS William M. Connolley 18:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry about omission of the previous version. I'll see to getting the format correct in future. However, as I am not a long experienced Wikipedian, it's unfair to characterise me as someone who can't learn. Thanks for acting on this matter nonetheless. Problem solved, if but for now. Schmoul Aschkenazi 23:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Greier reported by User:Tēlex (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on Minority groups in Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Greier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable):

    • Has been blocked many many times before - not needed.

    Time report made: 21:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User was revert warring against many users. Also look at this of the above reverts. He reverts to an unreferenced version, and has a personal attack in the edit summary. Also, if you want to be sure they are four reverts, check the four "proof" diffs. --Tēlex 21:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    BE BOLD IN UPDATING!!! That is Wikipedia policy. Those are different edits, not 3RR. greier 21:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you talking about - they are four pure reverts; check the four "proof" diffs, which show pure reverts to a previous revision. They are only reverts to different versions, but that is not a requirement (according to William M. Connoley at least). --Tēlex 21:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, I don`t know how 3RR works exactly. That`s why I`ve been blocked several times before. But what I know is that neither the left panel, nor the right panel from all of those links are identical. So not only that I did not revert to my version, I also did not revert to a previous version. 21:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    Greir, revert yourself, and stop edit warring. You just got back from a one week block. Jkelly 21:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JzG reported by User:Socafan (Result:No violation)

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

    Time report made: 11:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Deletes factual information, refuses to use talk, threatened to block me, made unfounded allegations and uses "spelling" pretexts. Socafan 11:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Routine rouge admin abuse. User is adding problematic statements about a living individual which are stated in non-neutral terms. User has been told to take it to Talk and has revert warred instead. Note that third revert is different content. User has now taken this to Talk. Just zis Guy you know? 11:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Admin added racism to 3RR and blocked another user while in a conflict of interest. Socafan 11:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ThePromenader reported by User:Hardouin (Result:8 hours each)

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

    Time report made: 11:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This user reverted four times some references concerning Paris education figures without waiting for discussion on the talk page to be carried through. This user has a past record of page appropriation and hot-temper at the Paris article. He recently reverted User:86.71.38.247, who had added a reference to the Paris Club, simply because (I quote ThePromenader) "I couldn't find what "Club de Paris" was exactly, or what informative value it has " ([49]). Frequent reverts and page appropriation contribute negatively to the editing atmosphere of the article. Hardouin 11:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi - and thanks for your heads-up. I was stuck between a few situations here - even though the doubt over the who did what was next to nil for me, perhaps I should have thought of the doubt others would have in looking at the situation from an objective point of view. This concerns only the reverts to the "education" section - I frankly don't know what "Paris club" has to do with this as it's still there (but still unreferenced). I think the sock-puppetry here is pretty obvious, but I wasn't sure what to do in this sort of situation - open a WP:RfC and a WP:3RR against the presumed puppet? This would take ages, and frankly all this wasn't worth a correction to an obvious mistake that would take only a few keystrokes to fix by a willing editor. Anyhow I leave myself to your judgement of the matter. THEPROMENADER 12:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello again, Hardouin. Let's not turn this into a circus. Referenced fact is not "personal opinions", and let me remind you that, without a single exception, it is you who have reverted any article change in favour of your own unreferenceable propos, and it is this that begins edit wars. If your contributions were indeed geared to fact, then you would have ample references to provide and no-one could find any fault. To date there is but one contributor (sharing a remarkable similarities in editing habits and opinions to yourself) doing the same - and the other contributor, created only to edit the Paris article it seems, no longer exists. Yet all of this is irrelevent, as the only thing that matters here is the verifiability of our work, and one cannot build consensus on a lack of this. Again I don't see what this has to do with any WP:3RR rule. THEPROMENADER 12:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User:ThePromenader is an awarded editor. Edit wars ThePromenader has participated in have solely included yourself on recuring topics of which ThePromenader has attached sources or remove content without. Several messages have been left on Usertalk:ThePromenader by yourself with questionable vocabulary. this is already the third presence of Hardouin on this 3RR page in the past few months for similar reasons. I would do as I suggested and from both parts: let it go and chill. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Captain Scarlet, there's a clear rule that says that one user shall not revert more than three times in 24 hours. Promenader reverted 4 times in the space of 6 hours and 40 minutes. That's a clear case of breaking the 3RR. The fact that Promenader is an "awarded editor" (awarded by you, by the way...) is totally irrelevant, unless we consider that some people on Wikipedia have privileges and can break the 3RR without consequences. Hardouin 13:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ThePromenader is awarded by a little more than just myself, I believe there are a total of three up to this date. The conversation has moved forward of the standard breaking of the 3RR which is all in good unless other editors force others to come to those decisions which what I have contributed above. The participation of ThePromenader to this 3RR war is with you and this case is not a 100% ThePromenader affair. This referal is not about me, but about you, Hardouin, and ThePromenader, please do not involve me in your arguying, I have contributed here to bring facts, not petty comments. There was no comment made by myself disengaging ThePromenader from his breaking of the 3RR but a contribution on the reasons. Take note of my very last comment and enjoy the Friday afternoon and calm down. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 13:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ThePromenader is also engaged in an edit war with User:Metropolitan in case you forgot, so this is certainly not just about Promenader and I. Besides, you can't be expected to be neutral here, given your own involvement in edits wars with user Metropolitan. Maybe you want me to refresh your memory and let the rest of people know? Hardouin 13:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be glad to remind you of your involvement in the incident you started and mentionned above, quite befiting. And indeed I am neutral in this since I have in no way participated in this incident and am a spectator of both your and ThePromenader's actions. You will find it benefitial to understand I am not throwing the first stone nor am I directing the fault to you alone, as stated twice, above. Rather than returning comments to myself, you would to review your participation in this and understand the results of nominating someone in an incident you participate in as I have, I believe not participated in it. you may once again make sure you read my entire contributions and not focus on ths one sentence alone and calm down, this is not an inquisition.
    thanks to another editor, ThePromenader was lately warned and you should have indeed followed procedure and If you report a 3RR violation here it is good form to inform the person you are reporting of this on their talk page and provide a link to this page WP:AN/3RR. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 13:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This has become a circus. What I find most odd about this is that the point being skipped: How can one anon contributor find one page in all of Wiki where there has occurred one edit war over one reference and one word of text, and make only one edit, being to once again replace that very same reverted-to error exactly how it was written/reverted already thrice before? Even the argument of one looking at the "recent changes" list doesn't hold up, as the anon revert occured three hours after the final and third revert. I understand that I should not have crossed the line, but how can one ever hope to edit decently in face of a use of such tactics, and especially when these are unhesitatingly used in defense of an error clearly exposed as such many times and many days previously? I would be willing to undergo any sort of reprimandation at all just to quickly give this situation the attention it deserves. THEPROMENADER 13:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    One final note: I neglected to argue for the validity of my edit-war reverts, an element that did figure in my final decision. User:Hardouin, after being shown his error a week earlier, pounced from silence to reinstate his irrelevent references almost exactly as they were before. The problem with these: they were a link to statistics taken from one area indicated as a reference for text speaking of another. This was so unargueably false that I considered reverting to these as a sort of vandalism. Not only was reverting brandished as a means to enforce an inventive propos, but the propos has et been answered by any argument factual - nor can it be. But I can let you be the judge of this yourselves. Sorry for taking even more of your time. THEPROMENADER 14:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    OK... so... TP has clearly broken 3RR. Arguably the edit he was reverting was a bad one (I think so) but its not 3RR immune. As it says... if the edit is so bad, wait, and someone else will revert it. However, as TP points out, the anon is almost without a doubt a sock of H, who has thus broken 3RR too. So... 8h each William M. Connolley 16:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure a block is required in order to prevent TP from repeating the edit. It is without question required to stop H from reinserting this questionable reference. Just zis Guy you know? 18:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sympathetic to TP, but I don't think its right not to block just cos I agree with TPs edit William M. Connolley 20
    23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

    Hagiographer (talk · contribs)

    Edition reverted to [52]

    1st revert [53]

    2 revert [54]

    3 revert [55].

    This sockpuppet of Zapatancas (talk · contribs) has also bveen removing my comments from my talk page [56] and [57] and [58], SqueakBox 12:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Where is the 4th revert? And please fill out the form correctly. - FrancisTyers · 16:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ptmccain reported by Doright:Doright (Result:48 hours)

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

    Time report made: 16:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Immediately upon expiration of his 7 day block, Ptmccain continues edit warring on the same article. The 3rd and 5th reverts are identical to his July 6, 2006 reverts for which he was blocked, for example see here. Edits 1 and 2 are readily observed as reversions by noting the reversions to the title of the section, "Luther and Antisemitism." Edit 4 is a revert that one senior editor identifies as "link that ptmccain broke deliberately."

    I'm not sure that is a 3RR, I see a maximum of two identical reverts, twice. Could you elaborate? - FrancisTyers · 16:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please tell me which two that you see? Then I'll know which other three need elaboration. BTW, I believe that reverts are reverts whether identical or not. So I'm not sure what it is that you don't see. For example, what should I provide for you to see that he reverted the section title twice, the link once and the "doctrine of sola fide" sentence twice, for a total of five reverts? --Doright 16:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    FrancisTyers, since you have not answered the above question, I reread your comment. You say you see "two identical reverts, twice." Since "twice" mutiplies "two identical reverts" by a factor of two, according to you there are at a minimum four reverts (i.e., those numbered 1st and 2nd, and those numbered 3rd and 5th. Perhaps by now you see how number four is a revert as well. However, your comment below, "I'm not seeing the previous version that was reverted to. Can someone fill in that link," has me wondering if I'm being understood at all or if there is a misunderstanding regarding this: [There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count.] Please clarify.Doright 20:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    To clarify: Reversion one was the reversion of a section title and text against consensus; that was changed and reversion two is Ptmccain's reversion of that. Reversion three is his deletion of text placed there by another editor. Reversion four is his change of a section title, that was changed back, and reversion five is his reversion of the change. I'm not an expert at this but this does seem to me as this editor correcting the work of another editor five times within 24 hours -- actually within a few minutes. This editor embarked on these reversions immediately after a one-week block for a similar 3RR spree. He should be blocked for in excess of one week. Given his repeated violations (this is the fifth or sixth, I've lost count) I think an indefinite block is in order.--Mantanmoreland 17:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I would think that it would have to include some part of the same material 4 times, which is not the case.--Drboisclair 17:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it doesn't have to, and Ptmccain has had that explained to him many times. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully, but vigorously, protest the accusation I have violated 3RR. I did revert the Luther and Antisemitism content section on the Luther page twice, but then I stopped. I have not reverted it since. My other edits on the Luther page were all legitimate and not reversions. I had to correct a number of insignificant typos and such and fixed a few typos. I can understand why some would wish instantly to suspect I've violated 3RR, but I honestly do not believe I have this time. The change of the section head at the top of the page was merely my attempt to match it to the title I was trying to give the section. Further, if somebody would consult the user discussion page on the Luther article page, they will see I've indicated that I think it is just time to move and forget about trying to edit war to death teh whole issue. I'm dissapointed, but not surprised, that three Wiki users seem intent on constantly insisting on assuming bad faith on my part. I understand the 3RR policy and very intentionally am trying not to violate it. I would appreciate if an admin would give me a bit of a break here and explain to me very specifically precisely how it is that any of my editing has in fact violated WP:3RR. I'm still fairly a new user on Wikipedia, but I've read the policy carefully during my hiatus from Wiki and am trying not to break 3RR. And I would, even as I've been appropriately reminded myself by the same editors, appreciate it if people would do me the courtesy of extending the benefit of the doubt, per WP:GF. Thanks. Ptmccain 17:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to make this clear. I do apologize if I somehow violated 3RR again. I do not believe I did. I further do not belive that the edits referred to in the claim against me are "edit warring." I removed a line from the introduction and put in new text in the article. The 3RR policy indicates the following: Reverting without "As the purpose of this policy is to prevent edit warring, it should not be taken to apply in cases where it is clear that no edit warring has taken place. For instance, consecutive edits by the same editor are considered to be one; thus if an editor makes three separate successive edits, each of which reverts a different section, but with no intervening edits by other editors, this is counted as one revert. Likewise, if there are intervening edits but they are clearly unrelated or non-contentious, such as a bot adding an interwiki link to a foreign language version of the page, this does not increase the 'revert count'." I sincerely made my other edits on the page without edit warring. I am sorry if I offended anyone, but my edits were offered in good faith. A check of the page and the discussion will show that I am willing to concede on the "Luther and Jew" issue and am the one who indicated that on the page. We just all need to move on and stop the behavior that leads us all to violate the [[WP:GF] policy. I apologize for my involvement in doing that. But I do not believe I am to be accused, in this instance, of violating WP:3RR.Ptmccain 17:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to point out that I was not notified of this accusation by the person making it, as per Wiki policy that states: "If you report a 3RR violation here it is good form to inform the person you are reporting of this on their talk page and provide a link to this page WP:AN/3RR." I would like to think that even if somebody is going to try to nail me on 3RR, they would at least make the effort to inform me, which has not been case here, nor in previous incidents. Thanks.Ptmccain 18:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no requirement to warn someone who is a serial reverter, and who has already been warned many times already. If you would stop reverting constantly, you would stop being "nailed." You are making that article next to impossible to edit, and that's not to mention all your on- and off-wiki personal attacks. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not seeing the previous version that was reverted to. Can someone fill in that link? - FrancisTyers · 18:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't believe it is applicable.--Mantanmoreland 18:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the edits, I do not see where PTMcCain reverted the same material more than twice. Two were of the section title, which Doright has been engaging in near edit war over the last week, and the Sola Fide, which was not in dispute, but caught in the reverts. It seems to me that edit wars take more that one person to conduct and that others reverting the same material twice a day over weeks and months should be slow to accuse others of less than blantant violations of the rule. --CTSWyneken(talk) 18:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    CTSW, the material does not have to be the same. See WP:3RR. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ptmccain's last act before being blocked was a bizarre personal attack while vandalizing my user page -- "Editor has joined the Wiki cabal of POV warriers on Jewish issues" -- and his first act after the block expired was this ad hominem justifying his vandalism of another page. He then embarked upon his blizzard of reverts. His requests to "assume good faith" are thus unpersuasive.--Mantanmoreland 19:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The previous user's accusations are false. Neither statement is true, that these were my "last acts" before being blocked. Further, the user fails to indicate that I removed the last comment he references, thinking better of it, realizing there was no point in pursuing the issue. A careful review of the user's contribution page on the Luther pages will show there is more than enough blame to go around for the situation on the Martin Luther page and so the accusation of ad hominem from this user are equally unpersuasive. I do not believe it is in keeping with WP:GF or WP:CIVIL for the user to post these kinds of remarks. I accept my share of responsibility for the problem, but do not accept it exclusively.Ptmccain 19:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see how this edit constitutes an ad hominem or personal attack. Mind explaining it to me? In the edit, he seems to be talking about an inconsistency between another editor's proclaimed adherence to sourcing standards and his actual edit history. This seems to be an example of commenting on content, not on contributors, which is what WP:NPA urges us to do. But then, I don't know the entire backstory behind Ptmccain's edits and other editors involved, so I might be failing to see something in context. Can you explain why this edit was a personal attack, Mantanmoreland? Cheers, Kasreyn 19:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Its a bit of a mess, but this is definitely 4R: the two marked "restore" are reverts (would be nice if marked as such) and 3, 5 are (as the reporter said) the same as the July 7th version with the same edit summary. Now, how long? I'm not sure. 48h perhaps William M. Connolley 20:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree; policy is quite clear that the reverts do not have to be the same: 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. "Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention. Ptmccain has done this many times before, and just come off a number of lengthy blocks. 48 hrs seems charitable. Jayjg (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If intention is an issue, even if one were to accept Ptmccain's description of his state of mind, one can readily conclude that his intention was to "game" the 3RR rule. Further, I suggest this is an explanation for why "Its a bit of a mess." --Doright 22:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    William, I don't see how a decrease in block time helps. If 7 days was not long enough for the editor to comply with this policy, after so many repeats, it seems to me that 7 weeks will not be enough. But 2 days … next time is it 1 day then 0? For goodness sakes, it was only minutes after his last 7-day block expired that he again continued his prior edit war (i.e., reversions 3 and 5) without missing a beat.
    I think you will agree that common sense dictates an increasing term, not a decreasing term for repeat offences of identical policy. Please take a look at his block history, plus the history of admin warnings and his expression of disdain for those official warnings.  :
    IMHO, 2 days is not in the interest of WP and this shorter term can only contribute to the burnout of contributing editors. I have to tell you, if I thought the result was going to be 2 days, I would not have bothered with this.
    The point is prevention and not punishment. The editor has repeatedly made it clear that the only way to prevent him is to block him. If this is not already obvious, further evidence can be provided. Besides 3RR, for example, he even continues to blank and otherwise vandalize editor's user pages despite having repeatedly been told it is a violation of policy. I have personal knowledge of several such cases, including my own where he blanked my user page (including a misleading edit summary) and then working in concert with him, CTSWyneken lodged an official complaint against me, incredibly claiming that it was I blanked my own page in violation of policy.
    Please consider the effect on WP when making your final judgment: The burnout of editors, time wasted, disruption to the community and the message it sends both to violators and victims. Thank you for your consideration and formidable contributions to the community. --Doright 21:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In the ad hominem I quoted earlier [59] he referred to his then-current one-week block as "I stepped over the 3RR line, or at least did so in the opinion of a certain admin." He is going to repeat 3RR again and again and again, and editors are going to have to waste a lot of energy calling him on it. I see from his user page quote from the blocking administrator that he has no comprehension of the rule, and no intention to abide by it. The block should be longer than one week, not less. Note also please vandalism and personal attacks noted earlier [60] He now deletes civil requests that he stop bombarding me with hostile emails, describing them falsely in edit summaries as "vandalism." [61] The block should be longer than one week, not less, in my view.--Mantanmoreland 21:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As you can see from above, William, Doright and Mantanmoreland are attacking the user, even when he can't defend himself. Perhaps they deliberately bated McCain. Why is it that this kind of behavior is tolerated? Only a single admin has ever so much as told them to knock it off. Somehow, I doubt this behavior and failing to curb it serves the community. And now you've encouraged them. --CTSWyneken(talk) 23:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on, CTSW. You do yourself and Wikipedia no favors by defending McCain. He has behaved like a childish thug ever since he joined WP. Constant reverting, warned many times, blocked several times, removing warnings from his talk page, personal attacks, an attempt to "out" me, threatening emails, silly comments about Jewish cabals — cabals composed of "real" Jews and "honorary" ones, to get round the awkward fact that not everyone who opposes him is Jewish: this is the language that neo-Nazis employ when they talk about "Jews and their lackeys" — vandalism of user talk pages, blanking of articles, WP:POINT whenever a citation request is made, by going to other articles the requesting editor has worked on and peppering them with the {{fact}} template. It's instructive to me that one of the nicest and gentlest editors on WP said of McCain that he was perhaps the most unpleasant editor she had ever encountered. Myself, I think it's time for an RfC, and if that doesn't work, take him to the arbcom for a ban on editing Martin Luther-related pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an "attack" to discuss this user's past and present misconduct, which is numerous and ongoing. Also, please explain how he was "bated" to violate WP:3RR for six times in the same article.--Mantanmoreland 00:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything that User:CTSWyneken has stated is the truth of the case. I corroborate everything he states here. To quote Blackadder's characters: "Gloaters here!"--Drboisclair 02:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mantanmoreland, as I've said above, I remain confused as to why you feel this edit constitutes a personal attack. Could you please explain? Thanks, Kasreyn 04:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Since no "(Result:)" is posted above, and this is my first 3RR report, I'm not sure if this case is closed. I certainly hope not. The last time Ptmccain was blocked the admin said:

    "In view of repeated 3RRs on this page, a longer block seems called for: 1 week William M. Connolley 19:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)."

    I'm sure you don't need me to point out that after yet another 3RR violation logic dictates that a shorter block is not called for. --Doright 01:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is deceptive in that it looks like Mr. Connolley is changing his sentence. I am making this post non-ambiguous. It should be noted that the blockquote by user:Doright is not a rescinding of Mr. Connolley's other verdict. --Drboisclair 02:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to revert changes you made to my post, however I see that you made none. The only thing "deceptive" about the post is that it assumes an 8th grade reading level. --Doright 03:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bhouston reported by User:Ste4k (Result:No block)

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

    Time report made: 17:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: A warning was given under the impression that the editor was new and unaware of the policy. An apology was made for that incorrect assumption. Ste4k 17:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Could Ste4k be specific what content I am reverting? I see only a lot of changes above, not a pattern of specific reverts. --Ben Houston 17:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not convinced this is 4R William M. Connolley 20:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    All reversions are specifically geared to avoid verification process of the article. Ste4k 04:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Astrotrain reported by User:Mais oui! (Result: No violation)

    Three revert rule violation on [[::Category:Orcadian Wikipedians]] (edit | [[Talk::Category:Orcadian Wikipedians|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Astrotrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 20:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This is part of User:Astrotrain's efforts to escalate an already poor situation regarding a new editor's activities, see:

    (Unsigned comment by User:Mais oui!)

    I note this isn't a technical violation, there being 24 hours and 25 minutes spanning the four edits, but people: what the heck is going on here? Is this serving any purpose than variously, pushing an obscure 550-antedated POV, winding each other up, and correspondingly, allowing oneself to be wound up? I'd suggest that if "user" templates and categories are going to lurk in those namespaces, where they're shared with those with a direct encyclopaedic purpose, they at least try to follow generally accepted definitions. If Orcadians want to write essays on their un-Scottishness and extreme-Nordicality, that's their business, but mucking around with the category seems to me quite unwarranted. Alai 20:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:69.225.13.17 reported by User:Jeff3000 (Result:pages sprotected)

    Three revert rule violation on List of religions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.225.13.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 20:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User has been using different IPs, of which those have been blocked (see User:71.139.66.105 and User:69.226.105.161), but the user has evaded those blocks. Consensus by all other editors is that the link is non-notable, and linkspam. -- Jeff3000 20:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Also a Three revert rule violation on The Matrix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.225.13.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: Jeff3000 20:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    As he keeps using new IPs, I've sprotected the articles instead. Jayjg (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Weregerbil reported by User:Weregerbil (Result:no block)

    Three revert rule violation on 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Weregerbil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    Time report made: 21:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

    • If you think you violated 3RR you should simply self revert. Not doing so indicate that what you want is some "vindication" and this is indeed the reason why this report does not give a full acount of your edits in the last 24 hours, does not show why these are reverts (most of your edits are removal of material added by other editors in this fast pace article but you failed to show it) . In short, you should correct your misconduct instead of trying to make a WP:Point by filing this report on yourself. Zeq 06:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Yes, I'm reporting myself. No, this is not a WP:POINT thing. I'm genuinely interested if I really did break WP:3RR. User:Zeq is citing those edits as 3RR violation on my talk page. He gave me my "last warning" an hour ago but hasn't yet gotten around to reporting me. I have to step away from the computer soonish and I'd like to comment on this report before that, so I can't wait for User:Zeq to report me.

    Is removing those grounds for blocking? Do unrelated reverts with unrelated editors constitute an edit war? If I have exhausted my three reverts for a day in an article I am no longer allowed to do this?
    One of the diffs moves a piece of text from one place to another. The remaining two are indeed reverts over the placement of that piece of text: whether Mr. Ehud Olmert's statement belongs in the WP:LEAD. That text placement issue should indeed be taken into talk. Weregerbil 21:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Weregerbil, 3RR is independent of quality of content and does not have to involve reverting to the same material, or reverting the same editors. Any revert counts toward 3RR. There are three exceptions: vandalism, defamation, and reverting the edits of a banned/blocked editor. The example you gave [[62] of material that needed to be removed counts as vandalism. It's a personal essay, and it doesn't matter that it's being inserted in good faith (which it probably is), because it's clearly in violation of several of our policies. In a situation like that, revert it and if someone keeps re-inserting it, leave a note on WP:AN/I or vandalism in progress asking for administrative assistance and state that you intend to keep reverting it as vandalism in the meantime. That will cover you for 3RR. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If I have done three other unrelated reverts (or what someone might consider to be reverts) and the personal essay appears, I should report that as vandalism in progress? Even though that is the first edit of that person? That feels kind of harsh towards the person inserting the essay: now you are a vandal and I'm reporting you to the authorities. WP:BITE?? That's what the WP:3RR rule says; is that really the intention of the rule? Then someone comes along and cites me for soliciting meatpuppets in order to get around 3RR...? Weregerbil 09:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would suggest you look at all your edits in the last 24 hours. I have only listed few. Surly many of them are not just removing vandalism but normal reverts. I did not want to report you so this is why I warned you. The best is for you to avoid or self revert after you made too many reverts. Zeq 08:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't want "vindication". Please see WP:AGF.
    I do a fair bit of WP:RCP which indeed involves reverting a wide range of vandalism, copyvios, spam, etc. For this reason I am genuinely interested if I have been violating WP:3RR all along. I surely haven't kept track of how many and which articles I edit to remove linkspam, or non-notable people inserting their birthdays in some specific day's article.
    (The following gets a bit sidetracked as I'm more interested in how I really should act rather than the minutiae of these particular claims):
    The edits listed above are exactly the edits you said constituted 3RR violation. Is there some other edit you would have liked me to list? You can see my edits in my contribution log. Here are the rest of my edits of 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis, which ones are reverts that should be reported? : [63][64][65][66][67][68][69]. You say most of my edits are removals: from my the twelve edits can you please list the seven removals that constitute misconduct and I should now self-revert? I'm concerned that if I re-add the nuclear war essay or international law WP:OR I'll really be in violation of WP:POINT. Is it specifically you want the prime minister's statement (which I moved) in the lead? Weregerbil 09:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    (Not in reply to any of the above threads.) WP:3RR states that the purpose of the policy is to prevent edit warring. Then there is the "no relation requirement": any four reverts count. In practical 3RR report resolution, which weighs more: whether the edits constitute edit warring, or a straight mathematical count of reverts, without consideration of the purpose of the policy? How much does admin judgement weigh against a straight one-two-three-four-OUT count in a typical 3RR report investigation? Does the "no relation requirement" sentence accurately reflect how the policy is applied in practice? Is this the wrong place to ask about this (where is better)? Weregerbil 18:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No block. Note the instructions- "please ensure that you provide evidence that each one really was a revert"; as it is, I can't make head nor tail of this report. FWIW, IMHO we go by a straight mathematical count of reverts. HenryFlower 18:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A mathematical count is ...interesting. The 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. A quick glance at some reports here suggests it is occasionally used more like a first strike weapon in POV wars. An editor can easily be thrown out of the game if he has made even a single unrelated revert earlier: you can add your POV three times, if he reverts those you can kick him out due to his earlier unrelated revert. Max him out to three reverts, then he won't be able to remove anything you insert. If he reverts a fourth time you can demand he self-reverts or else; that way your own revert count won't get tarnished. Easy victory for a POV warrior if he knows the trick. Instead of preventing an edit war it can easily be used as a weapon in one. A desirable state of affairs...?
    For amusement(?) here are some claims of a student owning his school, substance abuse, human rights violations, and STDs in said school, or reports of racist teachers (kudos for the phrasing in that one) — all reverted due to lack of sources; WP:AGF suggests they shouldn't be considered vandalism, merely unsourced edits. I guess I'll just have to hope nobody makes four such edits in a day...? Or start filing vandalism reports for the fourth schoolkid of the day for being silly at the wrong time (and damn WP:BITE guidelines). Weregerbil 18:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have consensus on your side, another editor will help out. If not, at worst you wait 24 hours for some cool down. On a page where noone else is willing to fix a problem, this should not matter. And again: Straight vandalism reverts are not counted against 3RR (BTW: I disagree that the addition of a personal OR essay is vandalism. It's bad and needs to be reverted, but it's not vandalism). If you find WP:3RR to cramp your style, try WP:1RR for a week ;-). --Stephan Schulz 18:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I mostly do WP:RCP. And I have a bunch of "medium value" targets on my watchlist (a handful of schools, handshake(?!), cuteness, stuff like that; high profile enough to have people put in silliness, not enough to have lots of people watching them). WP:1RR would be ..."interesting" with some of those. I don't have stats but I suspect the incoming flow of crap is greater than that in some articles, I'd just fall further and further behind.
    Does the enforcement practice reflect the purpose of the policy (prevent edit wars)? Weregerbil 19:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Due to having removed completely unrelated nuclear war speculation and original legal research (see talk) an editor is fair game for "final warning, self-revert or else" ultimatums?
    WP:3RR says the purpose of 3RR is to prevent edit warring. But in practice blocks are handed out on mathematical grounds with no regard to whether warring is taking place. Is it desirable that practice doesn't follow the intent of policy? Especially in a mechanism that can be exploited as an offensive weapon in edit warring, directly against the purpose of the policy?
    Should I just quit whining; the process works the way it is supposed to? Or if it doesn't work it isn't about to get changed anyway; anything more complicated than mathematical 4=block is too open to interpretation and too much bother? The letter of the law is so much easier to enforce than its stated intent? Weregerbil 13:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:70.49.128.59 reported by User:JereKrischel (Result:24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on Mulatto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.49.128.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 22:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Reported to vandalism unit, but no action occurred. Continues to post personal attacks to Talk:Mulatto, and hasn't been willing to engage in discussion. Have tried to be very polite, so far no use. --JereKrischel 22:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User continues reverts. Please undo his revert after blocking them. --JereKrischel 23:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User continues reverts today as well. [70] Other editors have joined in to help undo his vandalism. --JereKrischel 18:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Both blocked for 24 hours, stop the revert war Jaranda wat's sup 18:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JereKrischel reported by User:Kevin_b_er (Result:24 hours)

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

    The editor is aware of 3RR by the mere fact that, above, they've reported the person they are reverting. As nearest as I can tell, this is one big content dispute, and this is to uphold the electric fence. If it actually *is* vandalism in some manner, I apologise, but I can't see it. At best, one side thinks the other's facts are wrong, but if its in done in good faith, its not vandalism by either side, making it a 3RR violation. Kevin_b_er 00:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I suppose the difference between a "big content dispute" and vandalism may be hard to see - the IP vandal isn't making the argument that there are content issues, they're just simply reverting to versions already agreed as outdated and settled by all the other editors. Having a content dispute, and being willing to address the issues is one thing, but avoiding any constructive dialogue on the matter by User:70.49.128.59 seems to be disruptive to all the other editors on that page. Please see the history of Talk:Mulatto for examples of this behavior by the IP vandal. --JereKrischel 01:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As an example of someone who might see it as simple vandalism, I got this reply when requesting page protection:

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 00:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

    If my reverts to the IP vandal have somehow violated 3RR, I apologize - it has been my understanding from observing the page for a while that the things I have been reverting have been vandalism. Frankly, I don't have a particular POV on the content issue, but have tried to move the dispute to the talk page for compromise - and of course the talk page has now become an issue with personal attacks both against others, and me for merely suggesting that we assume good faith. I think it would be good to hear from other editors on that page to see what they think. --JereKrischel 02:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see this diff of Talk:Mulatto for my approach to this so far, and the IP vandal's response: [71] --JereKrischel 02:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Keepondancing (sockpuppet of User:CAYA) reported by User:ChrisB (Result:Indef)

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

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    (As User:CAYA)


    Time report made: 03:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Part of a continuing edit war by now-banned user CAYA (talk · contribs). (Two prior 3RR violations took place this week, with the second earning his banning.) As for evidence of sockpuppetry, this user believes that citing a hard copy of a magazine constitutes original research, since he cannot see the magazine for himself. Extensive discussion (and consensus) emerged, yet he has ignored any and all discussion, simply removing the content. -- ChrisB 03:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Similar edits by User:CAYA and his sockpuppets:
    -- ChrisB 16:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indef Jaranda wat's sup 18:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tyler111 reported by User:Questionfromjapan (Result:24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tyler111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [72]

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here:[73]


    He violates 3RR just after the warning he confirmed.

    Time report made: 11:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked.

    User:Comanche cph reported by User:Inge (Result:48 hours (24 for 3RR, 24 for using the word "nationalist"))

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

    Time report made: 16:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Has been blocked before for violating 3RR and other wiki policies on this and other articles.

    Omg. Inge and the natiolist friends still wanna do anything to get rid of me, so Inge can start over again in writing unsourced and wrong stuff on wikipedia. After i keep cleaning up after her/him. I don't know what's worst? --Comanche cph 17:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

    48 hours. Will (message me!) 17:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comanche et al vs. consensus in Scandinavia

    This editor, together with User:Supermos, which has been suspected, but not proved to be a sockpuppet (only edits are on Scandinavia) constantly pushes his/her own POV on Scandinavia, even to the point that he/she ignores direct quotes from the encyclopedias of Columbia [74], Britannica, and Encarta [75]. I have no experience in RFA, protection, or similar procedures, so can an admin please help here? Greetings, --Janke | Talk 13:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Leuko reported by User:Spike 04:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC) (Result: Further information needed)

    Three revert rule violation on St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Leuko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 04:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    5 Reverts in ~30 hours.

    User Leuko has been warned for 3RR violations involving this article before as a registered user and as an anon. Possibly involved in sock puppetry per previous anon editing.

    User:72.61.36.172 reported by User:CJCurrie (Result:Warning)

    Three-revert rule violation on Prairie Giant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 72.61.36.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 04:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

    User:Truthwanted reported by User:Agathoclea (Result: 48h)

    Three revert rule violation on Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 192.117.103.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and WP:SOCK Truthwanted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)}:

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    Time report made: 21:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Truthwanted for sock evidence Agathoclea 21:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    48h William M. Connolley 21:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Afrika paprika reported by User:KOCOBO (Result:Protection of the page)

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

    Time report made: 21:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Afrika Paprika keeps removing referenced materials, and is constantly pushing his POV. As a first offence, I propose an 8 hr block. Thank you, --KOCOBO 21:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I was going to make it 12h, but since you're proposing 8 I'll make it 3 - I don't see any warnings on his talk page. And Leaving GO AWAY messages is not helpful William M. Connolley 21:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The user under the name "KOCOBO" is doing the same thing...in fact my editing is a direct conseqence of his editing. The prime example is Nikola Tesla article where he constantly promotes his extreme rightist propaganda. I consider that that since he cannot accept Tesla was also a Croatian scientist(which he publicly acknowledged) that then at least the reference should be removed since the article describes it in detail anyway. Afrika Paprika 08:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Both users violoated the 3RR rule, I have protected the page, so the users could find a compromize on the talk page abakharev 06:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:66.214.118.69 reported by User:User:UCRGrad (Result: No infringement)

    Three revert rule violation on University of California Riverside (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 66.214.118.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    • [80] Warning #1 by admin
    • [81] Warning #1 by user
    • [82] Warning #2 by different user
    • [83] Warning 3 by different user
    • [84] BLOCK #1 by admin
    • [85] Warning by different user
    • [86] Warning by ADMIN that user is in danger of BAN
    • [87] BLOCK #2 by admin

    Time report made: 23:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This user has already been blocked twice for 3RR and warned countless times for vandalism. Would the admins consider a BAN for this user?

    </nowiki>


    Please note that there must be 4 reverts listed - reports with only 3 will be removed. The "previous version reverted to" is there to show that the first revert really is a revert - it should be filled in to a previous version of the page which the first revert reverts to.

    User:Mackan reported by User:Hatto Result: No infringement.

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

    • Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [88]
    • 1st revert: [89]
    • 2nd revert: [90]
    • 3rd revert: [91]
    • 4th revert: [92]

    Time report made: 14:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User deleted sentences by me and others 4 times at least. Although I called him "please don't remove it" many times, he kept removing sentences you think "it's useless or nonessential" at his own discretion. This is extremely unfair deletion. --Hatto 14:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please read the rules. Its 4R *in 24h* not *ever* William M. Connolley 16:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DrL reported by User:ScienceApologist (Result: 8h)

    Three revert rule violation on Cognitive-Theoretic Model_of_the_Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DrL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 15:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: I've fixed the diffs to show the changes actually made. DrL is reverting continued attempts—begun in the last twenty-four hours and lacking consensus—to delete nearly the entire article, and is restoring content of which the bulk has existed since the article's creation in September 2005. Tim Smith 16:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like 3RR to me, and blocked accordingly. 8h first offence William M. Connolley 16:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Khosrow II reported by User:Grandmaster (Result: 3h)

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

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 17:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


    Comments: This user is not a new, so he should be aware of 3RR. Grandmaster 17:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I can see no evidence that you bothered to warm about 3RR; 3h first offence William M. Connolley 17:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HighwayCello reported by User:User:Wikipedian06 (Result: innocent)

    Wikipedian06 19:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jaiwills reported by User:Catamorphism (Result:24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on Sex-positive feminism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jaiwills (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    • Haven't warned the user, but the user has been warned about various policy violations before and ought to be familiar with Wikipedia policy by now.

    Time report made: 03:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User continues to revert after being asked to provide reliable sources. User provided two sources (on the talk page rather than in the article); I explained that these were not good sources (one source was a mirror of an old version of the article); user continued to revert after that. User has also made repeated personal attacks, refuses to use edit summaries, and has marked all of the reversions as "minor edits". Catamorphism 03:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked by another admin for 24 hours Jaranda wat's sup 05:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Isarig reported by User:FeloniousMonk (Result: No infringement)

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

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 05:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Isarig is aware of the 3RR policy, previous warnings are present on his talk page he has been blocked for 3RR before: [93]
    "The 4th revert is more 24 hours" By only 30 minutes, which indicates intentional gaming of the system, something we need not tolerate from chronic edit warriors. And the 4th diff is certainly is a revert: It shows you restoring content I'd just removed. What part of "...undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part ." is not clear? FeloniousMonk 15:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it appears I was asked to look at this[94] and I agree with other admins who have ruled against action in this case. Homey 16:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't necessarily recommend blocks for infingements made a day or two previously, so, since Isarig wasn't blocked at the time, I'd personally be inclined to leave this now (and to let him consider himself lucky). But I wonder was the report rejected too hastily? The fifth revert, which Isarig says was not a revert at all, had as edit summary "restored Ailes argument". I don't know how "restoring" something can be anything other than a revert, unless Isarig was restoring something that he himself had taken out. The policy page says here that "there is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count." AnnH ♫ 16:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Doughface reported by User:Stifle (talk) (Result: 24 hours)

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

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 09:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Blocked for 24 hours. Also a block on the other party, HiramShadraski. --Chris S. 13:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ED209 reported by User:JamesTeterenko (Result: 8h)

    Three revert rule violation on Michael Di Biase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ED209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 14:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    8h William M. Connolley 18:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:212.85.1.2 reported by User:Netaji (Result: 24h)

    Three revert rule violation on Ram Janmabhoomi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 212.85.1.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ram_Janmabhoomi&oldid=63137089

    Time report made: 15:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This is my first report of a 3RR violation. If I have made mistakes then please accept apologies in advance. I strongly suspect that this user is a sockpuppet of user (Anwar saadat) who has been recently blocked for a week. Please look into this matter

    24h for this and other disruptinve behaviour William M. Connolley 18:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ThePromenader reported by User:Hardouin (Result: 24h, then unblocked)

    Three revert rule violation on List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ThePromenader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 17:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User:ThePromenader has so far avoided serious sanctions due to the support of some admins. I think this time the four reverts are obvious and undeniable. In detail, Promenader's reverts consist mainly in demerging a merged list of tallest buildings in Paris and suburbs to create two separate lists (one for the City of Paris proper, the other for the suburbs). That attitude is all the more bizarre because this user previously said in the talk page that he found the idea of two separate lists stupid and that he was in favor of one single list. Now he's changed his mind (because, says he, he is unsatisfied with the title of the article), and so come the four reverts. Hardouin 17:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems fair enough. 24h William M. Connolley 18:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems fair enough but now you've unblocked him based on a vague promise that he wouldn't infringe the 3RR again. It's quite discouraging honestly that admins are so lenient with this guy despite his history or revert wars and hot-blooded behavior. Can someone check on this? If anyone breaking the 3RR is unblocked as soon as they promise they won't do it again, then there is no 3RR anymore. Hardouin 19:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you violate the three-revert rule, you may be blocked. It's discretionary, and up to the blocking admin. It is designed to prevent sterile revert wars, not for punishment. Stifle (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Joehazelton reported by User:goethean (Result: 8h)

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


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    See also

    Time report made: 19:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    8h first offence William M. Connolley 20:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Taeguk_Warrior reported by User:User:KomdoriKomdori (Result: 12h)

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

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 19:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User makes edit comments such as "(Are you fuckin crazy?)" when reverting.

    12h for first offence+incivility William M. Connolley 20:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Abab reported by User:User:Komdori (Result: 24h)

    Three revert rule violation on Jinan Incident ([[Special:EditPage/Jinan Incident |edit]] | [[Talk:Jinan Incident |talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/Jinan Incident |history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/Jinan Incident |protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/Jinan Incident |delete]] | links | watch | logs | views). Abab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 22:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Not only is this a 3RR violation, but the user keeps doing the reverts without discussion. User is relatively new, but has had the warning placed on their talk page before 17 July 2006. It's particularly irritating since this user tends to revert without discussion on other pages as well.

    I apologize; first time reporting. Here they are, corresponding to the above linkes:

    Hopefully this is what you wanted. Apologies! Komdori 14:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just realized, perhaps I'm to move it down after providing the info? Komdori 19:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours. Extraordinary Machine 20:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Intangible reported by User:AaronS (Result:24h)

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

    Time report made: 19:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: The above user keeps adding a POV tag without adequately explaining why. When finally pressed to explain, the only thing he could offer was a dubious source bordering on WP:OR. --AaronS 19:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This 3RR report is bogus. User:AaronS removed an edit I made which was properly cited from a reputable source in a scholarly journal Political Science Quarterly. The only thing I am left with then is to put up a dispute tag, which in this case I did, using Template:NPOV. What else is left for me to indicate a dispute? About the "adequately explaining why", after User:AaronS removed my edit, I immediately went to the talk page of the concerned article: Talk:Anarchism. At least on other user there concured with me, that my inclusion had merit. But instead of having a discussion, User:AaronS wants to remove the NPOV tag from the article, as if there is no discussion at all on the talk page! Intangible 20:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a note on your talk page. You never addressed the article on the talk page until the second or third revert. I really can't be bothered to find out which one at the moment. The fact of the matter is that, instead of engaging in discussion, you decided to edit war. You only replied to my note on your talk page after another user warned you that you had violated WP:3RR and I had reported you. 'Nuff said. --AaronS 20:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    We can't have anarchy on anarchism :-) 24h William M. Connolley 20:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:12.180.244.85 reported by User:Kurt Shaped Box (Result: 31h)

    Three revert rule violation on Mandy Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 12.180.244.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 21:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This user seems intent on removing links to http://www.mandymoore.com and http://www.mooreofmandy.com from the article without explaining his/her reasoning for doing so. He/she has been notifed of the existence of the 3RR on their talk page, yet has continued to revert without discussion, also ignoring (and removing) an inline comment placed by User:RicDod requesting that the user discusses the issue on the article's talk page before reverting again. --Kurt Shaped Box 21:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition, the anon above has now been blocked for 31 hours by User:HappyCamper, only for User:MMFan to perform precisely the same edit shortly afterwards [96]. This user's history consists entirely of edits to remove the above two links from the Mandy Moore article. I suspect that it's the same person. --Kurt Shaped Box 00:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Boothman reported by User:violet/riga (t) (Result: 24h)

    Three revert rule violation on User talk:Darwinek (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Darwinek|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Boothman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    3RR warning: 21:14, 18 July 2006

    There is a dispute between Boothman (et al) and Darwinek resulting in an RfC. Darwinek didn't want the comments there, but Boothman claims them to be warnings (which should not be removed). I will leave it up to others to decide if this is a valid 3RR break as I am involved myself and understand Boothman's motivation and interpretation of the comments being "warnings". violet/riga (t) 21:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley 07:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:violet/riga (t) reported by User:Boothman (Result:No violation)

    Three revert rule violation on User talk:Darwinek (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Darwinek|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). violetriga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Ditto the above about the dispute. Personally I think the 3 revert rule shouldn't really be applied here, but seen as Violetriga so kindly took the initiative I only felt emplored to apply it myself. I'm not sure I've done this right either, but ho hum. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 22:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    This is only three reverts and thus not valid. violet/riga (t) 22:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I told you I didn't do this right ;) Still, I find it strange that User:Avril fan then decided to rv that page when your fourth revert was "due". Funny that, a person who had no previous dealings with that page suddenly took it upon themselves to revert it... -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 22:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    True, but then you could've said that about my first revert. If you are shouting "sock puppet" then do please check our edit histories or call for a checkuser. I guarantee that there is no link between us. violet/riga (t) 22:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not familiar with all these terms, I'm only a noob. And anyway, you could use a Phproxy to do your deeds (which is not what I'm suggesting). -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 22:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    Wikipedia:Sock puppetry & Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. I really wouldn't go to such trouble, and while it would be easy enough to use a proxy it is quite easy to identify (and all known ones are blocked). violet/riga (t) 22:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, there is no violation here - a fourth revert would create one though. Stifle (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Byrgenwulf reported by User:Tim Smith (Result:Protected)

    Three revert rule violation on Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Byrgenwulf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    First violation:

    Second violation:

    Time report made: 22:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

    This edit (14:17, 13 July 2006) shows that Byrgenwulf knew about 3RR before the first violation.

    2006-07-19 00:19:59 Voice of All (Talk | contribs | block) m (+protected) William M. Connolley 07:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ScienceApologist reported by User:Tim Smith (Result: Protected)

    Three revert rule violation on Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 23:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

    2006-07-19 00:19:59 Voice of All (Talk | contribs | block) m (+protected) William M. Connolley 07:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KillerChihuahua reported by User:Tx9 (Result: Article protected)

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

    • 1st revert: [100] (reverts previous edit)
    • 2nd revert: [101] (reverts previous edit)
    • 3rd revert: [102] (reverts previous edit)
    • 4th revert: [103] (reverts to this version [104])

    Additionally, user has made improper rollbacks in the discussion page of the article.

    Time report made: Tx9 00:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: 4th revert is a forgery - review closely.. Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mulatto_-_Mestizo reported by User:EurAfrican (Result:Both Indef)

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

    Time report made: 01:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

    Even though I won the debate in the Discussion section still won't "accept" my contributions to the article

    I blocked both indef as likely socks and two others for a week. Silly revert warning Jaranda wat's sup 01:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SchmuckyTheCat reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: 24h and protected)

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

    Notification: Not made - however, user is an experienced wikipedian and should know better - also, see comments on his talk page regarding his belief he is "entitled" to multiple reverts, and reverting the stubbifying of an article is synonymous to reverting blanking (no good-fath edit can be considered vandalism)

    Time report made: 01:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

    What a mess... still, looks like 3RR... hmm, better be 24h then William M. Connolley 10:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ben-w reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: 8h)

    Three revert rule violation on Stephanie Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ben-w (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Notification: 00:49, 19 July 2006

    Comments: Also a blatent violation of WP:BLP.

    Time report made: 04:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

    8h William M. Connolley 07:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mantion reported by User:Nloth (Result: 8h)

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

    • Previous version reverted to, if applicable: [105]

    User:Mantion was warned about WP:3RR prior to 4th revert, but removed the warning from their talk page: [106]

    Time report made: 04:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

    8h first offence William M. Connolley 07:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AaronS reported by User:-- Vision Thing -- (Result: 24h)

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

    Time report made: 14:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    24h

    User:Rootology reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: Article currently protected)

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

    Notification: 07:17, 19 July 2006 user admits to 3rr violation before 4th listed revert.

    Comments: Reverted after commenting that he had already violated 3rr, and after the other parties to the dispute had agreed to stop editing the article - Talk:Encyclopædia_Dramatica#Edit_summary.

    Time report made: 14:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

    No agreement was made--this is a false representation. Also, I said I "think" I did. I admitted to nothing. rootology 15:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, this user agreed to nothing, but the other parties agreed to stop reverting - that being KillerChihuahua who may have 4 reverts, and myself, with one. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverts were made due to bias from Hipocrite and MONGO based on previous 3rd party attack on Mongo. Please review AfD in this case and links to complaints about these admins Admin desk as additional evidence. Two admins are engaging multiple editors in borderline edit warring over an article whose topic they do not like. Thanks for consideration. rootology 15:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hipocrite reported by User:Rootology (Result: Article currently protected)

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

    Notification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica#Edit_summary - client has expressed hostile editing tone, and along with other admin MONGO has gone aggressively after article, and only today has made attempts to in-depth discuss the content they keep trying to remove on talk page.

    Comments: Extensive additional editing to the Article in question can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=500&target=Hipocrite&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=0

    Time report made: 15:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

    First edit is a grammer correction - changing "Encyclopædia Dramatica is a MediaWiki-based wiki, as a Wikipedia-style collection of LiveJournal events and Internet phenomenon|Internet memes. " to "Encyclopædia Dramatica is a MediaWiki-based wiki, designed as a Wikipedia-style collection of LiveJournal events and Internet phenomenon|Internet memes." is not a revert. I did not review the other edits yet. I expect they are of equally low validity. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarified list in case of dispute from user:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64672908
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64572493
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64531555
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64527928
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64522235
    rootology 15:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64672908 this is an edit, not a revert, inserting a tag instead of reverting information. Said tag had never been placed in the section before.Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64572493 this is my listed revert. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64531555 this is an edit, not a revert, as it was the first time the information was questioned. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64527928 this is an edit, not a revert, as it was the first stubification of the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64522235 this is an edit, not a revert, as it was the first inclusion of the details of the statistics. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In conclusion, this is a retributative report. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a retributive post, and your reverts were undoing changes by other editors--calling them edits is spin, but that is for other neutral admins to review based on whole history. rootology 15:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rootology reported by User:Guettarda (Result: Article currently protected)

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

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 15:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Reverts were made due to bias and attack edits from Hipocrite and MONGO based on previous 3rd party attack on Mongo. Please review AfD in this case and links to complaints about these admins Admin desk as additional evidence. Two admins are engaging multiple editors in borderline edit warring over an article whose topic they do not like. Thanks for consideration. rootology 15:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And that justifies breaking the 3RR in what way? Guettarda 15:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not, I am putting into context what is possible admin bias from Hipocrite and MONGO into the context of what happened in this case, given that the genesis of all of this was a personal attack on MONGO from the website the article in question covers. rootology 15:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rex_Germanus reported by User:Str1977 (Result:blocked 31 hours)

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

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    This user has been blocked twice before for 3RR, so is aware of the rule.

    Time report made: Str1977 (smile back) 15:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: I'm not sure if all those reverts "count", of they don't I think I see a problem with the required 24 hours, and neither am I sure about this so called proof of me being "warned" is appropriate or even valid. In any way, I'm prepared to be blocked for the number of hours that fitt "my terrible offenses".  Rex  17:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    All these diffs lie in a period of 24 hours before 19 July, 11:28. You know about the rule, having been blocked twice for similar violations. BTW, what is the "appropriate page" for dropping a short line? Str1977 (smile back) 17:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:67.38.247.32 reported by User:Endroit (Result:3h)

    Three revert rule violation on Manchu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.38.247.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 15:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Duncharris reported by User:WaysAndMeans (Result: )

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

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    • 18:27, 19 July 2006 User was warned about 3RR before making his 4th edit, yet proceeded in his edit war.


    Time report made: 20:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User:Duncharris indicted in his own edit summaries that he is reverting other editors' work, so was clearly awar of the nature of his reverts

    • First revert is cleaning up spurious text inserted into the article. While it may or may not count as vandalism, removing stray text falls under the vandalism provision. Guettarda 20:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, this is true. I'm also interested in how WaysandMeans, a user with few edits and none on the page in question, stumbled across this alleged violation. This and other qurestions pique my mind. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, this is not true. This is not "stray text", but text inserted, 3 times, by anonymous user 64.246.219.196, who apparently wants the article to note that the topic under discussion has been rebutted. This is a clear content dispute. The vandalism provision only protects cases of simple vandalism, which this is not. And not that it is in any way relevant to the 3RR violation, the answer to your question is simple, User:Duncharris has been deleting my edits, without any explantion, on a different page, so I wanted to see what else he's been up to, and caught him using the same tactic on this page.WaysAndMeans 21:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • "[Note] The following paragraph needs to identify the "series" being discussed as the PBS "Evolution" series. [End of Note]" - that looks like stray text to me. Removing that is trivially different from reverting vandalism. Guettarda 23:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • That may be stray text, but it is not the text that was reverted. As the Diff shows, what we are talking about is the removal of the following text: "which has since been rebutted by fellows at the Discovery Institute. [107] " WaysAndMeans 23:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd've reverted them too, as would anyone familiar with the facts regarding Behe. Essentially though, you just admitted to Wikistalking, a far, far worse violation than any 3RR might ever be. You might want to think this all the way through. Also, for someone with 10 edits that aren't on this page, you seem to know an awful lot about Wiki. Just an observation of course, some folks are quick studies. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you'd have reverted them 4 times, you'd be just as guilty of a 3RR violation, and I'd have reported you, too. But thanks for confirming that this is a content dispute ("as would anyone familiar with the facts regarding Behe"), rather than what you falsely claimed earlier ("stray text"). As to your charge of wikistalking and other nonsense: (1) Two wrongs don't make a right, and my actions are irrelevant to the fact that User:Duncharris violated 3RR, after being warned. (2) You may have been editing longer than I have, but you have not yet understood some of the basics of WP. Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikistalking is "following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This is distinct from following a contributor in order to clear repeated errors." and "Once an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring is appropriate" . It is clearly permissable to follow a user around to clear repeated errors, and it is clearly permissable to follow a user around to report a repeated pattern of violations of WP policy. WaysAndMeans 21:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tsk, tsk...I did not say this was a content dispute, now did I? I think not. Separate issues really, aren't they? Additionally, based on your interesting reading of the parameters of wikistalking, that fact that you were reverted on the Behe article by Dunc (and by other editors, a fact you fail to mention), is sufficicient to suspect bad faith? I think not. In addition, the "in order to clear repeated errors" is irrelevant as well as the editors who reverted you explained why in the edit summary. Are you saying that other editors we committing the same "repeated errors"? Whether this is wikistalking or mere trolling really makes no difference: your report appears to have been made in bad faith. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • My report was made in good faith, in the interest of stopping an edit-warrior who was repeatedly reverting other editors' changes, without any explantion or discussion, on multiple pages related to the same topic. What appears to be done in bad faith here is your attempt to prevent this violation from being properly investigated, by casting aspertions on the motives of the editor who reported this. WaysAndMeans 23:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Obviously, POV is playing a part here -- you say you want an investigation, well, IRL an investigation needs to be exhaustive and the question of why something was reported is a valid one when the report seems to be in some way questionable. Thus, my questioning of the "why" is made not in "bad faith", but in the interest of a fair investigation. Additionally, you ignored the issue of your edits being reverted by other editors as well. To you, that you were reverted by others may not seem important, but it most certainly is important as it indicates that some type of problem exists with the edits. Additionally, you charge edit-warring -- what, pray tell were you doing by reinserting the same essential edit three times running? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The previous version reverted to was not filled in, so it is unclear that there were four reverts. If this is added, the issue can be investigated further. Stifle (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added the previous version reverted to (which, BTW, was specified in the edit summary by User:Duncharris "Reverted edits by 64.246.219.196 (talk) to last version by Jason Potter"). Please continue with your investigation. WaysAndMeans 23:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another item: the alleged 3RR warning appears to be invalid as it specifies no particular page on which the potential infraction might take place, and is not a true warning in that it does not include the standard verbiage, even in an altered form, which is the inclusion of a brief statement of the policy. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • A warning is not mandatory. In fact, many administrators have explictly objected to making it mandatory [108] It is a nice to have, to ensure the violater is aware of policy, especially in the case of new users. Many 3RR violations are reported either without a warning at all, or with a note that the violator was warned and/or blocked for 3RR before, even if the previous incident happened months ago. In this case, it is obvious that User:Duncharris is aware of the relevant policy, and of the page being discussed, as he himself placed a 3RR warning on the page of the user he was edit warring with[109], and the 3RR on his page is that user's repsonse. You are clutching at straws and are avoiding dealing with the actual violation, which makes one question what your real motive here is. WaysAndMeans 22:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bubba ditto reported by User:Catamorphism (Result:24 hours)

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

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 00:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User has been blocked for other 3RR violations in the past. Catamorphism 00:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours. --Chris S. 02:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Xtra reported by User:66.196.42.80 (Result: No violation)

    Three revert rule violation on Young Liberals (Australia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User:Xtra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Time report made: 02:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

    \'\'\'Comments:\'\'\'


    User:Xtra is editing a page according to his own personal bias, depsite the fact the article is referenced correctly by statements made by transcript. The user is in the habit of editing according to his own political biases, and fails to comprehend the NPOV and alleges POV whenever he disagrees with the content, or makes his plitical party look bad. He has reverted 4 times in 24hrs, 3RR applies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.196.42.80 (talk • contribs)

    Oh please. This is just someone out to get me because they disagree with my politics (possibly because the person is already blocked for this like user:lefty on campus or user:PSYCH or their anonymous friends). The examples he brings are not even of the same revert from me. The revert I did, was done three times over three days and was to remove blatant POV. The section has since been totally reworded by a respectable wikipedian. Xtra 06:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please refrain from using personal attacks on others users. Wikipedia is not your personal blog. Consider this a warning. 09:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.16.217.106 (talk • contribs)

    Huh? stop writing out stupid warnings. Stop trying to game the system. Find some other pasttime than stalking me. Xtra 11:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I see no evidence of Xtra violating 3RR. So, he is not getting blocked. Thanks. --Chris S. 13:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Salsb reported by User:58.162.2.131 (Result: False report, no violation)

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

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    • n/a; not new user

    Time report made: 16:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Wahkeenah reported by User:Bignole

    Three revert rule violation on Superman Returns

    I removed POV information from a section and user reverted the changes, and has done so 5 times, even after warning. User has also attempted to use weasely words to get around his reverts.

    Last rv has been self-reverted. And you've presented them backwards. And no prev-version; so thats 3R really William M. Connolley 18:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    My apologies for placing them in the wrong order, I was was going backward in the history when I did it. The last revert would have been revert number 6, that he reverted himself. That doesn't excuse his attitude and actions from earlier. Also, he reverted my first edit, then reverted it again, then reverted CovenantD, then reverted me again, then tried to revert it under the guise that it was now "neutral" which it wasn't. Bignole 20:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:198.103.172.9 reported by User:Fireplace (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on Homosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 198.103.172.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 19:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User has blanked talk page warnings (here) and has multiple warnings on his talk page. He violated 3RR on the same article several times earlier today, but as he hadn't been warned about 3RR until before the last edit, I didn't submit a notice. Fireplace 20:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    2005-07-20 15:30:29 Morwen (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "198.103.172.9 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalism of homosexuality) William M. Connolley 20:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MinnesotaPolitics reported by User:Jonathunder (Result:)

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

    Comments: User was warned about reverts, including here, but reverts continued. Jonathunder 22:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Truthwanted reported by User:Agathoclea (Result:1 week)

    Three revert rule violation on Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 192.117.103.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and WP:SOCK Truthwanted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)}:

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    Time report made: 23:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Truthwanted for sock evidence Agathoclea 23:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Randall Brackett reported by A Man In Black (talk · contribs) (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on Vile (Mega Man X) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Randall_Brackett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    An attempt at gaming the system. Content dispute. Reverts were made in view of a percieved policy violation and there's discussion on the talkpage. Asked for third opinions on the matter in attempt at clarification. I'm inclined to think this a report made in dubious taste. Both sides reverted with each editor on differinf viewpoints. This isn't a mere violation. -Randall Brackett 00:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's a block implemented I suggest one on both parties. There hasn't been additional input on the respetive talkpage and this was one-one content dispute. Plain and simple. In the meanwhile I'd appreciate continuing discussion on the talkpages without furthur reverts. -Randall Brackett 00:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Report Example

    BEFORE REPORTING, PLEASE MAKE SURE THE USER IS FAMILIAR WITH THE 3RR RULE. IF IT IS A NEW USER OR ANON IP, PLACE A WARNING (ie: {{3RR}} ) ON HIS/HER TALK PAGE AND REPORT THEM ONLY IF THEY CONTINUE TO REVERT.

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

     ===[[User:VIOLATOR_USERNAME]] reported by User:~~~ (Result:)===

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

* Previous version reverted to:  [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]
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* [http://WarningDiff DiffTime]


Time report made: ~~~~~

'''Comments:'''


    Please note that there must be 4 reverts listed - reports with only 3 will be removed. The "previous version reverted to" is there to show that the first revert really is a revert - it should be filled in to a previous version of the page which the first revert reverts to.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=64953220"